It is a common but often dreaded phenomenon:  comprehensive redirection of a broad and diverse organization in a time-constrained environment.  Embracing change has become an essential aspect of success for most organizations operating today.  Whether it is needed quickly to avert a crisis or more commonly to redirect an organization after a change in management or operating conditions, change remains a challenge.  

            For those in uniform in general and the U.S. Army, in particular, preparing for and managing change is a principle imbued in leaders literally from their first day in military service.  One of the key and defining aspects of the Thayer Leader Development Group (TLDG) is its relentless pursuit of promoting good leadership, both at the individual and collective level.  It is only natural therefore that TLDG draws heavily from leadership instruction used at West Point and throughout the US Army.  As TLDG and its clients recognize, putting theory into practice is what differentiates the good from the great.

            As a faculty member with TLDG, I would like to share aspects of my most significant experience “leading change.”  It occurred when I was a new battalion commander preparing for a lengthy combat deployment to Iraq.  Although I was an experienced Army officer and had served in various leadership roles during my Army career, I found myself confronting a leadership and management situation unlike any I had ever experienced.  The thrill and excitement of being selected for command – at the time it meant being in charge of a tank battalion equipped with 44 tanks, many dozens of other vehicles, and close to 500 soldiers – was tempered with the knowledge I would be leading my team into combat.  Preparing for extended combat operations in Iraq was clearly a significant challenge in itself, but an added requirement I discovered shortly before my assumption of command raised the stakes considerably.  My organization would fundamentally transform from a tank-based organization into a combined arms team nearly double its original size and vastly more complex consisting of 925 soldiers, 30 main battle tanks, 30 infantry fighting vehicles, and many dozens of armored vehicles and ancillary equipment.

            The magnitude of the reorganization was enormous while the time available was short – less than 5 months.  Within this short amount of time, I needed to accomplish a myriad of missions simultaneously.  Most pressing, of course, was preparing every soldier for combat.  This mission in itself is always daunting.  Now, however, my original organization had four subordinate teams (companies), four of which were identical (tank companies) and a larger team (headquarters company) that provided the staff and logistical coordination would instead become seven companies of a diverse nature while never losing sight of the primary mission of readying my team for combat operations.  The solution would be leadership.

            Although most of my experience with leadership has been in the context of my military career, I am convinced that leadership is a fundamental aspect of the human condition.  No matter the endeavor or the career field, organizations with good leaders and a positive leadership climate thrive while those without a solid culture of good leadership are doomed to decline and ultimate failure.  Knowing that everyone on my reorganized team – those who had been part of the previous organization and those who joined from other organizations – all had the potential to view the new situation as degradation in status.  Non-tankers would now outnumber tankers, who had previously been the main members of the team.  Similarly, Infantrymen, Engineers, and Logisticians would be assigned to an alien organization led by one who was not one of their own.  Each had the potential to view their new assignment as a loss of prestige.  In addition to the individual perspectives was the great problem of creating a smoothly functioning team of greater size and complexity.

            Space here does not allow an in-depth discussion of the specific techniques I employed, but my general approach was to focus on leader development.  When issuing guidance or seeking commitment from subordinates, a leader is always well advised to ask, “If I were on the receiving end of this request or guidance, how would it sound to me?”  Although such an approach is similar to the Golden Rule, it is not quite the same thing, because in this case, there was a specified outcome:  reorganization and combat readiness.  Good leaders must understand the human condition; they must listen as well as direct; and they must strive to understand those above, alongside, and below.  These attributes must be in addition to mastery of the science of the profession.

            At all times, I sought the inclusion of new and old team members for training and social events.  Fair recognition and focus on our team with our larger purpose guided every public statement I made or any training event I scheduled or approved.  The end result was a cohesive team that prevailed during a lengthy, arduous, and often-deadly deployment.  The experience vindicated my approach to preparation.  It gives me great satisfaction to be able to share these experiences through my work with TLDG.

In the military it is an essential job requirement to stay in good physical condition. As matter of fact, it is “sine qua non” to leadership effectiveness. Soldiers expect you to be able to “hang” with them physically and will be unforgiving if you cannot.  In my experience, however, this essential job requirement has not always been the case.  In 1976 when I entered the Army, there was little if any emphasis placed on physical training (PT).  When we did PT, it was usually comprised of some simple calisthenics, the daily dozen, followed by a run at a fairly slow pace, called the airborne shuffle.  It was ugly, painful, and often done in combat boots.  Fortunately, over the years, greater and greater emphasis has been placed on PT.  It is not uncommon to hear soldiers referred not as just fit, but as athletes, even elite athletes.

During a recent visit to Fort Bragg, I learned about the Army’s Special Operation Forces Tactical Human Optimization Rapid Rehabilitation Reconditioning Program (THOR3).  It is a program specifically designed for soldiers in special operations units, our elite athletes.  For sure, the primary goal is to increase combat effectiveness, but as important, being fit reduces manpower loss due to injury and disease and reduces lost training time as the result of injury.  These soldiers have direct access to certified strength and conditioning specialists, physical therapists, and performance dietitians.  When they deploy, they take basic strength training and fitness equipment so they can sustain their fitness workout in remote sites.  Once they arrive they communicate with a coach at Fort Bragg who tailors their workouts based on all of the available equipment.

While emphasis is placed on PT in the Army, there are times when it can be a challenge to work out.  When I was the Master of the Sword (Director and Head of the Department of Physical Education at West Point), I had a lot of meetings; matter of fact, it seemed my day was often one long meeting.  It was often difficult to find the time to workout, but I made it a priority; my job required that I do.  Not only was exercise important to me physically and to my overall well being, it was important for my staff and faculty and especially the cadets to see me working out, setting the example, in the fitness center or just running around post. I know that I was a better leader, a better soldier and a better person because I was in good physical condition.

The benefits of regular physical training are well documented.  Physical fitness is linked to all other types of wellbeing.  The bottom line is if you work out, you feel good, and if you feel good, you will do well in most aspects of work and life.   However, it is not unusual to see individuals in high-level positions in business and industry who are overweight and significantly out of shape.  The demands of these positions can be extremely time consuming, and staying physically fit can quickly get squeezed out of one’s to do list.  Add to that the global nature of business and ubiquitous nature of technology with the expectation that one is available 24/7, makes it difficult to fit in a workout into an already busy day.  So, are these individuals really fit to lead?  Are they the very best that they can be for their employees, their business, and their families?  Frankly, it seems pretty clear; the answer is no!

