Tag: education

  • Main Effort: The Discipline of Prioritizing What Matters Most

    “In war, the first principle is to concentrate the strongest possible force at the decisive point.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

    My last post, on applying the Execution portion of an Army Operations Order (OPORD) to higher education, needs a bit of expansion. I alluded to the idea of Main and Supporting Efforts, but there is more that can be said. Much more.

    Every operation, no matter how complex, depends on identifying the one activity that must succeed for the mission to succeed. In Army doctrine, the main effort is the unit, task, or activity that receives priority of resources and support because it is most critical to accomplishing the mission. Everything else in the organization is aligned to support it.

    I have seen the relationship described this way: the Main Effort belongs to the organization, unit, or department that “wins the fight,” while Supporting Efforts are conducted by those who make that victory possible.

    A Lesson From Convoy Operations

    Preparing for a convoy mission required attention to every detail

    Remember my unit’s mission from the previous post? During Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2008, my cavalry squadron conducted convoy security missions moving supplies from Kuwait into Iraq. It was demanding work. Multiple patrols were often on the road at the same time, and some missions extended far into Iraq for days at a time.

    The operational details varied constantly. Patrol routes changed. Maintenance demands shifted. Intelligence updates and weather affected how we prepared our gun trucks and when we could move.

    But one priority never changed: our mission depended on the safe movement of supplies north into Iraq.

    That was the main effort.

    Every other activity supported that outcome. Mechanics worked long hours repairing vehicles. Staff coordinated convoy movement and tracked patrols across large distances. Troop headquarters maintained communications with their elements on the road. Different parts of the organization performed very different roles, but everyone understood the same priority: the convoy had to arrive safely.

    Why the Main Effort Matters

    The main effort does more than allocate resources. It provides clarity.

    I wrote in my earlier post that plans rarely unfold exactly as expected. Conditions change. Problems emerge. Leaders must constantly make decisions with incomplete information.

    When people understand the main effort, those decisions become easier. Leaders at every level can adjust tactics while still protecting the mission’s most important objective.

    Without that clarity, organizations often struggle. Teams spend energy solving problems that are important but not decisive. Resources become scattered across competing priorities. Identifying the main effort helps prevent that drift.

    To those of you working in higher education, do these consequences of unclear priorities sound familiar? They apply to us just as much as they applied in combat.

    A Note on Supporting Efforts

    Once the main effort is identified, the rest of the organization is structured to support it.

    In military operations these are called supporting efforts (sometimes referred to as shaping operations). Their role is to create the conditions necessary for the main effort to succeed.

    Some supporting efforts may provide security. Others provide logistics, communications, intelligence, or planning support. Their success is measured by how effectively they enable the main effort.

    This structure ensures that the organization works toward a common outcome rather than a collection of individual priorities.

    The concept may seem obvious, but I am convinced there is significant room for improvement, and many opportunities to create a more cohesive operation, throughout the organizational structures of higher education institutions.

    Practical Application

    At my college, our mission is:

    Kalamazoo Valley Community College creates innovative and equitable opportunities that empower all to learn, grow, and thrive.

    We often shorten this to say we give everyone the opportunity to learn, grow, and thrive. As I noted in my previous post, the main effort in this mission is likely found in faculty instruction. They win the fight for us. Faculty delivering high-quality learning experiences is the core activity that defines institutional success.

    Many other offices, however, perform essential work. These include Admissions, Advising, Financial Aid, Information Technology, tutoring and success coaching, etc. Their purpose, ultimately, is the same: to enable students to learn, grow, and thrive.

    When institutions clearly recognize this relationship of main vs supporting efforts, decision-making becomes easier. Leaders can ask a simple question when evaluating processes, policies, and investments: Does this support our definition of success?

    Clarity Aligns Organizations

    One of the lessons military leaders learn early is that clarity of priority simplifies leadership. When people understand the main effort, they do not need detailed instructions for every situation. They can adapt, solve problems, and make sound decisions because they know what matters most.

    The concept itself is not complicated. But it requires leaders who are willing to make hard choices about priorities and communicate them clearly. It requires leaders to understand the mission, what defines success, and their role in achieving that success.

    Organizations that do this well gain something powerful: A shared understanding of what success looks like. In both combat and higher education, leaders who clearly identify the main effort give their organizations the focus needed to succeed.

  • PACE Yourself: The Overlooked Importance of Communication in Community College Student Development

    Two is one. One is none. – My Dad, probably a parent or guardian of yours, too…

    Communication Redundancy is vital to mission success

    Part of going on any mission outside the wire in Iraq or Afghanistan was the pre-mission communication brief. Every Soldier heard the same reminder: know the PACE plan—your Primary, Alternate, Contingent, and Emergency methods of communication.

    Like so many military acronyms, I’m fairly certain someone came up with the catchy word first and assigned meaning later. We loved our acronyms almost as much as our laminated checklists.

    But behind it was a brutally simple idea: redundancy keeps people alive.

    When your convoys or patrol elements are spread across kilometers of routes, villages, irrigation ditches, and wadis—and the situation can change in seconds—you don’t rely on one channel and “hope it works.” You build multiple, reliable paths to pass critical information.

