Leadership: Born or Made

One of the great debates in leadership is the argument about whether leaders are born or made.  For the U.S. Military, there is no argument at all.  They are made.  It starts with values engineering (VE) and trust building.  For the  most part, the Military starts this process at age 18.  Elsewhere in our society, organized efforts at  VE are found in Scouting, team sports and religious training.  Good friend and former AF officer, Andy Bochman reflects on another venue for leader development and I wanted to share it with you.  Please read this post on the second and third order effects of summer camp. Dan Nolan

TC0006: Vision Casting

Once of my favorite definitions of leadership describes what is necessary for a leadership situation.  All you need is a leader, someone to be led and a place to go.  Vision provides the place to go.  A vision is simply a projection of a future state of being.    It is the target.  It describes the relationship of the organization to the market and competitors in time and space.    It can be an intuitive sense, a precise objective or a higher echelon’s intent.  Vision establishes the focus for action and guidance to the organization.  Mature, well-led, trust based, organizations have the ability to operate on vision alone.  At the lowest level of the organization, an individual is able to understand how his function relates to the vision.  Vision also directs.  If a question arises regarding direction, the vision must provide that direction.  Again, the lowest level in the organization must be able to ask, “How does what I am doing further the vision?” and have a concrete answer.  Another thought on vision is what it is not.  Vision is not chiseled in granite.  It is not an unvarying path to success.  It requires constant examination, revision and redefinition.    

An example of great vision is that of Bill Gates and Microsoft.  Simple stated, it was a computer on every desktop.  And Microsoft doesn't make computers.  That vision guided the developers at Microsoft to produce software that was so compelling that for productivity’s sake, every worker with a desk needed a computer upon it.   Having come to maturity before that time, I can attest to its effectiveness. 

Vision is the beginning of the planning phase, but it is also the primary mission of the leader.    It is about providing a framework within which the organization can operate.  There is no secret to vision.     Like any skill the ability to develop a vision must be practiced.

In the military, a vision describes the intended disposition of your organization in relationship to the enemy and in time and space.  This holds true for other situations.  Disposition refers to not just physical locations, but strength, capabilities, and readiness.  Develop a statement that describes the disposition you desire for your organization in relationship to the market and competitors and the space-time situation as well.  You want your (section, company, corporation) to (meet standards of readiness and training; have specific capabilities; own a specific market share) by (date; termination of training;  before acquisition).  These are simple forms of vision, but they require practice.  Test them out on your boss and peers.  Get their feedback and learn.  This may make some of you uncomfortable and may even occasionally make you look stupid.  Get over it.  If you want to lead then you had better be prepared to pay the price for excellence.

Vision is not limited to the organization.  A leader must also have a personal vision that guides them.  This personal vision is about what they wish to become as leaders and decision-makers.  It should describe the values they embrace, their tolerance toward ambiguity and the environment in which they wish to operate.  My personal vision is that:

 I wish to become a bold, audacious risk taker; competent enough to know the difference between risk and gamble and confident enough to take risk in order to operate within my competitor’s decision cycle while delighting the customer. I must be trustworthy and trusts subordinates enough to delegate authority and allow them to operate within the framework of vision. I will place responsibility appropriately and hold those subordinates ruthlessly accountable for those responsibilities.  I will provide caring, concern leadership that treats everyone with respect and dignity. 

Personal and organizational vision must be synchronous.  If the two visions are at odds, a dysfunctional situation is unavoidable.  For my part, I could not be part of an organization that did not support risk taking or treated its people unfairly.  Personal vision requires a great deal of contemplation. All of us have known or know of someone we would like to emulate.  Consider what their personal vision was as you formulate your own.  It is possible to surmise what Lincoln, Patton, or Martin Luther King had as personal visions.  What is yours?

Rambling (Diane) Rose: Eulogy for My Running Life

Rambling (Diane) Rose: Eulogy for My Running Life

My great friend, Diane Rose says good bye to an important piece of her life. I can't wait to read about the next great adventure!

TC0005: Values as the Bedrock of Leadership, Part II

This is the second part of thoughts on values as the bedrock for thinking about leadership.

Leaders are imbued with the willingness to place the needs of the organization before their personal needs.  Ask yourself: Do you go the extra mile or are you just meeting the job description?  Are you working to meet the requirements of the job description or are you an agent for change for the better?  Examine your motives and be honest with yourself.  If your motivation is for personal gain, you are in the wrong business.  When I was selected for senior command I was euphoric.  I was then informed that I would command a training battalion and not a line unit.  For my entire career I had hoped for a line battalion and was greatly disappointed by this turn of events.  But I called to mind a similar situation in which a close friend of mine experienced the same disappointment.  He related to me that he was in his backyard, kicking rocks and feeling sorry for himself,  when his wife came out,  looked at him and with wide eyed innocence, asked, “Don’t those soldiers need leadership, too?”.  He told me that it was like a mule kick to the chest.  Of course they needed and deserved leadership.  Many people talk about selfless service, but they want to line themselves up for promotion and advancement.   Selfless services does not mean that you will not face career disappointments.  It means that you will face them with dignity and continue to give your very best.  As a postscript, that officer went on to command a Brigade and a Division and is now a three star General. He continues to be one of my leadership role models.