The major difference between the military and business is that physical fitness is a part of the military culture.  Being in great physical condition is valued and respected; it is badge of honor.  Matter of fact, the Army provides a patch that can be worn on one’s fitness uniform, for those who achieve high fitness standards.  So, if you are a leader in business and want to create a culture of fitness it begins with you. 

So, what to do? If you are out of shape, the idea of getting in shape can be daunting.  Even the strongest of New Year’s resolutions to get into shape do not often survive the harsh reality of life.  Six weeks into the New Year, life has taken over and that shiny new treadmill has quickly become an expensive clothes rack.

OK, all is not lost; there is hope if you are able to make a few commitments to self.  Here are the principles of exercise that you may find helpful when thinking about and planning a fitness regimen:

• Progression – systematic increase in workload.  For muscular strength you must increase in weight or repetitions.  For cardio, increase intensity by distance or duration.
• Regularity – regularly scheduled training sessions.
• Overload – you must stress your systems, increase the amount of work you place on the systems.  Example, if you are training to run a mile, then you must run farther than a mile.
• Variety – participate in different activities; vary your routine, this will help prevent boredom.
• Rest – the body must rest in order to heal itself.  When weightlifting, it is recommended that following a session you should rest 48 hours before the next session.  This doesn’t mean you take a nap!
• Realism – don’t do too much too soon, this often hampers progress and adherence to an exercise program.
• Balance – you must work all of the systems, cardio, muscular strength, muscular endurance and flexibility.
• Specificity – if you are going to run a road race, then you must be running; if you are going to be tested on certain events for example the push-up or sit-up you, must train for these events.

Set a goal for yourself; it might be as simple as taking the stairs instead of riding the elevator. Get a Fitbit® (or other fitness monitoring device), it will help you keep track of the number of steps you take, flights of stairs climbed, and get immediate, positive feedback on your progress.  Very often when getting into shape, folks try to do too much all at once in diet and exercise; it becomes overwhelming, especially if you haven’t done anything physical for a while.  Don’t underestimate the value of small, simple changes.

As a result of the culture of physical fitness in the military, soldiers are fit to fight.  Questions you need to ask yourself.  Are overweight?  Are you getting quality sleep?  Are you eating well?  Are you exercising on a regular basis?  If you answered “no” to these questions, are you the best leader you can be?  Are you fit to lead? If not, put that donut down, get up, and get moving!

It is quite common to view military leadership through a much broader lens and ascribe its characteristics and principles to business.  It’s also a good idea; it seems to work. 

The “missions” of business are not dissimilar from the military…defining the purpose, describing the necessary tasks, designing the organization, building the team, and achieving open and precise communications.  The risks are similar as well.  Sadly but inevitably, soldiers may die in combat and their units may suffer loss; nothing in life is more tragic or permanent.  Similarly, a business may fail and drag its employees down with it.  Certainly, this does not place anyone at physical risk, but a negative outcome in business is personally damaging and the effects lasting. 

The art of war has been practiced and studied for millennia.  Not unlike other theoretical fields of study or practical professions, the art of war is rooted in a doctrine, a set of principles. 

The Principles of War, codified by Carl Von Clausewitz, a Prussian who fought in the Russian Army in the early 19^th century against Napoleon, guides our study of warfare and military leadership in war today.  By comparison, Peter Drucker, the brilliant and prolific (over 25 books) author who studied and established the guiding principles of business, shares many of Clausewitz’s views. 

What Clausewitz did for the study of war, Drucker did for business.  Military and business leadership arguably are two sides of the same coin.    

There are nine Principles of War.  They are objective, offensive, mass, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security, surprise, and simplicity.  Below is a brief description and a crosswalk of each principle of war to business; it’s not surprising to see the similarities and overlap.  

1.  Objective – This is the ultimate purpose of war, to destroy the enemy's ability and will to fight, by directing every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable end.

No business has ever emerged from infancy of a notion to realization of growth without a clear and decisive statement of purpose.  An example: Amazon's vision is to be “earth's most customer centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online."

2.  Offensive – Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative. Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results.

Offensive demands disruption.  You should be first to market by establishing the bar.  Of course, you’d prefer to have market share and defend against the newcomers than try to break in with possibly nothing more than a knock off.  If you want to own the high ground, take it.  You should want to be there first.

3.  Mass – By synchronizing the effects of overwhelming combat power, rather than concentrating forces, at the decisive place and time, a numerically inferior force can achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire.  

4.  Economy of Force – This is the opposite of mass.  Economy of force is the realization that one must employ all combat power in the most effective and judicious way possible. Every part of the force must have purpose.

Mass and economy of force – These two principles keep us in balance.  You must focus on what supports and advances the core delivery and get behind that effort with every resource.  Simultaneously, you must be mindful of exposure that this priority effort requires.  Where are you most weak when strong elsewhere?  Answer that question to identify and mitigate risk.

5.  Maneuver – Maneuver is the deliberate movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain an advantage.  It is used to exploit your successes and to preserve your freedom of action.  Maneuver is a demonstration of initiative.

If you’re stagnant in business, you’re irrelevant, at risk, and ultimately dead. Stay focused on the core of your business and invest (maneuver) to new markets and new revenue channels.  Think disruption but don’t grab at every shiny object.  Have a plan to get to where you are not.

6.  Unity of Command – For every objective, you must seek unity of command and unity of effort.  Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander.  

There’s always someone who’s in charge.  However, in companies with a matrix design of teaming to attack opportunities, leadership often is never declared or, more importantly, resourced.  Set your teams up for success and clearly establish the authority and responsibility lines at the beginning.  Remove any doubt about who’s in charge.

7.  Security – You should never permit the enemy to acquire unexpected advantage.  Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise.  Security results from knowledge of your enemy and solid planning.

8.  Surprise – You must strike the enemy at a time, place, and manner for which he or she is unprepared. Surprise can decisively shift the balance of combat power and momentum.

Security and surprise – Protect your organization from competitors and yourself.  If you can accomplish that, you’ll never be completely surprised.  The best security is a greater understanding of the market environment and competitors.  Mostly, competitors (your enemy) are outside your organization; however, increasingly and troubling, your worst enemy may be “inside the wire” in the form of an insider threat. Have a program to monitor the environment and yourself.  If you know yourself and the environment, you’ll win.  At the end of the day, it is about winning.

9.  Simplicity – Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure their understanding. Everything in war is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult. Other factors being equal, parsimony is to be preferred.

We know the KISS rule…keep it simple silly.   Possibly a less insulting description is to use Occam’s Razor, the principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness.  Among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  Of course!  In everything in life, never deviate from this rule.  From Steve Jobs: “That’s been one of my mantras — focus and simplicity. Simple can be harder than complex.  You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple.  But it’s worth it in the end. because once you get there, you can move mountains.”

