“What were they thinking???” — thoughts on transparent decision making


“What were they thinking???” Ever ask that question?

Chances are you have. A better question may be how long it’s been since you asked it.

Leaders get to make decisions. Some are epic, some are epic disasters; all are teachable moments. As you move up the leadership chain will others ask this question about you?


To avoid being “that guy” whose decisions makes people wonder, master the skill of transparent decision making. It’s simple: when a decision is needed tell people how the decision will be made, then follow through by telling people what information was used and how the decision was made. That’s it–just remove the mystery.

Why don’t more people do this? Some probably don’t do this out of fear. It’s well known that information is power, and sharing the magic of how decisions are made could be perceived in a Machiavellian way as a loss of power. Done correctly, however, it improves your organization’s ability to make better decisions and  that goodness reflects on your team, and you.

The list of benefits from transparent decision making are many: deepening the trust your team has in you; developing the next generation’s decision making skills; decreasing fear from arbitrary and incomprehensible processes; ensuring others bring all relevant information to the table when needed; etc.

First, you’ll deepen the trust associates and lower echelon colleagues have in you. There will be times a decision and pertinent facts must be kept private, either for security reasons or because the decision relates to personal privacy for those involved. A leader with a consistent pattern of impartial, facts and evidence based decision making establishes a widespread perception of fairness. When a decision must be deliberated in private, people will assume the same trustworthy pattern is being followed even if the information isn’t shared with them. Lay the proper foundation now and when decision making privacy is needed others will give you the benefit of the doubt. Openly demonstrate a repeated pattern of ignoring illegal discriminators and irrelevant biases as you publicly weigh facts and people will assume you always behave that way, even behind closed doors.

Next, good leaders strive to make their organizations better, and transparency teaches junior leaders the right and wrong ways to make decisions. At some point, when people have developed their decision making skills to your level of rigor, you will be able to delegate decisions you’re spending time on now to lower echelons. This empowers subordinates, and frees up valuable time for you. Further, as people around you develop their decision making skills based on your mentorship, they will better discern what information is important to bring to the table, thus enabling you to make better informed decisions.

This assumes, of course, that we all know how to make decisions which may be an inaccurate starting point. So here are thoughts on how to break out the decision making process in an organization; these are based on Michael Watkins’ book “The First 90 Days,” and explained briefly by Wayne Hastings at: http://waynehastings.com/leadership/decision_making/

At the  two extremes of decision making are unilateral and unanimous decisions, spanning from only 1 person making a decision in a vacuum of secrecy to 100% agreement by everyone involved. In between are two middle-ground decision making methods known as consultation and consensus building.

Thus the decision making types cross the spectrum from unilateral to unanimous along these lines:  Unilateral – Consultation – Consensus – Unanimous

Or for visual learners:

Decision Types

The two middle ground options are where most leaders should focus.

Consensus building rests on a group realizing 100% agreement may never be reached, but also accepting that a decision can sometimes be made if sufficient consensus can be reached. It’s critical that those who don’t fully agree with a decision still be willing to support it. With consensus building, information is gathered, analysed, and evaluated, then the group develops a decision that can be implemented.

In the consultation process a leader solicits information and advice from affected people and groups, but limits them to data gathering and analysis. The leader then evaluates and makes a decision on their own.

So how do you choose which of the four to use? Well, except in rare situations leaders should focus on the consensus building and consultation decision types. Here are some thoughts Michael Watkins proposed (http://www.amazon.com/The-First-90-Days-Strategies/dp/1591391105) on how to choose which is right fora given situation:

– For decisions that will create winners and losers, use consultation. Attempting to achieve consensus may be divisive and create animosity between people who need to work well together.

– For decisions that will be implemented beyond your sight, especially those that require a lot of energy and support from the whole team, use consensus building. If people involved have ownership of the decision they will follow though better than if a decision is made by someone else.

– For new and inexperienced teams start with consultation to teach them with a long term goal of letting them use consensus building after they’ve further developed

– For well seasoned teams start with consensus building, as they’re probably ready and capable of making those types of decisions.

– For teams you need to quickly establish authority with (such as a recent appointment as a leader among people who were peers), use consultation to establish a position of authority.

– For teams who readily acknowledge your authority, but for whom you wish to develop stronger bonds of mutual trust (such as a newly arrived commander), use consensus building if the team is sufficiently ready for it.

