Military Leadership - Part I
I just finished a fairly interesting book, Ed Ruggero's Duty First: A Year in the Life of West Point and the Making of American Leaders. It's an entertaining and informative book in its own right - a chronicle of the USMA (West Point) in 1999 - 2000, written by a 1980 graduate and former infantry officer and professor. I was impressed by the balance of the account - he told the story through the intertwined experiences of several members of what could only be described as a unique community. (If you buy the book through us, a portion of the proceeds will support the Hill Center.)
Most of the book is devoted to understanding the experience of West Point from a cadet's perspective, informed by the perspectives of military staff and faculty. Ruggero only rarely alludes to his own experience, but I think the narrative he presents would be difficult or impossible for an utter outsider to create.
Thinking in terms of leadership, the book presents some simple but important assertions:
-
Effective leaders make room for their subordinates to struggle, achieve, and fail.
-
Personality and humanity count - or, as I like ot put it, you have to be a human to lead humans.
-
Fairness counts as much or more: even the appearance of arbitrariness or caprice leads inexorably to cynicism in the ranks.
-
While skills and knowledge can be taught in the classroom, leadership development happens in the field.
These themes recurred throughout the narrative.
None of these ideas are surprising, but all merit reinforcement and consideration. I especially appreciate the importance - and the difficulty - of letting subordinates lead their way. It’s exceedingly hard to do when the stakes seem high - in front of a client, or facing a deadline - but the book reminds us of how important it really is to lead by allowing others to do so. A mentor of mine pointed out again and again how powerful it is to let your subordinates know that you trust and believe in them. We both had difficulty doing that under pressure. The book presented several examples of this in action when the stakes seemed equally high.
In fact, the level of the stakes is almost entirely a matter of perspective and perception. I've worked with people who approach every assignment as if it were the invasion of Normandy, and others who seem unfazed by any demands. I don't think we can correlate the quality of the outcome with the level of stress experienced by the participants. But, it's pretty clear that some people thrive on stress and others on serenity, and I think that leaders can create or influence environments accordingly. Ruggero's account of West Point portrayed a relentlessly, intentionally stressful environment, designed to prepare people for battle. He questions the appropriateness of that approach.
Fairness, in the West Point environment, boils down to a couple of factors worthy of consideration: equal treatment (even if that treatment is difficult), and principled conduct. Even tough leaders are respected and appreciated if they treat everyone equally and in accordance with certain principles.
There's an interesting discussion of the Honor Code - essentially, "a Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." I won't discuss that in detail, but he has an interesting discussion of the challenge of turning in a friend, and an even more interesting discussion of what happens when a leader exercises discretion in applying what would otherwise be an absolute requirement. My personal inclination is almost always for discretion, and my bias is toward carefully assessing the particulars of a situation. In that environment, when some cadets are "separated from the corps" and others are given a second chance, broad use of discretion breeds discontent and cynicism.
More broadly, Ruggero does an excellent job bringing home the concept that a leader's motives must be based on principles, and applied equally across people. Without fairness considered in those terms, a leader can enforce compliance, but probably can't achieve a meaningful level of collaboration and cooperation.
To some degree, the environment of West Point does much of the rest of the work. Cadets apply and matriculate based on their acceptance of military values and principles, and they are selected based on an evaluation of readiness and sincerity of commitment. There are sanctions for suboptimal performance. If someone is simply complying rather than cooperating, the terms of compliance are pretty rigorous and the outcome is similar. If a subordinate doesn't believe, she either works to assure that her conduct does not reflect that cynicism, or she suffers some level of consequences, but those consequences are based on behavior.
In our messier worlds, I think that principled leadership needs to meet a higher standard: the principles need to be articulated in, and understood and accepted by, the community. People have a desire - and it would be reasonable to say, a right - to know why things are as they are, and what is driving organizational and individual actions and standards. Even in the rarified environment of West Point, cadet leaders that seek buy-in and support subordinates do better than those who make demands by fiat.
Ruggero is a leadership consultant, who's Website focuses on the "battle-tested" dimension of his leadership. He's also a noted author on modern military history. He also appears to do some very interesting work in leadership labs - simulated experiences - based on leaders from history.
The link between military and commercial endeavors is easy and obvious - it is also deeply problematic. But, that's a topic for my next entry.
I really appreciate that you are reading - I can appreciate it more consciously if I know who you were and what you are thinking. Please let me know. You can find out more about what I'm up to at www.jjhill.org/ethics.
There are no comments for this entry.
[Add Comment]