Do you specify a max length or encourage creative subject lines? And what about training your team on expectations? SITREPs could definitely be better. Thanks for writing!
I don't specify a length. In fact, I tell the team that if the answer is N/A or NSTR (we do every other week) to one or many of the framework questions for the reporting period, that is okay.
I don't encourage creative subject lines, but mostly because I hadn't thought of that until you asked that question (thanks Zach!).
The other thing I didn't discuss above is this question: if all of our touchpoints have the right information, do we need a SITREP? I didn't write about that, but with that question in mind, I understand that a SITREP in written form may only include things we didn't touch upon in meetings.
I treat them as part of a broader, flowing discussion/stream of information I use to make decisions. I think my team understands it isn't rigid, it is a guideline to enable them to provide information they think is relevant.
Great post! I think that your last sentences really hits the nail on the head: "We must shift our mindset from writing simply to report what happened, to writing to inform what will happen." I've written about this topic and our focus on the here and now instead of anticipating what will happen next (based upon my personal experiences in the Royal Netherlands Army) Curious to hear your take on this aspect. see: https://democura.substack.com/p/sharpening-our-military-command-part-4e7
I am in Mons, Belgium now so if you are in the Netherlands, perhaps we can work a whiteboard session to talk about creating conditions for predictive/forecasting environments v. Just capturing current info
Enjoyed this read. It cuts through the noise and organizes a SITREP approach that’s actually useful for command not just compliance.
Part of the problem started between 2008 and 2016, when SITREPs became performance art. We weren’t reporting, we were proving. Proving we were busy, proving the money was being well spent, proving that someone up the chain could brief a slide and feel good about it. More became more. And in the process, we started lying to ourselves.
We drifted from reporting what mattered to commanders and into a kind of self-soothing theater. By the time the report hit the brigade or division level, it was polished to the point of being pointless. That’s not command support, that’s command insulation.
The friction taught me this: if a SITREP doesn’t make the commander smarter or faster, it’s a waste of time. Worse, it’s a liability. We need reports that expose friction, not avoid it. That’s how leaders lead.
Thanks for doing the SITREP a way that works for you. As a CSM, I tire of reading how awesome things are in the SITREP, but then have CDRs and 1SGs outside my office asking for support for one problem or another. The SITREP needs to be assertive and paint a truthful picture. I have told my Troop Commanders more than once to write the SITREP like I am not laced into your daily operations or if this single pience of communication is the only way we will talk this week. Otherwise, why send a SITREP at all? Luckily, my Troop command teams work well together acorss the board and from the Troop to the Squadron, we work well to develop a product easily digestible by Brigade.
Spot on. It reminds me of the Sidney Dekker quote (paraphrased): too often we count what we can count, not what counts.
The problem is that we can only control so much before the next higher level that mandates a format (often by LOE or Priority) engulfs efforts at lower echelon since everything eventually must conform because the higher the level, the more a staff insists that the general said thos must be the format.
Do you specify a max length or encourage creative subject lines? And what about training your team on expectations? SITREPs could definitely be better. Thanks for writing!
I don't specify a length. In fact, I tell the team that if the answer is N/A or NSTR (we do every other week) to one or many of the framework questions for the reporting period, that is okay.
I don't encourage creative subject lines, but mostly because I hadn't thought of that until you asked that question (thanks Zach!).
The other thing I didn't discuss above is this question: if all of our touchpoints have the right information, do we need a SITREP? I didn't write about that, but with that question in mind, I understand that a SITREP in written form may only include things we didn't touch upon in meetings.
I treat them as part of a broader, flowing discussion/stream of information I use to make decisions. I think my team understands it isn't rigid, it is a guideline to enable them to provide information they think is relevant.
Great post! I think that your last sentences really hits the nail on the head: "We must shift our mindset from writing simply to report what happened, to writing to inform what will happen." I've written about this topic and our focus on the here and now instead of anticipating what will happen next (based upon my personal experiences in the Royal Netherlands Army) Curious to hear your take on this aspect. see: https://democura.substack.com/p/sharpening-our-military-command-part-4e7
We are in agreement. I wrote an article in 2023 (https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol15/iss4/9/) where I think I add some context to your argument.
I am in Mons, Belgium now so if you are in the Netherlands, perhaps we can work a whiteboard session to talk about creating conditions for predictive/forecasting environments v. Just capturing current info
Thanks for some inspiration on revamping reporting as I move into command!
Enjoyed this read. It cuts through the noise and organizes a SITREP approach that’s actually useful for command not just compliance.
Part of the problem started between 2008 and 2016, when SITREPs became performance art. We weren’t reporting, we were proving. Proving we were busy, proving the money was being well spent, proving that someone up the chain could brief a slide and feel good about it. More became more. And in the process, we started lying to ourselves.
We drifted from reporting what mattered to commanders and into a kind of self-soothing theater. By the time the report hit the brigade or division level, it was polished to the point of being pointless. That’s not command support, that’s command insulation.
The friction taught me this: if a SITREP doesn’t make the commander smarter or faster, it’s a waste of time. Worse, it’s a liability. We need reports that expose friction, not avoid it. That’s how leaders lead.
I’d be interested in your take on my platform!
Good point on the friction. I will check out your platform.
The majority of leaders understand SITREPs are too long and have lost value, but the tragedy of the commons continues to win out.
Thanks for doing the SITREP a way that works for you. As a CSM, I tire of reading how awesome things are in the SITREP, but then have CDRs and 1SGs outside my office asking for support for one problem or another. The SITREP needs to be assertive and paint a truthful picture. I have told my Troop Commanders more than once to write the SITREP like I am not laced into your daily operations or if this single pience of communication is the only way we will talk this week. Otherwise, why send a SITREP at all? Luckily, my Troop command teams work well together acorss the board and from the Troop to the Squadron, we work well to develop a product easily digestible by Brigade.
Spot on. It reminds me of the Sidney Dekker quote (paraphrased): too often we count what we can count, not what counts.
The problem is that we can only control so much before the next higher level that mandates a format (often by LOE or Priority) engulfs efforts at lower echelon since everything eventually must conform because the higher the level, the more a staff insists that the general said thos must be the format.
LTC Torrence I am a retired Army CSM and would like to have a brief conversion with you on this subject. Could you email me at: MarkG@Byrrdinc.com
Look forward to speaking with you in the near future.
Note sent