Leaders are honorable people who are courageous in the face of adversity whether physical or moral. This courage manifests itself in the willingness to take risk.  We will talk about more about this later.  The quality of integrity goes well beyond the spoken word :  Leaders that adhere to a definable moral and ethical code are leaders of integrity.  They do not consider legal boundaries first.  There is always a debate about “what is right”, but never among people of integrity.   We all have someone to turn to for legal counsel.   To whom do we turn for moral counsel?

Finally, as a value, Personal Courage has a place beyond the battlefield: Leaders are honorable people who are courageous in the face of adversity.  This courage manifests itself in the willingness to take risk.  An accurate (vice investor friendly) profit and loss statement may be considered an act of courage, but not in a values based organization. 

At some time in your life you have encountered someone you would like to emulate.  If this was based upon a personal experience, ask yourself how you felt about yourself when you were with them.  You may have been intimidated by their capabilities, but did you still have a positive feeling about yourself?  This is the same feeling you want to engender in others.  The simplest acts of dignity and respect for others can make that happen.  This is the answer to sexual harassment, racial inequity and ethnic bias.  It is also inviolate.  No breach of respect and dignity can be tolerated in an atmosphere of trust.

These are my core values.  Each organization may choose their own or except those for which they become known.  I am sure the values for which Enron became known were not up on the wall of their board room.  Your values are what make you worthy of trust.  As leaders we are the standard bearers of values.  Not all people come into the Army with these values.  They must be stressed at every opportunity, taught in our development courses and reinforced in organizations.  An organization can only be a values based if all members not only adhere to, but internalize the core values.

Next Post: Vision Casting  

TC0004: Values as the Bedrock of Leadership, Part 1

The U.S. Army is a famously values based organization.  They take in people from Georgia and Ghana, from Boston and Belize and build cohesive teams based upon shared values.  It is very easily done…so to speak.  When a new soldier arrives for Basic Training, he or she is not asked what their values are; they are told what their values will be.  Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage.  LDRSHIP.  Very handy acronym that fits nicely on a dog tag or on a card for their wallet.  I still carry both.  These values are taught every day in every class from marksmanship to first aid.  More importantly, they are exemplified every day by the Drill Sergeants that provide the first line leadership. It is their job to inculcate values in the new soldiers by being living examples of values.  They are leaders.

Leaders are loyal, able to correctly order their obligations and commitments to the organization, family/friends and self.  Leaders are a magnifying glass when things go well and a heat shield when they don’t.  Loyalty is a two way street and it is not mindless.   It is also not automatic.  We earn loyalty in stages.  First you must gain respect.  In structured organizations some respect for rank and position is automatic.  Personal respect is gained through constancy of action.  Over time, respect grows into trust when faith can be placed in the constancy of action.  If that constancy of action reveals itself as beneficial to the individual and organization, loyalty will grow.  Do not expect loyalty in day one.  It is yours to earn.

Leaders have a sense of duty that causes them to do the right thing for no other reason than it is the right thing. Do you do what is right because of the potential consequences of other action or because you know in your heart what is right to do?  Your people will know the difference.  They will learn from your example. The values of a profession require ethical and moral behavior.  For me, the distinction is this: an education process that teaches you the legal interpretations of right and wrong produces the potential for ethical behavior.  Moral behavior is doing the right thing for no other reason than it is the right thing.  If a decision between alternatives is based upon whether or not the potential to be caught exists, then the choice may be ethical, but not moral.  Leaders must not put their subordinates in an untenable position by presenting them with ethical dilemma.  Think about it.  “I don’t care how it gets done!”   “Make it happen!”  “You don’t want to know.”  These should all sound warning bells in our heads.  Do the right thing for no other reason than it is the right thing and show subordinates what right looks like.  That is among the greatest responsibility of the leader.

Leaders are respectful of all people and fully recognize the absolute dignity that every human being possesses.  They embrace diversity and are compassionate.  Consider your subordinates.  How do they feel about themselves when they are around you.  Important? Trusted? Empowered?  You must answer these questions.  Your people can. This is about self-esteem and there is more to the equation.  People want to feel good about themselves but can only do this if they feel good about the organization. Values must be shared within organizations to achieve this. 

Next Post: Values as the Bedrock of Leadership, Part II

TC0003: Values Based Leadership vs. Salesmanship

GEN Eisenhower speaking to troops
the day before D-Day

If you Google ”Definition of Leadership” (and who hasn’t?) you get 80.8 million returns.  My personal definition comes from one of the nation’s greatest statesmen, soldiers and leaders, former President Dwight David Eisenhower.  His definition is elegant in its simplicity: “Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it."  This is a leadership definition with values as its bedrock.

