Let's talk about Leadership

[boatBurner]

I place the "types" of people into three categories that include the top 10%, the general population, and the bottom 20%. In most cases, this grouping applies. And of most types, I'd consider myself apart of the general population. In fact, there are few things that I do well. But one of them is Leadership.

I think people roll their eyes when they try to define "good" and "bad" leadership, because I think it is often regarded as an abstract characteristic that many people leave "up for interpretation". And that's a dangerous misconception.

I have such a passion for demonstrating good leadership that I collected a lot of information from my current occupation as a Marine to try and relate good military leadership to good business leadership. I considered writing my "magnum opus" of a blog post in order to confront two groups of people: military members and civilians.

Military members often aren't very business savvy, and even fewer civilians are privvy to the lifestyle of the military. It's easier to explain technical concepts to non-technical people than it is to translate business to non-entrepreneurial military members, and military lifestyle to unfamiliar civilians. And it's because of this reason that I realized I wouldn't be able to write an all-encompassing article that was capable of reaching each group in a meaningful way.

Instead, I'll approach each audience in familiar territory. My goal with military members will be different. I'd like to encourage my military friends that "leadership is not just a bullet point on a resume". We often hear so much about leadership that it becomes inane.

But for many of you guys and gals, I'd like to hear your take on good business leadership. I think in an environment where many of you may (or may not) run solo businesses, "picking up good leadership" as you progress is not as easy as it sounds. Through this thread, I hope to offer some perspective and gain some while I'm at it.

I'll leave you with a little Facebook gem I wrote. So trashy that I've simplified it to this, but it's worth reading a few times over:

A person's appreciation for the significance of good leadership is relative to his or her exposure to the consequences of poor leadership.

Whether you're a corporate climber, entrepreneur, or a military member, this law applies. In the world of worst case scenarios, a bad manager can inadvertently end your career and a headpiece founder of a startup company can drive his business into bankruptcy. But in the military, a leader with a lapse in judgement can get someone killed. It's for that reason alone that I will always value military men and women a few points above civilians when it comes to leadership in all arenas. Not necessarily because they were good leaders themselves, but because they were exposed to the severity of the consequence of poor leadership.

 

[Russ86]

"A leader is one who knows the way, goes the way, and shows the way." - John C. Maxwell


... Yes, I am secretly stalking you on Skype.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Pretty much impossible to compare a military leader to a civilian CEO.

Military has to deal more with raw leadership, whereas the CEO is more management orientated. Two totally different worlds.

 

[mituozo]

Pretty much impossible to compare a military leader to a civilian CEO.

Military has to deal more with raw leadership, whereas the CEO is more management orientated. Two totally different worlds.

I agree.

Many military leaders would make extremely bad business leaders, even with business knowledge. They're two different styles of leadership entirely, and what works to motivate someone fighting in a foreign land on 2 hours sleep when their life is at risk every minute of the day is totally different to getting a developer passionate about your product, feeling responsible for it and being productive.

You're managing very different types of people, too, who'll react vastly different to different types of leadership. The military (at least much of the people i've met here in the UK from it) tends to be made up of people who are less academically strong, but pretty headstrong. Leading people like that requires a lot of discipline, almost ruling with an iron fist. Doing that in a business environment will end up with all of your employees being scared of you, and afraid to tell you about real problems the business is facing (that you may not be aware of.. they might try to solve a problem themselves that should involve you, just to avoid potentially facing a backlash of some form).

Whilst I think to an extent there are good leaders and bad leaders in a general sense (some people you just want to follow), it doesn't make sense to generalise leadership as one quality. Too many different kinds of leadership, and different types work best in different situations. Few people could be a great leader in the army and also an excellent CEO, IMO.

 

[potentialeight]

I hope this isn't too entirely unrelated, but I've been interested in pimp culture from the 50s, 60s and 70s for a long time. The way that [real] pimps motivate their girls, keep them safe, keep their mind right and keep them working towards a long-term goal all just by talking is amazing.