    • Primary was usually FM radio.
    • Alternate might be a GPS-based system with a built-in chat function that reached headquarters no matter how far we’d roamed.
    • Contingent included SAT phones, especially when terrain blocked line-of-sight.
    • Emergency was often visual signaling—smoke for medevac, panels, whatever would get the job done when all the tech failed.

    You could brief an entire PACE plan in less time than it took to spell out the acronym. That’s how you know the system works: simple enough to remember, redundant enough to survive friction.

    Operation Iraqi Freedom 2008

    PACE in Higher Education: Redundancy Isn’t Paranoia—It’s Professionalism

    In higher ed—and especially in student development—our communication practices often drift toward the opposite of deliberate redundancy. Too often the unspoken plan is:

    “I emailed them. If I don’t hear back… well… I’ll wait. Or maybe call. I guess.”

    That’s not a plan. That’s hope.

    And hope is not a communication strategy—not when we’re serving students who rely on timely, accurate information about enrollment, aid, advising, or crisis support.

    What if we adopted a simplified, civilianized PACE plan to build reliability into daily operations? Something like this:

    P: Primary – Email

    Email should be reliable, predictable, and treated with professional discipline.

    • Priority-labeled emails should receive a same-business-day response, regardless of when they arrive.
    • All other emails should be answered within 24 hours (weekends and holidays excluded).
    • Anyone out of the office for more than a day should use an automatic reply that includes an alternate contact for time-sensitive matters.

    If email fails—or the response window expires—move to the next tier.

    A: Alternate – Phone Call

    If email doesn’t get results: call.

    • Out-of-office voicemail should include who to contact for urgent issues.
    • Voicemails should clearly state:
      • your name
      • why you’re calling
      • when you emailed
      • when you need a response

    If there’s no callback—or phone communication isn’t possible—escalate to the next tier.

    C: Contingent – Text Message

    A controlled, professional use of texting can solve simple problems quickly.

    • Administrators should have each other’s cell numbers stored and updated.
    • Offices should maintain a group-text list for after-hours or inclement-weather notifications.
    • Supervisors should maintain contact lists for their teams, and team members should have their supervisor’s number as well.

    If texting still doesn’t get the job done, move to the final tier.

    E: Emergency – Supervisor Communication

    If the mission-critical message still hasn’t been delivered, elevate it.

    • Supervisors should foster a culture where quick in-person clarifications are normal, not interruptions.
    • Within the PACE model, supervisor engagement becomes the failsafe.

    Use this method when:

    • prior attempts went unanswered,
    • the response is now urgent enough to require immediate attention, or
    • every other channel has failed.

    This isn’t about tattling or escalating conflict—it’s about preventing operational gaps that negatively impact students and staff.

    Why This Matters: Mission Success Looks Different, but the Stakes Are Real

    No one in community colleges is dodging IEDs or calling in medevacs. But we are navigating complexity, resource scarcity, shifting policies, and upstream/downstream effects that impact real lives.

    When a student misses a scholarship deadline because someone “thought the email would be enough,” we’ve failed our mission. When a department goes days without clarity on a policy because communication drifted, student service suffers.

    PACE gives us a framework—not for battle, but for reliability.It prevents the quiet breakdowns that derail enrollment, advising, retention, and campus operations. A communication plan with built-in redundancy isn’t military paranoia.
    It’s professionalism, clarity, and respect for the students who rely on us.

    Operation Iraqi Freedom 2012

  • Bringing Decision-Making Home: COA Analysis (Wargaming), COA Comparison, and COA Approval

    “You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality.” Vice Admiral James Stockdale (Medal of Honor)

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    In my last blog, we ended with the staff presenting leadership their best two to four Courses of Action (COAs), along with a recommendation for the one they believed would best accomplish the mission. That briefing included an analysis of each COA based on the evaluation criteria and the mission statement previously approved by leadership. Leadership then gets as much time as they need to consider the options, ask clarifying questions (which the staff must record!), and decide what comes next.

    When leadership receives a COA briefing, their response usually falls into one of four categories:

    1. Accept the staff’s recommended COA and direct them to wargame it.
    2. Identify two or more COAs as viable and ask the team to wargame each one and then compare the results.
    3. Send the team back to do more brainstorming.
    4. Suggest a COA the leader believes in that was not part of the original briefing.

    If option 3 is selected, it’s back to COA Development. In all other cases, the team moves into COA Analysis—what we called wargaming in the military and what I still call it today.

    Wargaming: Creating a Realistic Simulation

    Wargaming is simply a structured simulation of the selected COA(s). The goal is to identify risks to completion, consider ways to mitigate those risks, and refine the COA based on what the simulation reveals.

    I’m a firm believer that COA Analysis should be as visual and tactile as possible. Sticky notes on a wall, whiteboards, printed floorplans—anything that allows you to move pieces around. Seeing the plan in motion will reveal gaps, risks, and opportunities you would never catch on paper alone.