The basics of leadership are to influence a team to get the job done by providing purpose, direction, and motivation.  It’s fair to say that when the principles of war are applied to business, successful outcomes are more likely. 

Additionally, you’ll evolve an organization that knows its people and promotes their welfare, develops leadership, demands openness in communications, trains its members, and grows as a team.  There can be no better outcome.  We would say Clausewitz and Drucker would agree. 

As civilian commercial enterprises and the military increasingly collaborate on discussions of corporate leadership, I have had the opportunity in retirement to join those discussions among a wide variety of business, academic, leader development program, and military venues. While the “mission” objectives may differ – from defeating an adversary to making a financial profit, it is encouraging to see that the private sector is welcoming tactical (the plant) to strategic (the enterprise) leadership thoughts from the military.

 
That said, I have recently been privileged to speak at the Thayer Leader Development Program, an incredibly rich experience at looking internally at organizational leadership for a wide range of business interests, conducted in the inspirational setting of West Point. My message is simply that, although we are products of different “tribal” cultures, leadership always centers on interpersonal skills and the hard work to share a common vision, professional values, and healthy climate amongpeople.

 
We are a product of our own experiences, education, and self-development. A long time ago, I was inculcated with leadership principles called the “4 C’s” -- competency, commitment, courage, and candor --which I still argue are the right basic leader values from initial leadership roles to senior positions of authority. Competency: being operationally and technically skilled at what the organization does. As one progresses up the leader chain in any organization, competency evolves, and how the whole “system” operates becomes more important than hands-on technical knowledge, but the competency gained early on enables the senior leader to have that respect whenever he or she is on the plant floor. Commitment: placing heart and soul into the enterprise, and most importantly, its people. The cautionary note, however, is to keep one’s life in balance (family, personal interests); not running the organization ragged all factor into commitment. Courage: the intellectual and moral courage, much more so than physical courage, to simply take the “hard right over the easy wrong.” Finally, Candor: always articulating what you, the leader, believe to be truthful. This leadership skill becomes harder and harder the more senior a leader becomes, but at the end of the day, you must be able to look into the mirror and respect what you see.

 
I add a fifth “C” as leaders become senior in the organization, the idea ofConsistency: projecting consistent leadership, values, and vision even when bad things happen or ambiguity, uncertainty, and friction seem to be the order of the day. People want to see consistency from their leadership – mutual trust and loyalty are the by-products.

 
One could easily add several other ingredients to this leadership recipe – patience, listening skills, empathy to name a few – but the “4 C’s plus 1” foundation works in any environment where leadership is needed. It’s not “rocket science,” but rather people skills that count!

Leadership is the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization. 

US Army Field Manual 6-22

The definition of leadership above is my favorite because of the inclusion of the last few words… “improve the organization,” a very important aspect of the way the US Army does business.  It is not enough to simply influence followers to accomplish a mission, true leadership includes improving the organization.  With the launch of Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) effort in 2008 and the extension to Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness (CSF2) in 2012, the Army has indeed endeavored to improve the organization by improving the resilience and wellbeing of its workforce and their families. 

The Army launched this effort after nearly a decade of persistent conflict.  The wear and tear from the stress of combat deployments and an extremely high operating tempo was evident across the force.  Soldiers and their families were suffering and something needed to be done.  While remaining committed to assisting soldiers who suffered from the traumas of combat, the Army embarked on the CSF campaign as a preventative training program designed to better prepare its people for the challenges that lie ahead (Casey, 2011).  This comprehensive and holistic program identifies five dimensions of fitness each of which needs to be tended to and developed if a person is to be psychologically fit and resilient: family, social, spiritual, emotional and physical. (Army, 2013)  We can all learn from this Army initiative.

Family and social fitness are important, because as humans, we are social beings and have a need to be connected to others.  In his book, Living a Life that Matters, Harold Kushner shares from his experience as a rabbi that a major concern for people at the end of their life is not the question of whether they made enough money or if they were successful but rather if they were significant to other people.  Quite simply, mattering to other people matters to us (Kushner, 2001).  Being connected to family that both support us and rely on us makes us matter to others and gives us the strength and motivation to work through challenges.  Likewise, having friends who we can count on and share our experiences with helps to buffer the impact of the day-to-day adversities we encounter.  Having strong social networks and others that matter to us helps tremendously when we face moments of uncertainty and challenge. Knowing that someone has our back gives us the strength to attempt difficult tasks.   These relationships are critical but take time and effort to cultivate and nourish.   Investing the time to work on communication and engagement skills to strengthen these relationships can reap huge dividends.

Spiritual fitness, or having a strong sense of life purpose, helps us to carry on during difficult times, find meaning in our experiences, and persevere when the challenges are tough.  People with strong spirit are better able to accept the temporary setbacks that come with trauma and adversity.  Not only do they have a strong sense of their own purpose and place in the world, they acknowledge and respect the influence of others in the development of their spirit and value the purpose of others.  They are better able to analyze situations and find meaning in the challenges they face (Pargament & Sweeney, 2011).

Physical fitness keeps our body and mind sharp.  Being physically fit requires aerobic exercise, strength and endurance training,  as well as eating well and getting quality sleep.  Getting away from your desk, challenging your heart, and taking in some fresh air can help you face challenges and gain new perspectives on what seems like the same old issue.  Being in good physical condition gives us the stamina to work through daily challenges, the reserves we need when called upon to go the extra mile and face adversity. 

While physical fitness helps us insure our bodies are strong and flexible, emotional fitness does the same for our minds.  Key components of emotional fitness are resilience, self-awareness, optimism, and positivity.  In the same way we keep our bodies fit through weight training and stretching, leaders can engage in mental exercise and training to strengthen and add flexibility to their thought processes in order to be more in control of their emotions.  Being aware of, and able to, regulate your emotions allows you to think more clearly and face adversities.  The ways we think about significant (or sometimes insignificant) life events often cause us to respond inappropriately with emotions and actions that wear away at our resilience.  Developing accurate, optimistic, and positive thinking processes can help us see adversities as challenges to be met, and learned from, rather than as obstacles or derailments.  

So I ask you, how fit are you and the members of your organization?  Are they optimistic and emotionally resilient?  Do they rebound from setbacks and use those experiences to spring forward?  As their leader, how dedicated are you to fostering and facilitating growth in these areas?  Do you encourage participation in family and social activities?  Do you provide white space where your people can take the time to reflect on what is important to them and how they can best achieve their personal and professional goals? Do you offer a gym membership? Do you actively train in these areas?