 

[lincolndsp]

most of the military colonels inmy country occupy senior management positions in big corporations after they retire and they do their job great. plus they often possess more charisma.

 

[emp]

One thing that - amazingly, to me - comes up time and time again in surveys about "bad bosses / good bosses" is that employees feel that they lack direction on what they should be doing.

To be a good leader, practice

Clear communication
What do you want done?
When?
By whom?

And it will put you ahead of the pack already.

::emp::

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

One thing that - amazingly, to me - comes up time and time again in surveys about "bad bosses / good bosses" is that employees feel that they lack direction on what they should be doing.

To be a good leader, practice

Clear communication
What do you want done?
When?
By whom?

And it will put you ahead of the pack already.

Agreed. Been thinking about this alot lately, and to run an efficient ship, always very clearly define departments, roles, tasks, etc. As stupid as it sounds, McDonalds is actually a prime example.

There's six different people involved to make you a cheeseburger meal:

1.) Bun toasted
2.) Meat patty grilled
3.) Put condiments + patty on bun
4.) Wrap burger, and put in tray
5.) Deep-fry the fries
6.) Take order, get drink

Six very simple tasks, which when combined, form a process that allows hundreds of full meals to go out an hour. Alot of people (especially start-ups) seem to hire employees, and immediately expect them to wear multiple hats, which doesn't work most times. Break things down into very simple tasks, and entry level guys who prove themselves get promoted.

 

[boatBurner]

Kiopa, mitsuozo,

Being unable to relate military leadership to business leadership stems from 1 of 2 reasons:

1. You have a misconception about what occurs in the military.
2. You have a misconception about what leadership is.

That's fine. This is not an offensive. My goal here is to reach out and demystify some of the military-to-civilian translation, but mostly I want you to walk away from this thinking differently about how you might manage yourself, your business, and your employees in the future.

So, what is good leadership?

People Management:
the ability to stand on your own two feet.
the ability to inspire those around you to be better.
the ability to work more for your people than they do for you.
the ability to lose the popularity contest.
the ability to protect your subordinates.

Decision Making:
the ability to make a decision.
the ability to separate emotion from decision making.
the ability to remain accountable.
the ability to act against collective thinking for the sake of the better decision.

Process Management:
the ability to create processes.
the ability to adhere to processes.
the ability to see when a new process is needed and when an existing process is delinquent or redundant.

And last, but certainly not least, is the ability to follow.

The following example is going to be interactive. It is going to be continuous. I am going to pose consequences of your decisions and perspectives from your employees. Jump in at any point.

Let's pretend that we work for clients in a web design and marketing company.

Scenario #1: The Project Manager
You've just inherited the responsibilities as the project manager of a 5-man team of developers, designers, gurus, and some bearded dude with a straw hat whom they call a "growth hacker".

• Today, your team moves into a brand new one-floor office.
• You were given a moderate budget to build your operating space.
• You have five active projects.
• You have two deadlines coming up in less than 6 days.
• Each team member has only been read-in on 1 project which they are currently working.
• No team member is currently working on the same project.

What do you do?

Disclaimer: My goal is to teach you to define good leadership, and appreciate its significance in a way you might not already. My background includes four years in the banking industry and four years in an infantry unit in the Marine Corps. I've recently accepted the position as a production manager for a web design and marketing team.

 

[guerilla]

Good leadership requires 2 things.

Taking responsibility
Putting others in positions to succeed

A third element, the Steve Yzerman element, is

Leading by example (doing as you say)

 

[boatBurner]

Actually, setting up this scenario just gave me an idea that deserves its own thread.

I can't keep up with every Tom and Jane's decisions, so I'm going to allow people who want to be involved in a sort of role-playing on-going business game to opt-in during a small window of time.