In this definition, the only difference between leadership and salesmanship is values.  The only difference between Adolph Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi was values.  Each was a charismatic visionary, capable of great influence over others.  However, where Hitler was a creature in the depths of depravity, Gandhi’s value set made him a force for moral supremacy.  Values count.

If you are in a leadership position then you have been granted regulatory authority over others.  With that authority you incur the absolute responsibility for those others.  That regulatory authority is what makes a supervisor.  But what makes a leader is the willingness of another to follow you.  Regulatory authority grants power from above.  Leadership is the empowerment of the leader by the led.  The question all leaders search for the answer to is “what is the element that causes empowerment?”.  I believe that trust is the basic bond of leadership and the element of empowerment, as my mentor, GEN Fredrick M. Franks instilled in me.    If you would be a leader, then you must have the trust of the led.  It is the led that must bestow upon you the mantle of leadership that is also a mantle of servitude.

If trust is the basic bond of leadership, how do we become trustworthy? It has been my observation that people hear about 40% of what I say.  They see 100% of what I do.  For my teenage children the hearing ratio appears to be much lower.  You know the saying, if you talk the talk, you must walk the walk.  As I mentioned earlier, values may be taught, but they are more easily caught. Dan Nolan

Next Post: Values as the Bedrock of Leadership

TC0002: Defining our Terms

One of the characteristics of any profession is that it has its own language.  It is that language that allow for rapid communications.  Doctors, lawyers, cops and soldiers all have their own way of speaking and distinct terminology.  It is important that we have that same ability to communicate volumes with a single word by defining the language of leadership and decision making.   Most importantly, we need to figure out where the term “management” fits in this discussion.  

As important as leadership is, it is not the alpha and omega. Other skills are also necessary.    In the military, the term management has acquired a pejorative connotation.  It is considered the antithesis of leadership.  “We manage things and we lead people”.  The belief is that leaders are heroic figures while managers are cold-hearted automatons with green eyeshades. 

This is a novice’s view and does a disservice to the study of management.  That being said, many distinguished authors have taken up the Management/Leadership argument.  Bennis and Nanus make a point of describing dysfunctional organizations as being over managed and under led. “Managers are people who do things right and leaders do the right thing” .  Koontz, Odonnell and Weihrich define management as the process of planning, organizing, staffing, leading and controlling at any level in any organization.  Drucker defines management in terms of the manager.  The manager is responsible for the plans and performance of others and the creation of relationship of trust between them, himself and his superior. 

This definition most closely aligns the processes that are decision-making with leadership.     It is my intent to define management in terms of these two components.  In this view, management equals command, therefore the term Command Management makes sense.

The debate about management and leadership centers on the concept that people, processes and things are separable.   I am hard pressed to think of a single situation in which things are managed separately from people.  Management is the coordination of things, processes and people toward a goal.  Leadership is not distinct from management; it is its critical underpinning.  Things and people comprise organizations and units. It is important to understand this frame of references regarding organizations before proceeding.

Organizations are structured collections of people and things.  If it is not structured it is a mob.  If it is a collection of just things, it is a warehouse.   Organizations learn; if motivated by leaders.  Organizations evolve if the team’s vision of the required structure evolves and the organization encourages change.  Evolution is preferable to revolution; revolution is preferable to extinction.   Ask the dinosaurs.  Dan Nolan

The purpose of this blog is to provide a framework for thinking about these components of command management as well as additional philosophy supporting its application.  It’s primary focus is the leader, but the need to build cohesive teams that are agile, versatile, durable, initiative driven, and able to evolve in a rapidly changing environment is the ultimate goal.  

My intention is to provide ways to think about leadership and decision-making as well as some tactics, techniques and procedures that can be put to work immediately.  The fundamental assumption underlying the concept of command management is that the leader is self-aware and believes in the underlying desire of all members of the team to be successful.  If one is unable to embrace this seemingly Pollyanna philosophy, break out the green eye shades and keep bean counting.

Next Post: Leadership and Decision Making Defined

TC0001: The Command Prompt

Over the course of a twenty-six year career in America’s most trusted institution, the United States Military,  I have had the opportunity to study all kinds of leaders and authoritarians.  In the decade since I left the military I have worked for and with small technology companies and defense industry giants.  I have started three companies and been the mid wife at several other entrepreneurial births.  In every case, the difference between success and failure has been two things: leadership and decision making. 

I will admit that I am predisposed to thinking in terms of leadership and decision making; those are the components of what the military calls Command.  Command is defined as to direct with authority.  This is a very simple definition with great depth. 

The purpose of this blog is to share my thoughts on command and its relevance to business, government, nonprofits and community service.  It has been often said that military leadership is to leadership as military music is to music.  I hope I can dispel that misconception and show that the tactics, techniques and procedures inculcated in military leaders is every bit as applicable to organizing the church bizarre as to leading a platoon in combat.  What the leaders wants to accomplish in both cases is mission accomplishment at minimum cost.  The only difference is the nature of that outcome. 

I hope you find this blog useful and please feel free to share your comments.     I look forward to the dialog.  Dan Nolan

Next Post: Defining our Terms