George S. Patton (1885–1945) is among the most successful generals of World War II. After the attack on Pearl Harbor triggered the United States’ entry into the war, the then Major-General Patton, under the supreme command of General Dwight Eisenhower, successfully led the Western Task Force in Operation Torch during the American landings in North Africa in November 1942. Promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general, he then commanded the U.S. Seventh Army during the invasion of Sicily in July 1943, remaining in charge until January 1944, when he was reassigned to command the U.S. Third Army in France, where he most decisively contributed to the Allies’ success. In recognition of Patton’s achievements during World War II, he was honored with the rank of a four-star general.
Notwithstanding all these successes and his proven competence as a commander, Patton cut anything but an uncontroversial figure. He repeatedly incurred public disapproval and criticism from General Eisenhower, no less, because of his somewhat heavy-handed political diplomacy. At decisive moments, Chief of Staff General George Marshall stepped in to protect Patton, even though he, too, frowned on some aspects of Patton’s conduct. In addition, Marshall lobbied hard for Patton’s promotion to the rank of a four-star general. Marshall knew that although Patton was a “difficult” general, for the situations faced in 1942—and to be faced thereafter—Patton was the best man for the job.
Patton is a prime example of the perfect match between a person and the assignment. Achieving such matches is one of the key “secrets” of effective people decisions, as already explained in Chapter 32 on Jack Welch.
General George Marshall was a true master at making effective people decisions. In the course of World War II hardly anyone had to make as many—and such important—people decisions as he. And Marshall’s unerring ability to pick the right man for the job made an important contribution to the Allies’ victory and ultimately led to Marshall becoming the only partner of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin to succeed in being viewed by them as a respected equal. Following the basic premises already set out in Chapter 32 on Jack Welch, when making his people decisions General Marshall usually proceeded in the following steps.
Marshall always thought through assignments very thoroughly. —An assignment can be defined as the highest-priority task to be fulfilled in the foreseeable future. The period in question will usually comprise 15 to 24 months, though this should only be taken as a rough figure as its exact duration will depend on the actual assignment. Judging from experience, it is usually possible to maintain a pretty reliable overview of the next 18 months. Assignments change more frequently than jobs and job descriptions, which can remain unaltered for a long time.
Job descriptions define tasks which, in organizational terms, constitute part of the job in question and are thus expected to be fulfilled by its incumbent for an unlimited duration. However, no priorities are set within the job description, for that happens only when the job incumbent is given an assignment. The assignment should crucially lead to concentration, with the person involved being attributed as few key tasks as possible, ideally just a single assignment: for the more assignments there are, the greater the risk that they will not be fulfilled effectively.
Marshall made sure that he always considered several candidates for a job, his main concern being that the person should be a good match for the assignment. This did not entail looking for some kind of general compatibility between the person and the job; it meant ensuring that the selected candidate was suitable for the specific task at hand.
This often poses a problem in corporate management today, because the concept of hiring people for jobs with specific assignments in mind is still not universally adopted. Where the concept is consistently applied, it relatively swiftly results in efficient units and organizations.
Since strengths are prerequisites for accomplishment, Marshall always endeavored to ascertain his candidates’ strong points. George Patton is an excellent example of this. In 1942 it was clear to both Marshall and Eisenhower that Patton’s strengths as a commander would be needed for the imminent Operation Torch assignment, namely the landings in Morocco and Algeria. It was equally apparent to them that the same skills would be particularly important later on as well, as indeed turned out to be the case, for instance in Operation Overlord—the Normandy landings.
Marshall was only interested in initial question marks hanging over candidates or their weaknesses if they were relevant to the domain to which the people in question were to be assigned. In practice this meant that he was unable to prevent occasional gaffes by Patton—a fact naturally pounced on by the British or American press—but he could limit the damage they caused. Above all, in this way Marshall was able to ensure that the respective assignment would be fulfilled as competently as possible by the best-suited candidate in the U.S. Army.
Marshall was of the view that the best, most reliable information about people emerged from informal talks with their former superiors and colleagues, so he always spoke with such individuals before making a people decision.
Marshall’s top priority was to ensure that the selected candidate had fully understood the assignment, so this was something to which he paid special attention. In practice it proved useful to let the selected candidate think through the assignment in depth and then summarize it in writing; 100 days later that summary was re-examined to make certain that the assignment had indeed been properly understood and described in light of the deeper insight gained by the candidate in the meantime.
Managers who are strong on implementation consider it extremely important to follow up systematically. Every two months, at the least, you should assess the progress made in the domain in question and discuss the current state of affairs with the worker. In so doing, it is vital to ascertain whether that person is indeed working on the priority assignment, or whether day-to-day duties have reeled him or her in again. Do not rely on standard reports, but go to where the work is actually being done and take a look yourself.
Marshall was one of those generals who vehemently believed that a soldier has a right to competent command. As a result, he put a great deal of thought into all his people decisions. If those decisions turned out to be wrong, he always assumed full responsibility for them. Furthermore, he then personally ensured that the soldier in question was removed from his post, rather than leaving this work to others. This did not mean the soldier in question had to leave the organization for having performed badly: rather, Marshall, as his superior, blamed himself for having made the mistake of putting the soldier in a position that was ill-matched to that individual’s strengths. The fact that Marshall swiftly and consistently rectified such errors of judgment earned him great credibility and trust.
Make sure that the assignment is clear before you discuss which candidates may be suitable for a job.
Make sure that the selected candidate’s proven strengths match the assignment.
How are the seven steps outlined above implemented in your organization? Where is there room for improvement? What exactly do you need to do to move forward?