This game will be focused on teaching a lot of skills surrounding good leadership. There will be consequences, rewards, and it will play continuously GM'd by myself. I'll post the thread's link shortly.

Game on: http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/168460-leadership-game.html

 

[Wright]

I place the "types" of people into three categories that include the top 10%, the general population, and the bottom 20%. In most cases, this grouping applies. And of most types, I'd consider myself apart of the general population. In fact, there are few things that I do well. But one of them is Leadership.

I think people roll their eyes when they try to define "good" and "bad" leadership, because I think it is often regarded as an abstract characteristic that many people leave "up for interpretation". And that's a dangerous misconception.

I have such a passion for demonstrating good leadership that I collected a lot of information from my current occupation as a Marine to try and relate good military leadership to good business leadership. I considered writing my "magnum opus" of a blog post in order to confront two groups of people: military members and civilians.

Military members often aren't very business savvy, and even fewer civilians are privvy to the lifestyle of the military. It's easier to explain technical concepts to non-technical people than it is to translate business to non-entrepreneurial military members, and military lifestyle to unfamiliar civilians. And it's because of this reason that I realized I wouldn't be able to write an all-encompassing article that was capable of reaching each group in a meaningful way.

Instead, I'll approach each audience in familiar territory. My goal with military members will be different. I'd like to encourage my military friends that "leadership is not just a bullet point on a resume". We often hear so much about leadership that it becomes inane.

But for many of you guys and gals, I'd like to hear your take on good business leadership. I think in an environment where many of you may (or may not) run solo businesses, "picking up good leadership" as you progress is not as easy as it sounds. Through this thread, I hope to offer some perspective and gain some while I'm at it.

I'll leave you with a little Facebook gem I wrote. So trashy that I've simplified it to this, but it's worth reading a few times over:

You may wish to read American Guerrilla - the story of Russell Volckmann - raised a guerrilla army to fight the Japanese in the Philippines, instrumental in the creation of the Army Special Forces, went on to become a Brigadier General and upon retirement ran a business for many years. He's a very good example of a person with leadership abilities that were used successfully both in the military and in the private sector.

 

[boatBurner]

You may wish to read American Guerrilla - the story of Russell Volckmann - raised a guerrilla army to fight the Japanese in the Philippines, instrumental in the creation of the Army Special Forces, went on to become a Brigadier General and upon retirement ran a business for many years. He's a very good example of a person with leadership abilities that were used successfully both in the military and in the private sector.

+1 for the share. I don't normally like military reading material, but I will put this on my reading list. Thanks.

 

[amateursurgeon]

Great thread, looking forward to seeing how it develops.

To your list, I'd add a category of "Self-leadership", which sits underneath the others as a foundation, consisting of:

• Integrity - fulfil on promises (explicit or implicit) that you make
• Congruence - act as you say you do, and as you say others should act
• Honest communication - communicating clearly to achieve the goals you've set for the group, and avoiding using interactions to get your emotional needs met*

I don't have any personal experience of the military, but I was mentored by someone who had a naval background, and he told me that a lot of the exercises (drill, routine, etc) and structures of the military that he experienced were helpful to him in developing these attributes.

*This last one is huge factor in most of the dysfunctional office environments I've experienced

 

[boatBurner]

Great thread, looking forward to seeing how it develops.

To your list, I'd add a category of "Self-leadership", which sits underneath the others as a foundation, consisting of:

• Integrity - fulfil on promises (explicit or implicit) that you make
• Congruence - act as you say you do, and to as you say others should act
• Honest communication - communicating clearly to achieve the goals you've set for the group, and avoiding using interactions to get your emotional needs met

I don't have any personal experience of the military, but I was mentored by someone who had a naval background, and he told me that a lot of the exercises (drill, routine, etc) and structures of the military that he experienced were helpful to him in developing these attributes.

Absolutely, self-leadership is probably the most important and I agree with all three points. I also think a level of proficiency in your discipline is a requirement.