Be aware too that midway through a decision process you may need to switch methods. That’s okay, but be open and transparent about it. For example, if you pursued a consensus building  approach and noticed it was causing division among the team, step in and let them know you’re changing modes and will make the decision yourself in a consultation manner because you don’t want to create rifts in the team. People will accept and respect you for it.

To recap, employ transparent decision making by telling your team what process you intend to use (possibly one of the above) and walk them through it in an impartial and equitable manner. Manage their expectations up front, and then meet their expectations in delivery. Teach your team how to make good decisions, and how to discern the critical information needed when making the call. Do this as a standard mode of operating, and soon your decision making skills will spread throughout the organization, and trust in your decisions will grow by everyone who needs confidence in you and your team. Plus, it’s the right thing to do and will make work life more consistent and pleasant for everyone you work with.  Good luck!



Great Bosses

Steve Carell, as bumbling manager Michael Scott in the TV series The Office. (Not a great boss.)

Great bosses are a wonderful thing. We could go into detail, but it’s already been done. A good recap of things great bosses do is linked below. Incidentally, these things that make a great boss also make a good leader, a good commander, a good NCOIC… you get the picture.

Alison Green writes the Ask A Manager blog and put this list together. It’s a good read. Leaders, pull up a stump and enjoy!

(Headers from the article are copied and pasted below, but it’s  her copyrighted work so to see the full article with more detail and embedded examples please go to the links provided.)

The full article can be found here: http://quickbase.intuit.com/blog/2014/03/04/10-things-great-bosses-do/ 

Alison’s Ask A Manager blog entry: http://www.askamanager.org/2014/03/10-things-great-bosses-do.html

10 Things Great Bosses Do

We hear a lot about bad bosses because they generate so many complaints … but great bosses don’t get a lot of press. But they’re out there, leading teams effectively, producing results, and delighting their employees.

Looking for a way to identify them? Here’s a list of 10 things great bosses do. See how your own manager stacks up – or, if you’re a manager yourself, check how you measure up to this list.

1. Great bosses give feedback – both praise and criticism. …

2. Great bosses lay out clear expectations. …

3. Great bosses keep the focus on results. …

4. Great bosses are accessible. …

5. Great bosses care passionately about the makeup of their team. …

6. Great bosses are constantly looking for ways to get better. …

7. Great bosses ask for (and truly welcome) input. …

8. Great bosses treat employees like adults. …

9. Great bosses measure their own performance by their lowest performer. …

10. Great bosses treat people well. …

Have a boss who meets all or most of these items? Or worked for one in the past? Let them know how much you appreciate them – because these bosses are a valuable and rare commodity.

– See more at: http://quickbase.intuit.com/blog/2014/03/04/10-things-great-bosses-do/#sthash.FjhoQdq0.dpuf

Servant Leadership: a Solution to Toxic Leadership

Toxic leadership is a hot topic in the military lately. How many more stories about toxic leaders who ran their units into the ground do we need to hear? Can we get a handle on this already?

Sure we can. There is a simple solution. It’s called servant leadership.

Flip the traditional military chain of command pyramid on its head and you have a servant leadership. At the top (what was the broad base of the traditional pyramid) are the vast majority of the workforce: the mid and junior grade soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines … the ones who typical “do” the military mission. You know, where the rubber meets the road. At the pointy tip supporting these people is a leader whose job is helping them accomplish the mission by properly equipping, training, and mentoring them, and by removing obstacles.

Servant leaders serve those who technically report to them, and they serve the citizens of our country by running the most effective organizations possible given the personnel and financial resources the public provide.

Mr. Burns, king of toxic leaders.

Contrast this with the traditional (or more accurately, stereotypical) rigid autocratic top down chain. What you’ll see there is an organization where those in positions of authority have grown up through the ranks, think they know the majority of what their subordinates do, and believe direction simply flows from top down. On the rare occasion that information is needed from lower ranks they’ll ask for it; until then it’s insignificant so shut up and color. You know this type of blunt command chain, with its adversarial us vs. them climate, and it doesn’t need more illumination here.

In reality, most military command organizations lie between these extremes. But it’s time to get off the fence. Waffling between these leadership modes is wasting opportunity. Even worse, it allows leaders with a tendency toward autocratic rule to ascend to command and become toxic leaders in today’s environment, rather than correcting their mindset early in their careers and filtering out those who won’t change.

