Have we talked about Pentagon Wars?

Let's reflect upon this movie, by using it as a starting point to discuss the following two "questions". 

The movie depicts an organisation. The reflection is about the problems that this organisation has got. 

The second thing around which I would like to reflect is how the previously mentioned problem or problems could be resolved (if that is considered possible). 

I can be certain that the movie depicts many and different organisational issues that are often met in the real life as well. The movie is based, after all, on a true story, so that describes it all.

The problems are numerous. To begin with, they have a problem with launching a military vehicle so they call someone from the “outside” of the organisation, something like a consultant. The consultant is not very welcome because it changes the balance and brings disturbance to the people that have already been working on the project. This is the military, a public, but still an organisation with rules and norms and power games. Even if it is the military, it is pretty obvious that the people working on that project have a specific culture and philosophy that is probably different to the “outsider/consultant”, he is in the army as well, but air force. So, the very first observation is that someone is called to cooperate with people who have already got their way of working and their balance and a specific organisational culture that does not fit the “consultant’s”.

Secondly, the character of the project leader is certainly creating additional problems. He thinks that he is always right, he has control and he does not accept a different opinion even if he seems funny and social and open. Additionally, he does not really respect the hierarchy and does not appreciate the people who get to decide about things, simply because he thinks highly of himself and his power position. That is a problematic characteristic of a leader, not listening to people who have around them, and ignoring ideas, just because they do not fit their own plan or way of thinking. The fact that even when he has to explain the made mistakes to the committee and he still believes that he and the choices he made are right makes it clear that this should not be a person to lead the project. His denial of the problem and his unclear vision of the situation is number one indicator that things will go wrong.

Thirdly, the fact that the “consultant” wants to further research the project but the history and the information are not well organized and open to study creates more issues. That means that either the project team has things to hide, or that there is a lack of a system that puts together trials and tests before the launching of a new product/vehicle. Or both. The safety is also questioned under those circumstances. Concluding this point, the lack of structure and system, or the lack of technology usage to support the information around this project is a major drawback. If the process is not clear to all the stakeholders, then they do not have the same goal, they do not understand the purpose of the project and they do not work as a team.

Last but definitely not least, the most important reflection for me is that people have different mind sets and are trained to think in different ways. That may be a result of different culture, different education or different background and experiences. However, this fact has a major impact on the way they work and they approach a problem in an organisation. And the most difficult and challenging task is to be a good leader and a willing employee in order to manage to overcome these obstacles, create a new common philosophy and culture and work for a common goal but taking the best and the maximum out of the available resources. In the movie case, it is obvious that the leader/ commander is “old-school” while the “outsider” has a different background and a different educational level and that makes them start at a different level and makes the cooperation hard.

As for the second part, I would say the following. 

I do not believe that there are problems in an organisation that could be considered unsolvable, however there are certain issues that are considered hard. The first step to reach every solution, since my background is engineering and I am a solution-oriented person from my education (and here comes the connection to my previous answer), is to define the problem in a correct way and make everyone understand (by visualising and communicating) the problem so we can elaborate and find a solution.

In the specific case, I think it would take time to solve the problematic situation, and maybe the need to do it drastically, since much time has already been spent on this project- so there is urgency to solve it. By using change management, I would try to persuade the right people that the project was not running the way it should be by visualising the current situation and the realistic problems, as well as remind to people the aim of this project and the time limits. Be honest but strict in other words. If everyone could manage by extensive but quick analysis, understand and see the same picture, decisions should be made on how to proceed and the next step should be decided by the team, not by an individual. Especially, the leading individual in this case. Again, I think that in this case, there is a need to be strict and clear. If people were resisting to change and the project could not be delayed further, the last solution would be to isolate people who are not seeing the meaning of the project, BUT, learn from that experience and gain knowledge how to make it clearer next time and how to make it right from the start.

The lack of organisation and standardisation is not something that we are used in a military environment, but the truth is that in this case the non-following the standards and the tests was a problem and this is why another solution to consider would be to change the leadership of the project radically.

The tricky but also interesting and existing part is to learn how to make people understand the following things, and by people, I mean yourself to begin with.

First, to understand what they know and what they do not know.

Second, to understand their position in the whole organisational picture.

Third, to align the individual’s culture to an organisational one.

Four, to make people less afraid to change and improve.