 

[dmnEPC]

Many leaders lead by the "
Do as I say, not as I do" philosophy even though they do not realize it. The good ones don't

 

[mpbiz]

Took this from Napoleon Hill's The Law Of Success in 16 Lessons

During the World War I was fortunate enough to listen to a great soldier's analysis of how to be a leader. This analysis was given to the student-officers of the Second Training Camp at Fort Sheridan, by Major C. A. Bach, a quiet, unassuming army officer acting as an instructor. I have preserved a copy of this address because I believe it to be one of the finest lessons on leadership ever recorded.

The wisdom of Major Bach's address is so vital to the business man aspiring to leadership, or to the section boss, or to the stenographer, or to the foreman of the shop, or to the president of the works, that I have preserved it as a part of this Reading Course. It is my earnest hope that through the agency of this course this remarkable dissertation on leadership will find its way into the hands of every employer and every worker and every ambitious person who aspires to leadership in any walk of life.

The principles upon which the address is based are as applicable to leadership in business and industry and finance as they are in the successful conduct of warfare.

Major Bach spoke as follows:
In a short time each of you men will control the lives of a certain number of other men. You will have in your charge loyal but untrained citizens, who look to you for instruction and guidance. Your word will be their law. Your most casual remark will be remembered. Your mannerisms will be aped. Your clothing, your carriage, your vocabulary, your manner of command will be imitated.
When you join your organization you will find

there a willing body of men who ask from you nothing more than the qualities that will command their respect, their loyalty and their obedience.

They are perfectly ready and eager to follow you so long as you can convince them that you have these qualities. When the time comes that they are satisfied you do not possess them you might as well kiss yourself good-bye. Your usefulness in that organization is at an end.

[How remarkably true this is in all manner of leadership.]

From the standpoint of society, the world may be divided into leaders and followers. The professions have their leaders, the financial world has its leaders. In all this leadership it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate from the element of pure leadership that selfish element of personal gain or advantage to the individual, without which any leadership would lose its value.

It is in military service only, where men freely sacrifice their lives for a faith, where men are willing to suffer and die for the right or the prevention of a wrong, that we can hope to realize leadership in its most exalted and disinterested sense.

Therefore, when I say leadership, I mean military leadership.
In a few days the great mass of you men will receive commissions as officers. These commissions will not make you leaders; they will merely make you officers. They will place you in a position where you can become leaders if you possess the proper attributes. But you must make good, not so much with the men over you as with the men under you.

Men must and will follow into battle officers who are not leaders, but the driving power behind these men is not enthusiasm but discipline. They go with doubt and trembling that prompts the unspoken question, "What will he do next?" Such men obey the letter of their orders but no more. Of devotion to their commander, of exalted enthusiasm which scorns personal risk, of self-sacrifice to insure his personal safety, they know nothing. Their legs carry them forward because their brain and their training tell them they must go. Their spirit does not go with them.

Great results are not achieved by cold, passive, unresponsive soldiers. They don't go very far and they stop as soon as they can. Leadership not only demands but receives the willing, unhesitating, unfaltering obedience and loyalty of other men; and a devotion that will cause them, when the time comes, to follow their uncrowned king to hell and back again, if necessary.

You will ask yourselves: "Of just what, then, does leadership consist? What must I do to become a leader? What are the attributes of leadership, and how can I cultivate them?"

Leadership is a composite of a number of qualities. [Just as success is a composite of the fifteen factors out of which this Reading Course was built.] Among the most important I would list Self- confidence, Moral Ascendency, Self-Sacrifice, Paternalism, Fairness, Initiative, Decision, Dignity, Courage.

Self-confidence results, first, from exact know- ledge; second, the ability to impart that knowledge; and third, the feeling of superiority over others that naturally follows. All these give the officer poise. To lead, you must know! You may bluff all of your men some of the time, but you can't do it all the time. Men will not have confidence in an officer unless he knows his business, and he must know it from the ground up.