To understand the importance of choosing the appropriate leadership mode of these two opposing styles you have to grasp the fundamental change that’s taken place with our personnel. The U.S. military has undergone a revolution in military affairs with our personnel.

This may sound crude and impersonal but troops used to be employed as commodities, a collection of similarly trained people being used as laborers. I truly mean no disrespect; the generation who served in WWI and WWII made sacrifices and accomplished things for the world no one should ever forget or downplay. But, the men were treated as pawns on a battlefield, one soldier was considered as good as another, it was a numbers game. Over the years our military force has evolved into an expertly trained and highly specialized collection of individuals who each bring a separate skill to the group. The contrast between personnel of now and a century ago is striking and the evolutionary change has resulted in revolutionary differences.

WWII boot camp.

Think anyone can step in for one of these guys? Does their commander know how to do this?

For example, consider the number of enlisted personnel who have higher professional level degrees than the officers who lead them. Unheard of decades ago it’s now a common occurence. No longer do commanders have the same knowledge as those they are leading; except for prior-enlisted officers, most commanders haven’t attended the technical training schools needed to operate and maintain all of the military hardware and technology under their control. They have a general understanding, but many lack intimate knowledge of how to do the work being done by their subordinates. [That’s not to say our current leaders aren’t knowledgeable; they are intelligent and well educated, but in fundamentally different ways, with different types of knowledge valuable to the military enterprise.]

Gen Patton was a great leader, but are his autocratic methods still appropriate with today’s all volunteer force?

Yet despite the obvious difference in the knowledge level of our troops compared to the early 1900s, leadership methods today differ little from a century ago. It’s time to change. Leadership doctrine of the 20th century is a wonderful point of departure to grow from; it’s not a concrete methodology that must remain stagnant. Patton’s style is enjoyable to reminisce over, but many of his methods would be extremely inappropriate and counterproductive today.

Military personnel are no longer basic laborers. They are knowledge workers.  Each person brings unique skills sets and capabilities to the team. The implication is that autocratic top-down-only leadership is not only insulting, it misses opportunities that could be leveraged if the more knowledgeable lower ranking troops could inform and influence decision making. At worst, autocratic leadership imposed on knowledgeable troops leads to poor leadership decision making due to leaders lacking the necessary information to make good choices, and in the military poor decision making can be deadly. It also distances the people who need to feel part of the team; if they don’t feel included, they won’t risk offering their necessary insights, and battles will be lost.

Fortunately, most military leaders have adjusted to this new knowledge worker paradigm by finding middle ground between autocratic and servant leadership. But those with autocratic tendencies eventually develop into toxic leaders in today’s environment. They manage to succeed well enough as junior leaders by imposing their will on their teams, get promoted and recognized, take this as affirmation their aggressive leadership style works, until suddenly one day the world collapses on them for behaving as the absolute self-centered narcissists we’ve allowed and unwittingly encouraged them to become. Developing this kind of leader is preventable but takes conscious effort.

Assuming servant leadership is the right direction to go, how do we get there?  What traits do we try to instill in our leaders?

There is a lot of literature on servant leadership, and most authors agrees on about 9 characteristics.  So let’s do the military thing and group these into 3 main ideas w ithsupporting ideas. (Woohoo, Squadron Officer School pays off!) So, drumroll please, here are the 3 main aspects of servant leadership and their supporting characteristics:

–          Understanding.

A servant leader emphasizes listening effectively to others, and gains empathy for their associate’s feelings, intuition, and perspectives. Whoa, did I just say “feelings”?  Yes, I did. Most communication between people is still non-verbal, and the feelings that a person can relate to you about their interactions with others are valuable information that need to be considered to understand the complete picture. For example, maybe a subordinate is running an investigation, or developing a contract agreement, and the person they’re working with makes them suspect something is amiss or that the other party is possibly lying, but they can’t exactly say why. Important? Of course it is. Coupled with a leader’s awareness of their own values, feelings, strengths, and weaknesses, listening and empathy help develop a leader’s thorough understanding of the complex situations being dealt with. We must be cautious to not let our own biases cause us to misunderstand a situation.

–          Decision making.

Many paths, different anticipated outcomes… a good understanding of the situation will help to identify the best option to pursue.