    A Community College Example: Three Campuses, 120 Students, Half a Day

    Recently, one of our high school recruitment coordinators, Demond, was asked to schedule a campus tour. Nothing unusual there—normally no need for deep decision-making. But this time they had a new ask: they wanted all 120 students to tour three of our five campuses, which are miles apart, all in half a day.

    Demond and I loved the idea and knew it was possible, but we also knew we needed a simulation to see what we might be missing.

    So we drew the campus buildings on a whiteboard.
    We used sticky notes to represent buses.
    We identified available staff.
    And with a notepad in hand to record every step, we played the morning out.

    Some insights emerged quickly:

    • If the school provided three buses, each going to a different starting campus, we could rotate the groups in a round-robin structure.
    • Two campuses were less than a mile apart, but the third was nearly eight miles away, affecting timing.
    • The school wanted students to eat lunch, but only two of the campuses had spaces where 120 students could eat.

    By walking through bus movements, lunch timing, and tours at all three campuses, we saw exactly where bottlenecks would happen. Our solution? We added a short presentation at our largest campus where students could hear from Demond. The students would share their interests and dreams, and Demond would share how education after high school could help them reach those goals. That extra activity created the time buffer needed to keep the entire event on schedule.

    Running the simulation took time, but it paid off. They day was a rousing success and we’ve already been asked to repeat it.

    The Final Step: COA Comparison and COA Approval

    When wargaming is complete, the staff prepares one last briefing. This briefing compares the results of all simulations (if more than one COA was analyzed), offers a final recommendation, and seeks leadership’s approval to execute the plan.

    One important note: approval must come from the administrative level with authority over every department or resource involved in the solution. In the military this sometimes meant taking the final plan to a higher headquarters to request additional resources. If those resources weren’t approved, we returned to an earlier step—but with a far deeper understanding of the problem.

    And that’s the point. By this stage:

    • You’ve done a thorough analysis.
    • You’ve followed leadership guidance at every turn.
    • You’ve developed multiple COAs.
    • You’ve simulated at least one.

    So if you’re required to revisit an earlier step, you do so from a place of clarity, confidence, and shared understanding.

    Up Next: Execution and Communication

    Execution is its own discipline, and it’s an area where the military excels. It starts with clear, consistent communication to every person responsible for carrying out the plan.

    I’ll talk about communication—and how it applies to higher-ed operations—in the next few posts.

  • Why Military Planning Belongs in Higher Education: A Framework for Student Success

    OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

    From Convoy Missions to Campus Missions

    It’s been a long time since that photo was taken.  That’s me in the center with the gun truck crew I lead during a convoy support mission in Iraq in 2008.  I was assigned to the 126th Cavalry Squadron, Michigan Army National Guard. My primary role was as the Squadron Electronic Warfare Officer, responsible for supporting the squadron’s convoy mission by helping to prepare for and defeat the threat of radio controlled improvised explosive devices (RCIEDs) in the battle space.  But man did I like going on mission.  It gave me a more selfish sense of being in the fight, and a justifiable understanding of how the IED threat was playing out for our troopers.  Four years after this picture was taken in Iraq I found myself in Afghanistan in Kandahar province attached to a cavalry troop of the 126th providing intel support in their mission to stop the flow of improvised explosive material (homemade bomb explosives) from Pakistan to the city of Kandahar and beyond.

    Before and after both these deployments I had served in education.  I was a teacher and administrator in several parochial schools in the Kalamazoo area until 2020 when I took a job as Veteran Services Coordinator at Kalamazoo Valley Community College. Today I am still at Valley serving as the Director of Recruitment and Outreach.  Throughout my years as a teacher, advisor, coordinator, and administrator, I’ve leaned on lessons learned as a U.S. Army staff officer. For example, I’ve encouraged:

    • Methodical decision-making over impulsive reactions.
    • Clear courses of action based on available knowledge and data.
    • Timelines that prevent endless talk about a problem without ever finding a plan to address it.

    It’s my hope to codify these lessons—what Army procedures transfer most effectively into education—and share ideas for making community college structures work more efficiently.

    Mission and Intent

    In true Army fashion, I’ve given myself both a mission and a statement of intent:

    • Mission: Provide practical, military-inspired strategies that help colleges remove barriers, strengthen student pathways, and drive better outcomes during and after college.
    • Intent: Using data and personal experience, this blog will offer a roadmap to improve student development, engagement, and post-college success by giving college faculty, staff, and administrators a new way of looking at challenges—through the lens of military combat planning and operations.

    Why Community Colleges

    While these methodologies have value across education, corporations, and other organizations, my decision is to focus on the community college landscape. Community colleges are where I work, where I serve, and what I deeply believe in. They are also where structure, clarity, and intentional planning can have the biggest impact on students’ lives.

    Setting the Stage

    This is just the beginning. In future posts, I’ll break down specific Army frameworks—mission analysis, courses of action, operations orders—and show how they apply directly to student development and institutional effectiveness.

    If you work in higher education, I’d love to hear from you:

    • Where do you see decision-making get stuck on your campus?
    • Where could a new framework help move things forward?

    Thank you for being here—and welcome to the start of this campaign.