The officer should know more about paper work than his first sergeant and company clerk put together; he should know more about messing than his mess sergeant; more about diseases of the horse than his troop farrier. He should be at least as good a shot as any man in his company.

If the officer does not know, and demonstrates the fact that he does not know, it is entirely human for the soldier to say to himself, "To hell with him. He doesn't know as much about this as I do," and calmly disregard the instructions received.
There is no substitute for accurate knowledge!
Become so well informed that men will hunt you up to ask questions; that your brother officers will say to one another, "Ask Smith - he knows."

And not only should each officer know thoroughly the duties of his own grade, but he should study those of the two grades next above him. A two- fold benefit attaches to this. He prepares himself for duties which may fall to his lot any time during battle; he further gains a broader viewpoint which enables him to appreciate the necessity for the issuance of orders and join more intelligently in their execution.
Not only must the officer know but he must be able to put what he knows into grammatical, interesting, forceful English. He must learn to stand on his feet and speak without embarrassment.

I am told that in British training camps student- officers are required to deliver ten minute talks on any subject they choose. That is excellent practice. For to speak clearly one must think clearly, and clear, logical thinking expresses itself in definite, positive orders.

While self-confidence is the result of knowing more than your men, Moral Ascendency over them is based upon your belief that you are the better man. To gain and maintain this ascendency you must have self- control, physical vitality and endurance and moral force. You must have yourself so well in hand that, even though in battle you be scared stiff, you will never show fear. For if by so much as a hurried movement or a trembling of the hands, or a change of expression, or a hasty order hastily revoked, you indicate your mental condition it will be reflected in your men in a far greater degree.

In garrison or camp many instances will arise to try your temper and wreck the sweetness of your disposition. If at such times you "fly off the handle" you have no business to be in charge of men. For men in anger say and do things that they almost invariably regret afterward.
An officer should never apologize to his men; also an officer should never be guilty of an act for which his sense of justice tells him he should apologize.

 

[mpbiz]

Continued..

Another element in gaining Moral Ascendency lies in the possession of enough physical vitality and endurance to withstand the hardships to which you and your men are subjected, and a dauntless spirit that enables you not only to accept them cheerfully but to minimize their magnitude. Make light of your troubles, belittle your trials and you will help vitally to build up within your organization an esprit whose value in time of stress cannot be measured.

Moral force is the third element in gaining Moral Ascendency. To exert moral force you must live clean; you must have sufficient brain power to see the right and the will to do right.
Be an example to your men!

An officer can be a power for good or a power for evil. Don't preach to them - that will be worse than useless. Live the kind of life you would have them lead, and you will be surprised to see the number that will imitate you.

A loud-mouthed, profane captain who is careless of his personal appearance will have a loud-mouthed, profane, dirty company. Remember what I tell you. Your company will be the reflection of yourself! If you have a rotten company it will be because you are a rotten captain.
Self-sacrifice is essential to leadership. You will give, give, all the time.

You will give of yourself physically, for the longest hours, the hardest work and the greatest responsibility are the lot of the captain. He is the first man up in the morning and the last man in at night. He works while others sleep.

You will give of yourself mentally, in sympathy and appreciation for the troubles of men in your charge. This one's mother has died, and that one has lost all his savings in a bank failure. They may desire help, but more than anything else they desire sympathy. Don't make the mistake of turning such men down with the statement that you have troubles of your own, for every time you do that you knock a stone out o f the foundation of your house.

Your men are your foundation, and your house of leadership will tumble about your ears unless it rests securely upon them. Finally, you will give of your own slender financial resources. You will frequently spend your own money to conserve the health and well-being of your men or to assist them when in trouble. Generally you get your money back. Very frequently you must charge it off to profit and loss.
Even so, it is worth the cost.