Depth of understanding is the critical foundation to effective decision making. Once there is understanding a servant leader must conceptualize it by developing a simplified mental picture, framework, or model of what is going on. Again, others may assist in this conceptualization; two minds are often better than one. The leader must then employ foresight to grasp how the past, present, and future are related, and link this with the conceptual framework to integrate present realities while anticipating future possibilities that arise from various possible choices. The leader can then make an informed decision while also applying good stewardship of available resources, whether those are personnel, equipment, or funds.

–          Empowerment.

As a precursor to effective listening a servant leader must develop mutual trust and respect with those who are being led, otherwise people aren’t going to speak up as we need them to. A unit climate that is supportive of candor in discussions is critical. Servant leaders foster this climate by considering personnel as associates or team mates operating in different roles rather than as subordinates. This develops a environment where the emotional and spiritual health of each person is protected, and repairs previous injuries that impede a person’s willingness to fully participate. Fear of repeated pain for offering unsolicited advice and getting shot down for it is a disincentive that must be repaired. Along with this a servant leader maintains a commitment to helping people grow and is responsible for serving the needs of others. Developing a good unit climate also requires building a sense of community throughout the organization. People who feel appreciated and wanted by their team tend to perform much better and provide a positive feedback to others of the same appreciation.

Like a circle these characteristics of trust, health, commitment, and community feed back into the leader’s ability to develop situational understanding, but they also contribute to fostering servant leadership in the still developing junior leaders who are in early leadership roles of their own. The synergy of multiple leaders in an organization fostering servant leadership then gains momentum as it feeds back into itself, furthering servant leadership as the default leadership process.

For all the benefits of servant leadership there are still some disadvantages.

First, there are times when autocratic leadership is needed. In an emergency room dealing with a patient in cardiac arrest; when a building entry team suddenly comes under sniper fire; or when someone is about to walk into traffic without looking… these and others are times when clear, concise, directive command is needed. There are times when “talking about it” and getting input is ineffective and dangerous. But those times are normally evident based on the time sensitive nature of the event at hand.

There is also the fact that servant leadership takes time and endurance to implement. A leader can’t simply say “tomorrow we implement servant leadership.” It doesn’t work that way. This doesn’t mesh well with the 2 year command cycle typically in place; unless a series of leaders all employ servant leader methods, an organization may not effectively abandon autocratic thinking. Servant leadership also takes a lot of work up front because it’s unexpected and people are hesitant at first to trust that a leader who says servant leader things will actually follow through and not shoot the messenger or otherwise hurt them for taking a risk in complying with the leader’s stated intent.

But there are many other advantages to servant leadership not yet mentioned. The greatest of these is the demonstration of a pattern regarding decision making. When decisions are regularly made by a leader in a transparent, inclusive, and deliberative process, people see this as a leader’s default way of doing business. When decisions need to be made behind closed doors, people will apply the halo effect and assume a leader’s decision making process continues to be logical and trustworthy even if they aren’t privy to the details. It also teaches developing leaders the right way to make decisions, especially those that should not be snap decisions.

Our military may be experiencing an era of toxic leadership, but it is self-inlicted and fixable. So, servant leaders, let’s get to it.

A hero providing servant leadership to Afghani children.

Attitude is Everything

When it comes to leadership, attitude is everything.  We could leave it there and let you fill in the rest.

But what fun would that be? Let’s flesh it out. While the phrase seems cliché there are valid work related reasons to pay attention. For example, a business article in Time (http://business.time.com/2013/01/31/attitude-is-everything/) highlighted a study:

Of “20,000 new hires at Fortune 500 companies” — “nearly half of them failed within 18 months … 89 percent of those failures stemmed from “attitudinal reasons”.”

Doing a little math in public, that’s roughly 8,900 out of 20,000 people that failed at their jobs as a result of attitude issues.

Consider this from a small unit perspective. For a flight of 20 people, that would be 8 or more people failing; in a squadron of 200 about 90 people failing…simply due to attitude. The numbers are huge. Hopefully in our military culture we have things a little more under control, but if we’re not careful those stats could represent our organizations too. Those numbers are also based on Fortune 500 companies with deliberate hiring processes where not just anyone is hired. In theory they only hire the most likely to succeed and it’s possible their results are close to reality for the Air Force as well, which is a sobering thought.

So let’s dive in and start with these three things:
– Attitudes are contagious.
– Leaders, don’t ping.
– Behave as if you’re the next higher rank up.


First, attitudes are contagious.