There is good evidence that leaders and workers who are holistically fit are happier, more productive and just plain more pleasant to be around.  Each of these dimensions of fitness can be cultivated and strengthened but each also require practice and attention.  Leading the way and demonstrating that these are important to you might well be the best gift that you can give your organization this holiday season.  

References

Army, U. S. (2013, December 02). Five Dimensions. Retrieved from Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness: http://csf2.army.mil/fivedimensions.html

Casey, G. W. (2011). Comprehensive Soldier Fitness: A Vision for Psychological resilience in the U. S. Army. American Psychologist Special Issue: Comprehensive Soldier Fitness, 1-3.

Kushner, H. S. (2001). Living a Life That matters. New York: Anchor Books.

Pargament, K. I., & Sweeney, P. J. (2011). Building Spiritual Fitness in the Army. American Psychologist, Vol. 66, No.1 58-64.

                                                                                                                        “I just need a good crisis”

I was recently working with a global, cross-functional team leader for a large client; they had just downsized, changed out critical team members, and were seeking ideas on how to rapidly build the team.  The leader told me, “I just need a good crisis to catalyze and rapidly build my new team.”  Of course, a crisis for your client is a risk-filled methodology to build a new team, but the idea is right on the mark.  The pressure and intensity of a crisis create the heat required to meld a new team by providing: mission focus, clear purpose, rapid planning, and decisive communication in a high-pressure, must-succeed environment, which moves a new team rapidly through the form-storm-norm-perform process.   Rapidly getting to know your team, their strengths and weakness, developing disciplined and rigorous processes, and communicating effectively your objectives and a common shared vision of the end-state are the positive by-products of a crisis situation.  Wouldn’t it be nice to get in front of this and have your team running on all cylinders with a high degree of trust and a clear understanding of the individual and collective capabilities of the team?

        
                                 “On the fields of friendly strife are sown the seed that on other days on other fields will bear the  fruits of victory”
                                                                                                         General of the Army Douglas MacArthur

In the Army, we change our leadership and teams on a routine schedule and must rapidly build teams ready to fight the nation’s wars with no warning.  In the Ranger Regiment in the early 2000s, we used an exercise known as Mangudai, named for a test of Mongol warriors.  It was a 3-day endurance event for all the Captains in the Regiment.  Some 35 or more Captains would be stressed by lack of sleep and food deprivation while planning and executing back-to-back operations over long distances in the field.  In between events, participants would take psychological and intelligence test batteries and execute peer ratings on their fellow Captains.  Across the Regiment’s three geographically dispersed battalions, this forced the development of relationships in a stressful environment with leadership and duty position changes.  At the end of the exercise, we had a super supper and conducted after action reviews of the event.  Each Captain knew his peers across the Regiment; each other’s strengths and weaknesses; and built a foundation of trust, which served them well in future combat operations.  The exercise reinforced disciplined processes and provided the leadership of the Regiment, who were present and participating, with great insights into its leaders and their level of readiness for company command.

We often have the luxury of training and creating high-intensity environments to build the team, but when time is constrained, we also teach team building and leadership through an exercise called the Leader’s Reaction Course (LRC).  While not an athletic competition, it is a “field of friendly strife”, providing an alternate venue to provide a pressurized learning and team building environment.  Activities like the LRC take leaders and teams and put them in an unfamiliar environment, out of their normal roles on the team, and present them with a series of problem-solving events in the form of obstacles to negotiate.  Each obstacle has a scenario and requires the entire team to negotiate the obstacle and complete the task to be successful.  Leadership rotates among the various obstacles to give each team member the opportunity to lead, follow, and observe.  Teams rapidly go through the form-storm-norm-perform sequence and, after multiple iterations, learn each other’s strengths and weaknesses through applied problem solving in a time-pressured event.  Each obstacle provides an opportunity for hasty planning, white-boarding solutions, communicating a hasty plan, defining the end state, assigning roles and responsibilities to the team, time management, executing the plan, and adjusting the plan throughout execution.  Key leadership themes emphasized are: think then act, communicate precisely, use intent to empower, leverage team member strengths, mutual dependence and trust, maintain a learning orientation, leadership at the decisive point, and unity of command--one leader making the decisions. 

                          
                                                                                                                  Leadership from the Ledge

The obstacles in the LRC present some great lessons learned on a small scale, which are timeless.  Many military and corporate teams are made of high-performing, type-A personalities who want to get things done fast.  Almost universally, the lesson learned on the first obstacle is “think first then act”.  Pressurized by a new situation and short time to solve the challenge, there is a tendency to start acting and talk on the move, rather than to develop a hasty plan, communicate the plan, rehearse the plan (whiteboard or sand table) to leverage the entire team’s input, and ensure understanding of the plan.  This inevitably leads to the majority of team members on the obstacle in some precarious situation trying to think through and solve the problem using what I call “leadership from the ledge”, a more risky style. Once the team and leaders realize they cannot achieve success, they bring the team off the obstacle and restart with far less time available to achieve the task. 

This lesson is amplified in the learning portion of the event—the After Action Review (AAR)—that is conducted after each obstacle and is where the team reviews their performance.  Teams focus on: what did we say we were going to do (the plan), what did we actually do, what caused the deviation, what did we learn, and what do we need to improve prior to the next obstacle.  A series of 6 or more obstacles in a 3-4 hour period will develop trust among the team; enhance planning, communication, and learning skills for the team; and most importantly, enhance existing processes or set the team on a course to realization that disciplined processes and trust are critical to high-performance teams. 

In combat, we are often presented with unplanned contingencies.  In Afghanistan on the initial raid into Mullah Omar’s compound in Helmand Province, we had a helicopter strike the wall and separate the landing gear creating a hydraulic leak.  The flight commander’s initial decision was to continue to fly and keep the formation together for the long flight with risk of hydraulic failure.  Back at the Operations Center with a full staff using a disciplined yet hasty-planning process, we found a shorter route and tactical plan, which reduced risk and provided redundant rescue capability.  The disciplined planning process produced a better option than a fully engaged Commander, who was in the middle of a combat operation, could create on the fly.  It also leveraged the talent of the whole team rather than a single leader under pressure.  We, too, conducted an AAR and added the lessons learned in the form of a new contingency plan to our operating procedures.   