When I say that paternalism is essential to leadership I use the term in its better sense. I do not now refer to that form of paternalism which robs men of initiative, self-reliance and self-respect.

I refer to the paternalism that manifests itself in a watchful care for the comfort and welfare of those in your charge.
Soldiers are much like children. You must see that they have shelter, food and clothing, the best that your utmost efforts can provide. You must see that they have food to eat before you think of your own; that they have each as good a bed as can be provided before you consider where you will sleep.

You must be far more solicitous of their comfort than of your own. You must look after their health. You must conserve their strength by not demanding needless exertion or useless labor.
And by doing all these things you are breathing life into what would be otherwise a mere machine. You are creating a soul in your organization that will make the mass respond to you as though it were one man. And that is esprit.

And when your organization has this esprit you will wake up some morning and discover that the tables have been turned; that instead of your constantly looking out for them they have, without even a hint from you, taken up the task of looking out for you. You will find that a detail is always there to see that your tent, if you have one, is promptly pitched; that the most and the cleanest bedding is brought to your tent; that from some mysterious source two eggs have been added to your supper when no one else has any; that an extra man is helping your men give your horse a supergrooming; that your wishes are anticipated; that every man is "Johnny-on- the-spot." And then you have arrived!

You cannot treat all men alike! A punishment that would be dismissed by one man with a shrug of the shoulders is mental anguish for another. A company commander who, for a given offense, has a standard punishment that applies to all is either too indolent or too stupid to study the personality of his men. In his case justice is certainly blind.
Study your men as carefully as a surgeon studies a difficult case. And when you are sure of your diagnosis apply the remedy.

And remember that you apply the remedy to effect a cure, not merely to see the victim squirm. It may be necessary to cut deep, but when you are satisfied as to your diagnosis don't be diverted from your purpose by any false sympathy for the patient.

Hand in hand with fairness in awarding punishment walks fairness in giving credit. Everybody hates a human hog. When one of your men has accomplished an especially creditable piece of work see that he gets the proper reward.

Turn heaven and earth upside down to get it for him. Don't try to take it away from him and hog it for yourself. You may do this and get away with it, but you have lost the respect and loyalty of your men. Sooner or later your brother officers will hear of it and shun you like a leper. In war there is glory enough for all. Give the man under you his due. The man who always takes and never gives is not a leader. He is a parasite.

There is another kind of fairness - that which will prevent an officer from abusing the privileges of his rank. When you exact respect from soldiers be sure you treat them with equal respect. Build up their manhood and self-respect. Don't try to pull it down.

For an officer to be overbearing and insulting in the treatment of enlisted men is the act of a coward. He ties the man to a tree with the ropes of discipline and then strikes him in the face knowing full well that the man cannot strike back.

Consideration, courtesy and respect from officers toward enlisted men are not incompatible with discipline. They are parts of our discipline. Without initiative and decision no man can expect to lead.

In maneuvers you will frequently see, when an emergency arises, certain men calmly give instant orders which later, on analysis, prove to be, if not exactly the right thing, very nearly the right thing to have done. You will see other men in emergency become badly rattled; their brains refuse to work, or they give a hasty order, revoke it; give another, revoke that; in short, show every indication of being in a blue funk.

Regarding the first man you may say: "That man is a genius. He hasn't had time to reason this thing out. He acts intuitively." Forget it! Genius is merely the capacity for taking infinite pains. The man who was ready is the man who has prepared himself. He has studied beforehand the possible situations that might arise; he has made tentative plans covering such situations. When he is confronted by the emergency he is ready to meet it. He must have sufficient mental alertness to appreciate the problem that confronts him and the power of quick reasoning to determine what changes are necessary in his already formulated plan.

He must also have the decision to order the execution and stick to his orders.

Any reasonable order in an emergency is better than no order. The situation is there. Meet it. It is better to do something and do the wrong thing than to hesitate, hunt around for the right thing to do and wind up by doing nothing at all. And, having decided on a line of action, stick to it. Don't vacillate. Men have no confidence in an officer who doesn't know his own mind.