JamesTake for example James, the newspaper guy who cheerfully greets commuters every morning as we get off the train. There are days when a morning train ride into Washington DC isn’t wonderful (in other news it’s dark at night, and water is wet). A commute can start with fighting for parking, jockeying in line, and getting on a train as a full contact sport. People may sneeze on you, poke bags and elbows in your sides, and mash your shined shoes. It can be 45 minutes of morning mood souring. When the doors open everyone dashes off to work, right over you if you’re not careful. James greets this mob of commuters every day with a smile, offers a free Metro newspaper, and wishes everyone a good day. I look forward to stopping and chatting with James, and if I walk by without seeing him he pipes up across the crowd “Colonel, you have a good day, sir!”

Right then my day changes for the better. I get a smile on my face which I bring to the office. The chief admin assistant to the SES-5 we work for told me she’s going to miss me when I move, because no matter what issues are crashing down on us her day always starts in a positive way from talking with me. Thank you, James.

Consider what your attitude is doing to other people. Does your attitude inspire those around you, or is it destructive to good team work? What about the subordinate leaders you’re in charge of? Does your attitude bring out the best in them, so that when they interact with the rest of your flight or squadron everyone is improved? Or does it tear the team down? Do the leaders you’re mentoring have an attitude you want spread through your team? If they’re going to lower the mood of the organization you need to do something about it. It’s possible you are the root cause, it’s also possible they are unaware of the impact their attitude has on others. Either way you owe it to your unit to address it. The last thing our troops deserve is to have poor leadership attitudes inflicted upon them, and if you’re the leader fixing it starts with you.

Next… leaders, don’t ping. Ever. cropped-img_3555.jpg

Nearly everyone is stressed and concerned about doing the right things the right way. To some extent that’s good, it keeps people focused. But if you start acting wildly anxious and nervous, so will they, and any productive edge from a little stress will devolve rapidly. Be the duck, calm on the surface, even if your feet are paddling wildly underneath. Your relaxed demeanor will keep others calm…it’s contagious.

The opposite is true as well, if you get overly excited and animated, others will mimic your behavior and each successive person will amplify it futher. By the time the example being set reaches the youngest airmen in your unit people may be nothing more than quivering masses of nervous energy. Resist any temptation to ping, it’s just not worth it. You have the self control to maintain composure or you wouldn’t be in a leadership position to begin with.

Seriously, don’t ping, ever. This is such an important behavioral aspect that the Dean at Air War College beat it into our heads. If there was only one thing our thick skulls could remember he insisted it be that we never lose control in front of our airmen.

Now that you’ve mastered the above, act like you already wear the next higher rank.

Choose to live the attitude that you are performing at the next rank, you’re just not wearing it yet. If you’re a captain, work as if you are a major. If you’re a senior airman, perform like you’re a staff sergeant. If you’re a… okay you get it.

Not only do you need to behave like you’re a rank higher than you hold, you need to encourage others to do the same. Once again, it’s contagious. If they see you do it, they will too. The net effect raises the performance of the entire organization. Trust me, it works, but only if you as a leader set the example and tell others you trust them to do the same. Word will spread, performance will rise, and morale will follow.

Doubt it? Then try and see if it’s not true.

Remember, attitude is everything, and it’s contagious. Control your attitude, it’s a choice you make. And do your best to influence the attitude of everyone on your team. Good things will come of it.

Caring for your people: special victims’ counsel

Leaders, one of the most important things we do is care for our people during crises.

One such crisis is when someone is sexually assaulted, especially for someone in the military. Whether a victim pursues action against a perpetrator, whether they come forward at all for assistance, is affected by a dizzying myriad of concerns. For a military member all of those concerns exist, and they’re heightened by concerns over how the situation will affect their military career and the close knit family-like relationship with their military unit and peers. The military judicial system can overwhelm a victim, making them feel a victim over and over, and over, again.

Well, enough of that. It’s time to empower victims so they don’t feel railroaded by the system. Despite the many recent negatives associated with the budget and downsizing, the Air Force has launched a Special Victims Counsel program for victims of sexual assault.

What’s different in this case? Well, the SVCs work on behalf of the victims. That may sound obvious, but until now consider this: the prosecution works for the Air Force; the Sexual Assualt and Response Coordinators (SARCs) work for the command, and are not lawyers; the ultimate goal of each is prosecution of perpetrators, not addressing the concerns of the victims. The SVCs are duty bound to work on behalf of no one but the victim, just as a defense attorney works for a defendent. For a victim the difference in approach by being directly represented can be tremendous.