                                                                                                                 Finding the Time to Build the Team

On any given day, the schedule is full beyond measure for most corporate teams; most agree team building and leader development are important, but the chorus is often:  “where do I find the time and place to train, it’s too hard”. My military experience tells me you cannot skip any phase of the form-storm-norm-perform process required to build high-performance teams.  Knowing teammates, interacting with them, and building relationships are the keys to developing and enhancing trust.  This cannot be done from behind a desk or behind our daily corporate or team roles and relationships.  Great teams work on team building and many, like the Army, invest in team development.  Trust is the accelerant to agile organizations; commitment to teammates is a critical benefit of a team building exercise like the LRC. A few hours together in a non-work, unfamiliar environment like the LRC with a 2-hour team building session following that extracts commitments from team members to the team and charts the teams way forward; it is a single day away from the office with high payoff. I strongly encourage all organizations to get in front of the next crisis--build the new team before they are tested. Simple solutions like a Leader’s Reaction Course combine leader development, team building, and skill development in an outdoor fun setting.  Add a little competition with multiple teams competing, and you intensify the opportunity for development. Team building and leader development can be a simple, inexpensive investment for your organization and fun.  Put it on your team’s calendar and have fun being all you can be!

What does thinking have to do with leadership or being a good leader?  I would argue it is has a great deal and could make the difference between being below average, mediocre, or great.  It seems intuitive that people would be better at doing something they think more about than those things they don’t think about.

A quick story - a senior cadet at West Point was caught having plagiarized a large portion of a paper.  After being caught, the cadet lied about it.  The cadet’s punishment included being enrolled in West Point’s Honor Mentorship Program – a 6-month intensive one-on-one mentoring session with a faculty member (to include many hours of journaling, research, and conversations).  During one of mentoring sessions, the cadet, clearly frustrated and exacerbated, exclaimed, “I just wasn’t thinking, I acted without thinking!” 

            Was this cadet’s, a future leader in our military, lack or absence of thinking (“I just acted without thinking”) in this specific context surprising?  I don’t think so.  Individuals think about things that are important to them and things in which they are interested.  Coaches’ jobs are to win games; therefore, they spend the vast majority of their time thinking about how to win games and gain competitive advantages.  This makes perfect sense and appears to be common sense.  Politicians think about how best to serve their constituents while still getting reelected.  CEOs think about serving their customers and stakeholders with their best products and services while striving to make a profit.  Writers think about writing books and articles that will be interesting and sell.  Photographers think about taking the best pictures they can.  Chefs think about making delicious meals.  This list can go on and on.  What do leaders think about?!  What should they think about?

It seems intuitive that people in general would focus on what is important to them – work, winning games, information technology, money, intelligence gathering, relationships, cars, food, clothes, etc.  Interestingly, how many people who are in leadership positions really think about:

- their role as leaders

- their responsibilities as leaders

- their leadership style

- if and when they should alter that style (situational leadership)

- who they are leading; what is unique about each of their followers

- the effect of their leadership on their followers

- the effect of their leadership the organization’s culture and climate

- the effect of their leadership on the ethical climate in their organization

- what areas of their leadership they need to improve/change

And if leaders do think about such things, how often do they do it?  Does any of this thinking result in a changed way of thinking, leading, or some behavioral change?

To parlay this line of discussion, two popular and historical psychological studies, the Stanford Prison Study[i] and the Milgram Experiment[ii]  suggested that individuals can get so psychologically and/or emotionally caught up in whatever it is they are doing that ethical thinking does not seem to prevail or guide behavior.  The aberrant behavior of a few members of U.S. military at the Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq war appears to be a real-world example of the Stanford Prison Study and an example of a lack of ethical thinking.  And clearly many of the perpetrators of the Holocaust during World War II were not ethically thinking.  The story and trial of Adolf Eichmann[iii], a key player in the death of many Jewish civilians during the Holocaust, is a classic example and reminder of how evil some individuals can act by not thinking ethically.

Although these examples have to do with thinking ethically (clearly a requirement for leaders), they point to the need for leaders to be conscious of their own thinking (meta-cognition).  The research suggests that leaders who don’t think about what they are thinking about are less likely to be ethically sensitive – and thus act ethically or set an ethical organizational culture.

Nathanial Braden discusses a lack of thinking or non-thinking (or mindlessness) by noting that “one of the ways we avoid taking responsibility for our actions when doing something we are not proud of or will be ashamed of later is to blank out awareness, in the moment of action, that it is we who are doing what we are doing”.[iv]  It is important to note that mindlessness does not mean a leader’s brain is not functioning – it means a leader task is being performed without the leader thinking about it (this is more common than we may think).  For example, leaders can drive their cars while thinking about their kids’ upcoming soccer game or what movie they are going to see that night.  A leader can be sitting in on an important meeting while daydreaming about an upcoming vacation.  How often have we caught ourselves daydreaming or saying “what was I thinking?”

             Developing or increasing the self-awareness of leaders can and should increase their ability to be cognizant of their thinking. Self-awareness is an individual’s ability to monitor and control his or her thoughts, feelings, and emotions.  A highly self-aware leader intentionally and habitually thinks about, and is conscious of, what they are thinking, feeling, and doing and why they are feeling that way, thinking that way, and doing what they are doing.  Examples of what this looks and sounds like for leaders could include:

1. What am I thinking about right now, and why am I thinking about that?

2. Should I be thinking about something else right now? 

3. Are there other ways to think about what I am thinking about?

4. What am I feeling right now, and why am I feeling that way?  Is this feeling an overreaction to something or an appropriate reaction?

5. Am I treating this subordinate the way he or she should be treated?

This type of thinking about one’s thinking is not a dogmatic, laborious, and time-consuming effort.  With practice, addressing questions on one’s thinking can occur in seconds.  

            Improving on one’s self-awareness will help leaders more actively think about their thinking.  Being self-aware is a conscious choice - it does not just happen.  People are not born being self-aware.  It is an acquired skill that can be taught, practiced, and developed.  Importantly, the self-aware leader will be more likely to think ethically or to at least be more ethically sensitive as they focus on their thinking.  Does being more self-aware guarantee more ethical thinking?  No. But leaders who practice thinking about the how and why of their thinking are more apt to be open-minded and see ethical issues to which they would have been blind before.  Branden succinctly summarizes the freedom of choice all individuals, leaders and followers, have in terms of their own thinking:

1.  We are free to focus our mind, or not to bother, or to actively avoid focusing.

2.  We are free to think, or not to bother, or to actively avoid thinking.

3.  We are free to strive for greater clarity with regard to some issue confronting us, or not to bother, or to actively seek darkness.