Occasionally you will be called upon to meet a situation which no reasonable human being could anticipate. If you have prepared yourself to meet other emergencies which you could anticipate, the mental training you have thereby gained will enable you to act promptly and with calmness.

 

[mpbiz]

Last part

You must frequently act without orders from higher authority. Time will not permit you to wait for them. Here again enters the importance of studying the work of officers above you. If you have a comprehensive grasp of the entire situation and can form an idea of the general plan of your superiors, that and your previous emergency training will enable you to determine that the responsibility is yours and to issue the necessary orders without delay.

The element of personal dignity is important in military leadership. Be the friend of your men, but do not become their intimate. Your men should stand in awe of you - not fear! If your men presume to become familiar it is your fault, and not theirs. Your actions have encouraged them to do so. And, above all things, don't cheapen yourself by courting their friendship or currying their favor. They will despise: you for it.

If you are worthy of their loyalty and respect and devotion they will surely give all these without asking. If you are not, nothing that you can do will win them.

It is exceedingly difficult for an officer to be dignified while wearing a dirty, spotted uniform and a three days' stubble of whiskers on his face. Such a man lacks self-respect, and self-respect is an essential of dignity.

There may be occasions when your work entails dirty clothes and an unshaved face. Your men all look that way. At such times there is ample reason for your appearance. In fact, it would be a mistake to look too clean - they would think that you were, not doing your share. But as soon as this unusual occasion has passed set an example for personal neatness.

And then I would mention courage. Moral courage you need as well as mental courage - that kind of moral courage which enables you to adhere without faltering to a determined course of action, which your judgment has indicated is the one best suited to secure the desired results.
You will find many times, especially in action, that, after having issued your orders to do a certain thing, you will be beset by misgivings and doubts; you will see, or think you see, other and better means for accomplishing the object sought. You will be strongly tempted to change your orders.

Don't do it until it is clearly manifested that your first orders were radically wrong. For, if you do, you will be again worried by doubts as to the efficacy of your second orders.

Every time you change your orders without obvious reason you weaken your authority and impair the confidence of your men. Have the moral courage to stand by your order and see it through.

Moral courage further demands that you assume the responsibility for your own acts. If your subordinates have loyally carried out your orders and the movement you directed is a failure the failure is yours, not theirs. Yours would have been the honor had it been successful. Take the blame if it results in disaster. Don't try to shift it to a subordinate and make him the goat. That is a cowardly act. Furthermore, you will need moral courage to determine the fate of those under you.

You will frequently be called upon for recommendations for promotion or demotion of officers and non- commissioned officers in your immediate command.

Keep clearly in mind your personal integrity and the duty you owe your country. Do not let yourself be deflected from a strict sense of justice by feelings of personal friendship. If your own brother is your sec
and lieutenant, and you find him unfit to hold his commission, eliminate him. If you don't your lack of moral courage may result in the loss of valuable lives.

If, on the other hand, you are called upon for a recommendation concerning a man whom, for personal reasons, you thoroughly dislike, do not fail to do him full justice. Remember that your aim is the general good, not the satisfaction of an individual grudge.

I am taking it for granted that you have physical courage. I need not tell you how necessary that is. Courage is more than bravery. Bravery is fearlessness - the absence of fear. The merest dolt may be brave, because he lacks the mentality to appreciate his danger; he doesn't know enough to be afraid.

Courage, however, is that firmness of spirit, that moral backbone which, while fully appreciating the danger involved, nevertheless goes on with the undertaking. Bravery is physical; courage is mental and moral. You may be cold all over; your hands may tremble; your legs may quake; your knees be ready to give way-that is fear.

If, nevertheless, you go forward; if, in spite of this physical defection you continue to lead your men against the enemy, you have courage. The physical manifestations of fear will pass away. You may never experience them but once. They are the "buck fever" of the hunter who tries to shoot his first deer. You must not give way to them.