You can read more about it here, in a non-military news release:  http://rainn.org/news-room/us-air-force-special-victims-council-program
Here, in the Stars and Stripes:  http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-program-a-rare-bright-spot-in-military-s-sex-assault-fight-1.269628
And here, in an AF JAG one pager:  http://www.afjag.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130129-005.pdf

Air Force leaders, if one of your Airmen is dealing with sexual assault this is one way you can help them regain control. Legal professionals find sexual assualt litigation very challenging; expecting a victim to navigate the legal issues while simultaneously healing and performing their regular military duties is nonsensical. Help them out and recommend they contact an SVC, or reach out to an SVC on their behalf (if appropriate; trust your judgement).

Sister service leaders, this is an Air Force pilot program; should your troops face this by all means contact an Air Force SVC and see if they’ll take one more case on. Unless you try the answer is no; it might be yes if you call. It’s a sad reality we need this program, but hopefully it won’t be long until it’s expanded across DoD.

Authority & Responsibility…an indivisible pair

Humans are silly.  We try to separate responsibility from authority, but it can’t be done as they’re two sides of the same coin. People shouldn’t be held responsible for things they don’t have authority over; doing so is illogical, bordering on delusional. In reality, when someone claims responsbility over something they are also assuming authority to act, and vice versa.

What does this mean in practice?  Simple:  supervisors can’t delegate responsibility without also delegating authority.  Either both are delegated, or neither is, regardless of any fancy words a supervisor may use to try to justify a logical disconnect.  To tell a subordinate they are responsible for something without also delegating authority to affect the situation is foolish and sets them up for failure…eventually the supervisor will blame them for an outcome they had no control over. Most of us have been on the receiving end of that delightful scenario and hated it; we owe it to our troops not to continue passing that dysfunction down through the generations.

Please remember this the next tme you wish to pass responsibility down the chain.  Are you also passing decision making authority?  If not, the responsibility still rests with you whether you realize it or not, so it’s important to not mistake this. Similarly it’s wise to ask whether delegating the authority is appropriate; if it’s not, then don’t make the mistake of attempting to pass responsibility because the two can’t be split up, they’re a package deal.

[disclaimer:  nothing new here; Peter Drucker has said this various ways before but it bears repeating.]

Saying a dirty word: Management!

In the Air Force the word management is often denigrated.  I once heard an officer complimented with “good job managing that schedule transition” and his response was “dude, those are fightin’ words.”  He literally took offense at having his management skills applauded, as if management is somehow beneath the dignity of a leader.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As Peter Drucker said, “good intentions are no substitute for organization, accountability, performance, and results.”  A leader can want those outcomes all they want, but without  management skills they’re not going to get there.  For a leader to be effective they must choose to do the right things (leadership skill) and follow through by doing those chosen things the right way (management skill).

Ironically, although the military disdains the m-word, it relies on it to succeed.  Consider the complex technologies the Air Force leverages every day to outmatch our adversaries.  Consider the logistics issues of deploying joint forces globally, and continuing to supply, feed, and employ them thousands of miles away.  How do these things happen without effective management?  The answer is they don’t.

In my not so humble opinion we hinder ourselves by shunning the m-word.  Strong management skills are essential for leadership success, and the next generation of officers and NCOs needs to be taught that.

I attempted to educate my fellow officer above by telling him he was a moron if he really thought being called a good manager was an insult; at least he could correctly feel ego-hurt at the end of the day.  (Look up “hurt feelings report”, being called a manager must be on the list.)  Still, I feel bad for anyone he supervised that wished to apply a little managerial rigor to their sloppy processes.  It’s very likely they didn’t get any leadership support for attempting to do the right thing.

Many of our leaders are brought up without any business administration education (for example I have science degrees, but no MBA, and my professional military education didn’t fill that gap).  So for those of us lacking formal education on effective management it’s on us to self-educate.

Later entries may touch on time-intensive resources to fully develop our personal business skills, but in the mean time here’s a great website that covers the primary topics of an MBA program (accounting, law, economics, entrepreneurship, finance, management, marketing, operations, statistics, and strategy).

Take a peek, and enjoy!


From the QuickMBA “About” page:

“QuickMBA is an online knowledge resource for business administration. Our goal is to help you to quickly find the business knowledge you need, when you need it, wherever you may be.”