4.  We are free to examine unpleasant facts or to evade them[v]

            To summarize, thinking, and thinking about one’s thinking, is not often thought of as a leader trait or requirement.  Thinking about one’s thinking does not come naturally for most people.  It is common for leaders to think in ways that support their specific needs (as opposed to the needs of a subordinate), the accomplishment of a specific task, or whether they will be transactional (as opposed to transformational) in their thinking – and, thusly, their actions.  As such, the challenge for leaders, who want to be the best they can be, is to improve their self-awareness and, thusly, their thinking.

Leadership 101:  five lessons for emerging leaders

Leadership is an essential part of any organization’s critical elements for success. Whether your organization is military, law enforcement, media, business (public or private), local government, or a small, but challenged new startup business, leadership matters!  There are several different ways to gain that critical leadership skill set.  The U.S. Army sends its leaders to formal schooling, at different milestones, until they are mid-level general officers; the schools span from months to a year and are necessary to prepare the officer for increasing levels of responsibility.  The U.S. State Department has a different view--in addition to language training, an aspiring Foreign Service Officer will experience a blend of on-the-job training, repeated assignments to similar areas, continuous assignments, and mentoring.  How do these two vastly different systems end up working so well?  From general officers, who immediately led the Nation in the response to 9-11, to nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan by seasoned ambassadors, how did their leadership skills develop, mature, and became successful?  The answer lies in the ability to balance the science and art of leadership.

The generic definition of leadership is the ability to influence an individual to perform a task.  It has two basic components.  The first is the mechanical or “science” component - it teaches the time-proven steps that provide the fundamentals to those who aspire to lead.  They must know and understand the basic skill sets necessary.  Values, communication, competency and understanding, appreciation for organizational structure, styles of leadership, techniques to persuade others to follow, and other areas make up the basic “science” leadership skill set.  These can be taught by a football coach, parent, math teacher, dance instructor, scoutmaster, former military member, or others.

The second component of leadership is the “art” portion.  Some people have this ability inherently, while others must develop it.  The “art” part is the passion, empathy, and emotional connection between the leader and follower.  This “art” portion can be truly inspirational based on the conditions being experienced, manner in which it is delivered, insight it provides, or the intensity or compassion of the individual.  

I suggest the person learning about leadership has five basic aspects they need to master and, at that point, thrust into the responsibilities of being a leader. These five areas are learned formally informally are as follows:

1. Maintain your values.  At West Point, the cadet is inculcated with them as “Duty, Honor, and Country” and “Do not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.”  I have found a good saying and guide that assists in today’s corporate world is, “In the absence of guidance, what you do must be moral, legal, and ethical.”  Integrity, by far, is the one most likely to be violated, routinely challenged, and the value most important to preserve.
    
2. Be professionally competent.  No matter what walk of life one chooses, it is essential you are competent in your field of expertise.  Education, training, and offline schooling all will assist, but growing up in the industry is a great way to be professionally competent and, therefore, regarded with considerable respect, as you decide critical issues.  Having not grown up in, nor having familiarity with, a specific profession, one can still be competent. Get good advisors and teammates to provide their thoughts.  Solicit opinions from others involved.  Visit the front-line workers or the industry equivalents in your business, and ask questions.  You won’t learn it totally, but the team will see you trying to do so.  Respect for you will increase, you will open channels, and it sends the correct message.
    
3. Maintain continuous communications.  This needs to be done both formally (scheduled meetings) and informally (hallway or social sessions) while being done with subordinates, mid-level management, peers outside your company, and your supervisors.  While at these sessions, the leader should routinely present a message of some sort, even if it is merely a wrap up.  A real leader must also be able to take questions from the most troublesome member, at the most inopportune time, and provide the most informative and sincere response possible.  Even if it is, “The team leadership is still looking at this challenging area, and we need a little more time or input before we go public with an informed response.”
    
4. Leadership must also have compassion as a key element.  Hard or demoralizing decisions—layoffs, reductions in salary, unpopular policy announcements—need to be made and articulated with a true understanding of their impact.  Acceptance by the team of these irksome decisions will be far greater understood and acted upon if they know leadership was compassionate and possibly troubled in doing so.  They need to know you are also human!
    
5. Finally, the real leader must understand their team members outside the office or command post.  The leader realizes there is much more behind his or her workers than their performance at the work place.  There exists the emotional, psychological, and possibly medical stresses that make the worker respond at a high or lower level.  Understanding these difficult-to-observe aspects really challenges a leader, but social engagements, non-official events, unexpected time off requests, extended failure to use vacation time, and limited access during non-duty hours for mission critical issues all add up to issues that may affect their team member.  The good leader sees these, understands the gravity, and acts to lessen the likelihood of their negative impact.  Of course, a very good friend to the leader in this area is the worker’s family.  They know the full impact of stress on their loved one and, more than likely, they are looking for assistance.

In closing, I offer two reinforcing points that underpin the leadership lessons. First, a positive comment, rendered to a team member in the conduct of their work, goes a long way.  Affirmation is a powerful leadership technique used by the best, but it is even more powerful rendered in a public forum possibly with family present.

Second, there is a saying, “who guards the guardians?”  This is a statement capturing the challenge of leaders doing the “right thing”.  It’s not an inspector general who ensures this; it’s not rules, regulations and policies; and it’s not training or education… it is their values.  Values are what ensure the guardians are properly guarded.  A leader’s inherent guidelines must be their values….remember affirmation and values!

Leadership at the highest level is an intricate balance of the science and art. As a start for the new leader, values, competence, communications, compassion, and understanding your teammates are critically important areas to learn, understand, and begin to master. These will jump start you to becoming a competent, respected, and compassionate leader.

Like the mythical phoenix rising from the ashes, unexpected leaders arise from unexpected circumstances.

Whether in business, the military, government, or at home, leadership opportunities are presented to us on a daily basis. Everyday life is sometimes our only preparation for meeting the daunting leadership challenges of the future. While there may be much more at stake when leading a country, an army, or a company, the everyday habits in which all of us routinely engage serve to unconsciously, almost reflexively, prepare us for how well we will ultimately execute as leaders in situations with much more on the line. It is, therefore, a good idea to always be prepared for leadership opportunities; one never knows what the future holds.

Leadership has always been difficult to quantify, but most experts agree that properly executing as a leader is a function of our DNA, the life experience we’ve accrued, and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Ironically, projecting the performance of leaders, especially in important circumstances, is largely a fool’s errand.  Past performance in just about any skill is not necessarily a predictor of future leadership greatness.

Examples on both sides of the coin abound, but two wonderful instances in which individuals judged to be totally unsuitable for the unexpected situations in which they eventually found themselves, were none other than the 18^th and 33^rd presidents of the United States: General Ulysses S. Grant (USMA Class of 1843), and Harry S. Truman. Virtually overnight, both were catapulted into important positions with momentous consequences requiring immediate and effective leadership, under enormous pressure.