A number of years ago, while taking a course in demolitions, the class of which I was a member was handling dynamite. The instructor said, regarding its manipulation: "I must caution you gentlemen to be careful in the use of these explosives. One man has but one accident." And so I would caution you. If you give way to fear that will doubtless beset you in your first action; if you show the white feather; if you let your men go forward while you hunt a shell crater, you will never again have the opportunity of leading those men.

Use judgment in calling on your men for displays of physical courage or bravery. Don't ask any man to go where you would not go yourself. If your common sense tells you that the place is too dangerous for you to venture into, then it is too dangerous for him. You know his life is as valuable to him as yours is to you.

Occasionally some o f your men must be exposed to danger which you cannot share. A message must be taken across a fire-swept zone. You call for volunteers. If your men know you and know that you are "right" you will never lack volunteers, for they will know your heart is in your work, that you are giving your country the best you have, that you would willingly carry the message yourself if you could. Your example and enthusiasm will have inspired them.

And, lastly, if you aspire to leadership, I would urge you to study men.
Get under their skins and find out what is inside. Some men are quite different from what they appear to be on the surface. Determine the workings of their mind.

Much of General Robert E. Lee's success as a leader may be ascribed to his ability as a psychologist. He knew most of his opponents from West Point days; knew the workings of their minds; and he believed that they would do certain things under certain circumstances. In nearly every case he was able to anticipate their movements and block the execution.

You cannot know your opponent in this war in the same way. But you can know your own men. You can study each to determine wherein lies his strength and his weakness; which man can be relied upon to the last gasp and which cannot.

Know your men, know your business, know yourself!
········
In all literature you will not find a better description of leadership than this. Apply it to yourself, or to your business, or to your profession, or to the place where you are employed, and you will
observe how well it serves as your guide.


Major Bach's address is one that might well be
delivered to every boy and girl who graduates in high school. It might well be delivered to every college graduate. It might well become the book of rules for every man who is placed in a position of leadership over other men, no matter in what calling, business or profession.

Long read but definitely worth it.

 

[boatBurner]

One of the hardest traits mastered for many leaders, from my experiences, is that of Accountability.

Often times, people think they are only 30% responsible for an error, so the responsibility should land on the guy with the bigger stake in the matter.

That's just absolutely wrong.

If you think of responsibility in terms of stakes or percentages, your mindset needs a recalibration. The problem here is that when people don't have the mental fortitude to own up to the entire error of any task they had even the slightest role in, then a toxic situation emerges. You need to think proactively to cover your ass, but more importantly, you need to be passionate about the quality of work you perform.

In my world, I call this "give-a-shit", and this is a very real factor. If you have low give-a-shit, chances are you'll notice an error mid-process but because it was caused by the other guy's department, you'll let it slide and let someone else deal with it. Worse even, you might see no immediate error at all - the machine is running smooth and well-oiled, but then suddenly it dawns on you that there is a gap that could potentially undermine your's and other's efforts. With low give-a-shit, you continue business as usual, not remedying the potential problem.

And then when something breaks, you're quick to point at your low stake in the task or you'll throw another agency under the bus, however large or small their role in the error was. And you might be right, in terms of who is directly responsible for the error. But you're wrong for not possessing the mindset to fix the immediate or potential problems as you see them. And I don't want you on my team.

I've taken responsibility for errors that I was not directly responsible for. It's not a good feeling. And you don't accept responsibility as some sort of show of good character. You're taking responsibility because you truly believe you should have had the judgement and the foresight to prevent the issue, even if it wasn't your department's role. There is nothing wrong with kicking a project back to the person who gave it to you if you deem it fucked up. But once a project has come and gone into your hands, you are 100% responsible for it, everytime.

Accountability is a mother fucker, and I will never hire people who demonstrate a lack of it.