Pearl Harbor (#78)

The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii happened on December 7, 1941 — 79 years ago this week. In just just under two hours, Imperial Japanese aircraft sunk or damaged 21 American ships, killed 2,390 Americans, and wounded 1,178 Americans. “The day of infamy,” as President Franklin D. Roosevelt termed it, united the American people behind the war in one decisive blow. As we remember that fateful day, it is worthwhile to consider if there are any lessons from the attack that might resonate today? I believe that one timeless lesson is that the United States failed to establish a successful cross-functional team to defend the islands and the fleet.

The US Navy moved its Pacific Fleet fromCalifornia to Hawaii in the spring of 1940. Although war with Japan seemed imminent in 1941, the United States didn’t know when, where, or how the attack would fall. Thus, the US military had to defend all of its territories across the Pacific—the Philippines, Guam, Wake Island, the Aleutian Islands, Midway, and Hawaii—against air attacks, submarine attacks, surface ship attacks, amphibious invasion, and sabotage. Even though an attack on Pearl Harbor was part of every Army-Navy war game in the 1930s, a flawed cross-functional team in Hawaii enabled the Japanese achieve surprise on Sunday, December 7, 1941.

In mid-1941, General George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the US Army wrote, “The Island of Oahu due to its fortifications, its garrison, and its physical characteristics, is believed to be the strongest fortress in the world.” And on paper, it was quite formidable. The US Army’s 35,000 soldiers, 127 coastal defense guns, 211 anti-aircraft weapons, and thousands of artillery pieces, as well as the US Army Air Corps’ twelve B-17s, thirty-five medium bombers, thirteen light bombers, and over 150 fighters, were the bedrock of the defense. Plus, the US Navy’s eight battleships, eight cruisers, thirty destroyers, and four submarines patrolled the waters surrounding the islands and could conduct a counterattack against an enemy fleet.

Today, a cross-functional team is defined as a group consisting of people with different areas of functional expertise working toward a common goal. Although cross-functional teams are used routinely by both corporations and the military, a recent Harvard Business Review study found that 75 percent of the teams were dysfunctional and failed to meet their objectives. Nevertheless, there are four key requirements for cross-functional team success: Every team should have an accountable leader; each project should have clearly defined goals and deadlines; the team needs to possess horizontal alignment; and the project needs to be regularly re-evaluated.

The defense of Pearl Harbor lacked a clearly defined, accountable leader. Admiral Husband Kimmel, the commander of the US Navy’s Pacific Fleet, and Lieutenant General Walter Short, the commander of the US Army’s Hawaiian Department, were friends who even shared a bi-weekly golf game. Both were encouraged to work together, and they did. But, without an overall leader, the US Army focused on the threat of sabotage to its airplanes, ran its radar only several hours per day, and didn’t keep ammunition near the anti-aircraft guns. On the other hand, the US Navy prepared for a submarine attack on the fleet, conducted limited aerial patrols, and only put a limited amount of the fleet out to sea on patrols.

The defense of Pearl Harbor lacked a well-defined mission The Army was tasked to defend the Pacific Fleet, the port of Pearl Harbor, and the island of Oahu with its planes, anti-aircraft guns, and soldiers, but in their hearts, Army leaders believed the Navy was going to defend the fleet through aerial, submarine, and surface reconnaissance and engagements with a Japanese task force. The Navy was tasked to fight the fleet, but put misplaced hope upon the Army to help them identify an attacking force through the B-17 patrols and radar. Both services neglected any long-range reconnaissance that might have identified an approaching force. A clear purpose and end state would have helped both services perform better. To get ideas on how to write a great purpose and end state, check out Post #25 and Post #53.

The US Army and Navy intelligence services broke the Japanese diplomatic code between Tokyo and its embassies and consulates in August 1940. The top-secret intelligence derived from reading the transmissions was code named MAGIC. However, it was so classified, only two dozen people in the government had access to the intelligence. Kimmel and Short did not have access to MAGIC; they received only opaque summaries of the intelligence from Washington, DC. Throughout 1941 the Army and Navy sent MAGIC based warnings to the forces on Hawaii and across the Pacific about the possibility of a Japanese attack.

Rather than focus on the big picture, Lieutenant General Short concentrated on the details such as preparing for a sabotage attack, not committing the first act, and not alarming the local population. Similar to Short, Kimmel mis-interpreted this as a message to prepare for a submarine attack and patrol between Hawaii and Midway. The Army categorized their defense preparations in a scale from 1 to 3, while the Navy categorized their defense preparations from 3 to 1. lack of horizontal alignment between the two commanders and their forces helped the Japanese Navy move to within striking distance of Oahu.

A clear leader, mission, and better horizontal alignment could have forged a stronger cross-functional team that might have enabled the US Army and US Navy in Hawaii to be better prepared in the days leading up to the attack. To avoid the problems like the US Army and Navy had at Pearl Harbor in 1941, go on the offense and examine your cross-functional teams. Make sure they have a clear leader, goals, and a schedule of updates in 2021.

USS Arizona Memorial, Hawaii