From battlefields to boardrooms

A planning framework used in military operations holds lessons for improving corporate
strategy and outcomes

Last month, Harvard Business Review carried a cover story on “Leadership lessons from the
military”, focusing on US war veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and ways in
which their field experience was being used in a rapidly changing business environment. For
a nation that has realized the applicability of combat leadership (during three distinct
occasions—World War II, Vietnam war and the Gulf wars) in its corporate and political
culture, this is not a new or unknown phenomenon.

Narinder Nanu/AFP photo

In fact, former military officers constitute just 3% of the adult male population in the US, yet
contribute three times more to the CEO pool of S&P 500 companies. While the HBR article
makes for fascinating reading, I’m reminded of some skills that the military teaches which
can be used by anyone regardless of what they do. These range from finding the north using
a watch (a neat trick to show your nephew, but not very relevant in daily life) to developing a
structured way of thinking.

These skills can be learnt in about half an hour and applied to pretty much everything for a
lifetime. This article explains one of the best tools for structured thinking and
communications. It’s a framework used by military commanders at all levels—sergeants or
generals—to develop plans and brief their teams. Its design has been honed over thousands
of years of combat and through lessons learnt in blood. And it has stood the test of time
across different nations, situations and domain areas.

A commander needs to think through various aspects during planning. In complicated

operations, missing elements can be disastrous. To avoid this, the military uses a framework
informally named with the acronym “Z-Kitbag”.

The leader starts by orienting his troops to the environmental landscape. “Z” stands for
“zamini nishan”—landmarks in the theatre of operations. The commander first points out the
north and the “general line of direction”—a distant landmark used to centre the whole body
of troops. This is critical because if the troops are dispersed on a broad front, then the two
flanking extremes need to be aligned to one central line—else soldiers standing on the right
and the left flanks will interpret directions differently.

Next, he explains the nature of the terrain, presence of roads, villages and resources, natural
and man-made obstacles, and boundaries of adjoining formations. This ensures that every
soldier is familiarized with the environment and its extents, and avoids trespassing on to
sister formations.
In a business context, gaps in knowledge about zamini nishan cause leaders to take wrong
decisions. Similarly, people who don’t know their boundaries end up operating in areas
which are not their domain. An incorrectly mapped individual can even turn out to be a
hostile influence.

The next letter stands for “khabar” or information. This part of the briefing always starts with
khabar of the enemy: What their strength and disposition are; what kind of weapons they
have, what resources they can call for from other theatres of operations; their commander
and his traits—right down to the cultural behaviour of enemy troops. The second part of
khabar deals with information about one’s own troops and formations—friendly patrols that
could be operating in the same area; capabilities and strengths; and most importantly, the
location of one’s own commanders.

The “I” stands for “irada”, or aim of the operation. This is a clearly defined objective that
needs to be achieved within a certain time frame. The aim is repeated and rechecked from a
few members by having them recite it verbatim—a practice that is sometimes forgotten in
corporate communications.

“T” stands for “tariqa”, or the strategy that will be adopted. It goes into details of where, when
and how a mission will be accomplished: Who will be in charge of what part, and who will
perform the role of a backup.

“Bandobast”, or resources and organization structure, comes next: What arrangements will
be made for infiltration and extrication; where the rendezvous point is after the mission is
accomplished; what the signal codes for success or failure will be; how reinforcements will
be called for.

“A” stands for administration, or logistics: How much ammunition will be carried; how long
the troops should prepare for; what the “No-move-before” timing (the exact time until which
the troops can be certain that they will not be called into operations) is.

And finally, “G” stands for an important, yet often missed, aspect—“ghari milao”, or
synchronization of all watches with the commander’s watch. In military operations, a
difference of even 20 seconds between the watches of assaulting units and artillery support
can mean the difference between pummelled enemies or one’s own troops caught in a
barrage fired by supporting artillery. Translated into corporatespeak, this means aligning
terms such as “as soon as possible” or “immediately” because these can imply different
things to different people.

The sequence that the briefing follows also plays an important role. Each sub-unit
commander knows which part of the sequence is relevant to him, and can, therefore, pay
special attention when his portion begins.

This tool is several centuries old. For precisely that reason, it is but one of the many lessons
that the corporate world can learn from the military.

Raghu Raman is an expert and a commentator on internal security.

Comments are welcome at theirview@livemint.com