Unlikely Backgrounds.

Truman.  As a young man, Harry Truman wanted to attend West Point, however, his poor eyesight prevented him from doing so. In fact, his family’s financial situation prevented him from attending any college at all. Truman’s early jobs included spending time as a mail clerk, working for a construction company, and serving as a bank clerk. While working on the family farm, Truman also spent time as an owner/operator of a small, unsuccessful mining and oil business. Consistently ineffective in business, he joined the National Guard and eventually served in WWI as an artillery officer, attaining the rank of captain.  Courageous, decisive, and a natural leader, Truman did well and enjoyed his time in the Army. Following the war, he opened a men’s clothing and accessory business that folded after only a few years of operation. He then became a county politician, U.S. Senator, Vice President, and finally, our 33^rd President, after Franklin Delano Roosevelt died in April, 1945. With a remarkably unimpressive past, the self-admitted, reluctant president would go on to become perhaps the most courageous president in the history of the U.S.

Grant.  If Truman’s early years were unremarkable, Grant’s were perhaps even more so. An unexceptional, indifferent cadet, Ulysses S. Grant graduated from West Point in 1843. In his Memoirs, Grant states he wanted to become a math professor at a college, but the Mexican War got in the way. While Grant excelled in the army during the Mexican War, his subsequent years as an officer were spent in far away military garrisons without his wife and children. He became bored, lonely, and drank excessively. He resigned from the army in 1854. In civilian life, he was an utter failure. For the next 7 years, he was unsuccessful as a farmer, realtor, rent collector, and businessman. In the winter of 1857, he pawned his pocket watch in order to afford Christmas presents for his family. Poverty-stricken, he sold firewood on the streets of St. Louis as the initial stages of the Civil War were developing. Eventually, he gained acceptance into the army, was given command, and proceeded to win every battle campaign that he fought in the Civil War--while dramatically changing the way wars are fought to this day. After Lincoln’s assassination and Johnson’s subsequent failed presidency, Grant, with no initial interest in politics, was elected as the 18^th President of the United States, remarkably, only a few years after selling firewood on a street corner.

How did the two perform as leaders?

Unpredictable Accomplishments.

Truman. 

When Vice President Truman was informed by Eleanor Roosevelt that her husband, the President, had passed away, he asked Mrs. Roosevelt if there was anything he could do for her. “Oh no,” she reportedly replied. “Is there anything we can do for you; for you are the one in trouble now.” This is how Truman unceremoniously began his nearly 8 years in the White House. 

Briefly, his decisions and accomplishments as president include: deciding to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thereby ending WWII; proclaiming the “Truman Doctrine;” conceiving and implementing the “Marshall Plan;” creating the National Security Council, Central Intelligence Agency, and Department of Defense; recognizing the state of Israel; employing the Berlin Airlift; forming and establishing NATO; desegregating the Armed Forces; beginning U.S. involvement in the Korean Conflict; firing General Douglas MacArthur (USMA, 1903); seizing U.S. steel mills; helping establish and signing the United Nations Charter; and being instrumental in establishing the IMF and World Bank.

When one compares Truman’s major decisions and key accomplishments with any other modern day President, it’s difficult to overstate his profound impact on the United States and the world. Contrary to what his extremely low popularity rating might suggest as he exited public life in January of 1953 (lowest approval rating for any exiting U.S. President, including Richard M. Nixon), President Truman proved to be a dynamic and courageous leader.

Grant.

Named head of the Union Army in early 1864, President Lincoln had declared, “He makes things git! Where he is, things move!” Taking charge of the Army of the North, Grant methodically and decisively took control of the war.  According to biographer Jean Edward Smith, in Grant, “His systematic deployment of overwhelming force not only led to victory in 1865 but established the strategic doctrine that became the basis for American triumphs in two world wars and more recently in the Persian Gulf.”

His major decisions and accomplishments as president include: avoiding war with Spain over Cuba; ending simmering hostilities with Great Britain; crushing the Ku Klux Klan; reversing long-standing efforts to displace American Indians; establishing the Civil Service Commission; weaning the country from greenback inflation and establishing the U.S. dollar as the world’s most respected medium of exchange; maintaining the separation of church and state; vetoing the Inflation Bill followed by passage of the Resumption Act; returning the country to the gold standard; and establishing the modern presidency with cabinet officers reporting to the president, a precedent for all subsequent presidents to follow. In retrospect, his steadfast dedication and contributions to black civil rights is monumental. Surprisingly, given the outcome of the Civil War, it is ironic and unfortunate that Grant was the last presidential defender of black civil rights for nearly a century. Yet, perhaps Grant’s most important contribution as president was his seminal role as the stabilizing rock that steadied the nation after 8 years of war and upheaval.

While Grant was the most popular former president in the 19^th century, his popularity waned considerably in the 20^th century. This was at least in part due to the historical “reconstruction” of the Civil War - rewritten in the south mainly to justify the Jim Crow era and rationalize “separate but equal” policies in the south.

With their respective backgrounds and accomplishments in mind, could anyone have possibly predicted, in their respective eras, the success either of these leaders would achieve? I think it’s fairly safe to say that their successful leadership was decidedly unexpected.

Interestingly, for years both were cast by a range of historians as very mediocre Presidents - at best. And astonishingly, despite the fact that Grant never lost a campaign, some historians have minimized the importance of his leadership abilities as a factor in ultimately winning the Civil War. Regardless, neither Grant nor Truman garnered much respect for different periods of time subsequent to their respective presidencies. In fact, ironically, at an institution that takes fighting and winning wars very seriously, there is no statue of Grant at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

The relatively recent historical transformation of both Grant and Truman is not only surprisingly conspicuous but refreshing as well. The two unexpected leaders, by any measure, excelled greatly.  Not only was he a steady leader as president, but Grant is arguably the greatest general to have ever served in the U.S. military; and many see Truman, with his resolute courage and common sense, as having had a greater impact on the world politic than any other modern-day U.S. President.

Possibly without fully realizing it, these men were prepared for their unlikely leadership opportunities. Both were suddenly thrust into highly pressurized situations with huge consequences for their actions, inactions, and decisions. And unexpectedly, both performed as consummate leaders far beyond anyone’s initial expectations.

Like Grant and Truman, whether in business, government, the military, or elsewhere, be ready for your opportunity to lead. It may be unexpected, and it may just be right around the corner.

