LEARN TO LEAD - Civil Air Patrol

mandates or resolutions that would affect our proposedoperations or interests. Nongovernmental organizationsmay also be willing to help—or perhaps require help.Each of these concerns is legitimate and makes the internationalenvironment the most challenging and unfamiliarof them all.This framework for the components of the strategic environmentis simple in design yet complicated in practice.Most US government personnel are intimately familiarwith the national security and military environmentssince they are linked (i.e., military strategy follows directlyfrom national security decisions). But strategic leadersmust recognize that the two greatest influences on theirdecisions come from the domestic and international environments.To lead effectively, they should use what ismost familiar and be able to synthesize what influencestheir strategic decisions.The four components of the strategic environment presenta challenge for strategic leaders. The national securityenvironment, with its many taskmasters, will drive bothstrategic decisions and military strategy. Leaders will feelgreat influence from the familiar domestic environmentand must have its support for strategic action. Further,strategic leaders can be surprised and their decisionsthwarted if they fail to understand the international environmentsufficiently. Knowing the disparate componentsof the strategic environment is the first step in graspingstrategic leadership. Understanding the nature of thestrategic environment and strategic decisions is thesecond step.NATURE OF THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTThe strategic-leadership environment differs from theclimate at lower levels of leadership. We should view thenature of this environment both broadly—examiningconsequential decisions and changes in performancerequirements—and narrowly.CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONSBy nature, strategic leadership requires consequentialdecision making. All decisions have consequences, but inthe strategic context, they take on a different character—specifically, they are planned, generally long term, costly,and profound.Consequential decisions occur only at the higher levelswithin organizations. Generally, decision makers in thetop 20 percent of the organization—the people who haveultimate control of resources—plan and execute suchdecisions. They also think out the implications of theirdecisions in advance. That is to say, the decision makersanalyze and evaluate the possible, probable, and necessaryramifications of a decision beforehand. Some peopleargue that the sergeant on patrol in Kosovo or the bombercrew over Afghanistan can make strategic decisions in asplit second and thus become strategic decision makers.No doubt, armed forces and government officials do makelethal, destructive, and sometimes regrettable decisions.However, these determinations are considered tacticalopportunities or, worse, operational blunders rather thanplanned, consequential decisions. Planning becomesmore important when one considers the long-term natureof consequential decisions.Such decisions require years to play out. Indeed, in mostcases strategic decision makers may not be around to witnessthe actual consequences of the decision, making it allthe more essential that they carefully consider all implicationsbefore taking action. Clearly, a hasty consequentialdecision can become very costly.One may classify these attendant costs as either immediateor mortgaged. For instance, some consequential decisions—suchas declaring war or beginning hostilities—canhave immediate costs or effects. The cost in lives couldbecome very heavy in a matter of days. World economiccosts could mount within weeks while markets collapsewithin hours. Mortgaged costs of consequential decisions,however, refer to lost opportunities and “sunk” costs. Wesee such consequences, for example, when organizationscommit to huge purchases for weapons systems over adecade-long time frame. Of course in the strategic environment,costs are measured not only in dollars but alsoin influence (e.g., the costs of supporting one nation overanother or the costs of not supporting a particular position).Many times, the decision becomes a matter of sunkcosts—gone forever with no chance of recovery. Up to thispoint, we have considered only the negative effects ofcosts on consequential decisions. Suffice it to say thatmany consequential decisions have the aim of decreasing,avoiding, or postponing costs. In fact, some of the leastcostly consequential decisions turn out to be the mostprofound (e.g., expanding free-trade agreements and theNATO alliance, reducing the number of nuclear arms, etc.).Consequential decisions are profound because they havethe potential to create great change, lead trends, alter thecourse of events, make history, and initiate a number ofwide-ranging effects. They can change societies andadvance new disciplines. Most importantly, an entireorganization, a segment of society, a nation, or humanityin general recognizes such decisions as profound.12