  After 37 years in the Army and another 13 years in the corporate world, I am convinced that the greatest determinant of success in these two worlds is leadership.  I have been fortunate to lead organizations in both worlds---from one of the largest (the U.S. Army consisting of over 1 million soldiers) to one of the smallest (The Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism consisting initially of five people).  What I have learned from that experience is that leadership is the common characteristic that most determines whether an organization is a high-performing organization.   High-performing organizations spend a lot of time developing leaders, who in turn take care of their people and together achieve outstanding results.  These organizations are more agile and are particularly adept at turning challenges into opportunities.  They develop leaders who believe in and exemplify the core competencies of the organization but are also willing to adjust to change.  This article explores some of the constants of good leadership and how organizations adapt to our changing world.

 DEFINITION:  The best place to start is with a definition of leadership.  It has been defined many ways, but the one I like best is listed in the Army Manual on Leadership (FM 22-100) “...influencing people----by providing purpose, direction, and motivation---while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.”   Any organization should be able to embrace this definition---whether they are conducting military operations, starting a new organization or growing a well established company.

We live in a time of unprecedented change.  In fact some say that change is the only constant in today’s world.  Change has been a part of history forever, but the difference today is the pace of change.  The rapidity of that change makes it critical that organizations adjust to meet a changing environment or else they risk the possibility of becoming irrelevant.  However change does not mean that everything is in a state of flux.  Organizations must have anchor points---what they truly believe in, what sets them apart, and hopefully, makes them better.   A “lock-step” approach will not take organizations where they want to be in the future. Nor will a “make it up as you go” approach.  High-performing organizations adhere to a number of time tested fundamentals.

MISSION:  Transactional leadership focuses a lot on what it is that an organization wants to accomplish and how they can make it happen.  Good organizations spend a lot of time discussing the mission and the role of every member of the organization in accomplishing that mission.  They achieve “buy-in.”  Generally these organizations have multiple layers of leadership and each has a critical role in accomplishing that mission.  The army breaks down leadership in three levels---strategic, operational, and tactical

At the top level, the strategic level, much time is spent on Vision---where does this organization want to be in 10-20 years and what is the path to that destination.  This is hard work.  It is difficult to determine what is going to happen next week let alone what will happen in a year, 5 or certainly 20 years.  Nonetheless, unless time is spent determining where an organization wants to go, they tend to wander aimlessly and become extremely frustrated with their work.

At the lowest level of leadership---the tactical level----the organization is focused on developing the skill base necessary to accomplish the current job and training people to be more productive by improving their job skills or adjusting to new technologies.  Whether it is introducing a new product, winning a contract, or conducting a complex military maneuver, individuals need to know what is expected of them and how best to do their part.  This, of course, means the leaders must be well trained in these tasks in order to train their people and truly care about the people who work for them.  Immediate supervisors must also evaluate subordinates in order to identify those with exceptional potential who can be moved ahead more quickly in order to strengthen the leadership base of the organization.

Finally the mid-level (operational) leaders/supervisors are very critical in this pyramid of leaders.  They bridge the gap between the strategic and tactical.  They must understand both the organization’s mission and vision.  They demonstrate the link between the two, motivate others, and provide purpose and direction through their experience and knowledge.  They not only keep the trains running, but they ensure they are on the right track and on time--easier said than done.

PHILOSOPHY:  It has become very popular for leaders to develop a leadership philosophy and share that with their subordinates.  If done properly that is a very helpful thing.  It allows people to know what the boss believes in and what he/she thinks is important.  Good leaders spend a lot of time working on their leadership philosophy so that they send the right signals to those under their supervision.  Most importantly they must practice what they preach.  In the good organizations, there is a link amongst the different levels of leaders----they all pull in the same direction.  A “cascading” of leadership philosophies helps ensure unity of effort.  The higher up one goes in an organization the broader the leadership philosophy.  For example as Chief of Staff U.S. Army, I had three principles that were important to me and that I expected subordinates to embrace:  1) do what is right every day---legally and morally, 2) be the best you can be, and 3) do unto others as you would have them do unto you in similar circumstances.  I felt that was broad enough for all leaders in the organization and gave them lots of freedom but reflected what I expected of them.  I took every opportunity to explain that philosophy to all levels of leadership.

One of the key advantages of sharing a leadership philosophy is that it makes an organization more agile.  Subordinate leaders know the left and right limits of their actions and know that if they act in the absence of orders and do so in accordance with the philosophy that their leaders will back them up.  This builds trust between leaders and followers and inspires teamwork!  It also is one of the things that allow good organizations to turn challenges into opportunities.

VALUE BASED:  Good organizations have a set of values in which they believe.  In the mid-‘90s, the Army Leadership reviewed and reaffirmed our values as Loyalty, Duty, Responsibility, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage (LDRSHIP).  It took us awhile to work through all that, but it was time well spent.  Things were changing so fast after the end of the Cold War that we felt we needed these specific anchor points to help us negotiate this sea of change.  For us, this was not simply an academic drill; we spent a lot of time teaching new recruits what these values meant, and we asked subordinate leaders to exemplify these values as we dealt with the transition to a Post-Cold War environment.  (A detailed description of these values can be found in FM 22-100.)

FEEDBACK:  Good leaders also want and seek honest feedback---both from their bosses and their subordinates.  People need to feel important and want to be genuinely valued for their contribution.  Often the best solutions come from those who are closest to the problem.  So many times you find people who have the solution but when asked why they haven’t told anybody, they say no one asked.  Leaders have to take the time to listen--really listen--to their people.  This can be time consuming, but I doubt that there is anything that produces better results.  Listening engenders trust and inspires confidence.  It is much more time consuming to not do it. There are various ways to do it, but the key thing is to just do it.  

FRAMEWORK:  Good organizations tie all these fundamentals together and synchronize the efforts of their organization.  One technique that helps is to look at Vision, Organizational Goals, and Individual Objectives in a systematic way.  If you stop and think about it the Vision, Goals, and Objectives must be aligned or the organization will not be pulling in the same direction.  From the vision flows the goals of an organization and from the goals flow the individual objectives; tie them together with some sort of monitoring system, and you have a high-performing organization.

CLOSING:  General Creighton W. Abrams used to say that “the Army is not made up of people; the Army is people”---a subtle way of indicating how important people are to all organizations.  This has been true throughout history, but in this fast-changing world in which we live, it has never been more important.  Good organizations---corporate or military---are rooted in values, develop caring leaders who lead by example, motivate their people and function inside a proper organizational framework---and they turn challenges into opportunities.  Make no mistake---leadership is the difference between good, mediocre, and bad organizations.  It always has been and it always will be.