The Dichotomy of Leadership: Balancing the Challenges of Extreme Ownership to Lead and Win

by Jocko Willink

  “Yep, you’re right,” I agreed. “High risk to us and our support with a low probability of reward. I’ll talk to the brigade commander.”

  I held the highest respect and admiration for the brigade commander. He and his staff put tremendous faith and trust in us and appreciated the risks we took continuously to cover his Soldiers and Marines from the high ground with our sniper overwatch positions. I also recognized that in this instance, he was overestimating our capability to eliminate the mortar and IED attacks in C-Lake. That night, I drove across the base and explained the situation to the brigade commander. He completely understood, and we discussed some alternative strategies to solve the problem, like using some persistent air coverage or establishing a permanent coalition presence in the area—a series of checkpoints or combat outposts that could keep things under control. The brigade commander knew, as I did, that while being aggressive is a great default attitude to have, it still must be balanced with caution and careful consideration to ensure it is not a case of excessive risk with limited reward.

  Principle

  Problems aren’t going to solve themselves—a leader must get aggressive and take action to solve them and implement a solution. Being too passive and waiting for a solution to appear often enables a problem to escalate and get out of control. The enemy isn’t going to back off—the leader must get aggressive and put the enemy in check. The good deal isn’t going to deliver itself to a company—the leader has to go out and make a good deal happen. Changes and new methodologies in a team aren’t going to implement themselves—leaders need to aggressively implement them.

  An aggressive mind-set should be the default setting of any leader. Default: Aggressive. This means that the best leaders, the best teams, don’t wait to act. Instead, understanding the strategic vision (or commander’s intent), they aggressively execute to overcome obstacles, capitalize on immediate opportunities, accomplish the mission, and win.

  Rather than passively waiting to be told what to do, Default: Aggressive leaders proactively seek out ways to further the strategic mission. They understand the commander’s intent, and where they have the authority to do so, they execute. For decisions that are beyond their pay grade or above their authority, Default: Aggressive leaders still make a recommendation up the chain of command to solve problems and execute key tasks to achieve strategic victory. In SEAL platoons and task units, we expect this from leaders at every level, right down to the frontline trooper in charge of just himself and his small piece of the mission. But this mentality is crucial to any leader, in any team or organization. It is just as critical to success in business as on the battlefield.

  “Aggressive” means proactive. It doesn’t mean that leaders can get angry, lose their temper, or be aggressive toward their people. A leader must always deal professionally with subordinates on the team, peers, leaders up the chain of command, customers or clients, and personnel in supporting roles outside the immediate team. Speaking angrily to others is ineffective. Losing your temper is a sign of weakness. The aggression that wins on the battlefield, in business, or in life is directed not toward people but toward solving problems, achieving goals, and accomplishing the mission.

  It is also critical to balance aggression with careful thought and analysis to make sure that risks have been assessed and mitigated. The dichotomy with the Default: Aggressive mind-set is that sometimes hesitation allows a leader to further understand a situation so that he or she can react properly to it. Rather than immediately respond to enemy fire, sometimes the prudent decision is to wait and see how it develops. Is it a simple reconnaissance by fire? Is it a feint by the enemy, meant to distract from the real attack? Is the enemy simply trying to lure you into a confined area, where they have a superior force waiting to ambush? A careful moment of consideration might reveal the enemy’s true intentions. To be overly aggressive, without critical thinking, is to be reckless. That can lead the team into disaster and put the greater mission in peril. To disregard prudent counsel when someone with experience urges caution, to dismiss significant threats, or to fail to plan for likely contingencies is foolhardy. It is bad leadership.

  A chief contributing factor to recklessness comes from what military historians have long referred to as “the disease of victory.” This disease takes place when a few battlefield successes produce an overconfidence in a team’s own tactical prowess while underestimating the capabilities of its enemy or competitor. This is a problem not just for combat leaders but for leaders and teams anywhere, in any arena, throughout the business world and the civilian sector.

  It is a leader’s duty to fight against this victory disease so that the team, despite its success, never gets complacent. The risk in any action must be carefully weighed against the potential rewards of mission success. And of course, to counter that thought, the cost of inaction must be weighed as well.

  As aggressive as leaders must be, leaders must be cautious that they are not “running to their deaths” simply because their instinct is to take action. The dichotomy between aggression and caution must be balanced. So be aggressive, but never reckless.

  Application to Business

  “I am going to build the team now so we are ready to handle the growth that will come in the next eighteen to twenty-four months,” the CEO told me with great enthusiasm. She was the owner of a small business set for rapid expansion. The CEO had bought the business from the former owner, who had kept it on cruise control for the past five years as he eased into retirement.

  Since taking over the business, the new CEO had been getting aggressive—and getting customers. She was working hard and driving her team to do the same. The company was poised for some really big growth in the next couple of years. She knew she needed help with that growth and had brought in Echelon Front to coach her and provide leadership training for her team. It certainly seemed she and her company were on the right track.

  However, there were tough obstacles in the CEO’s path. First, she had spent most of her personal capital to purchase the company from the previous owner, who had left the business with little cash flow. So between her personal finances and the company’s weak balance sheet, there wasn’t much operating capital.

  Traditional business problems were also present. As with most sales scenarios, this custom manufacturing business had many sales leads that needed follow-up, and only a small percentage of those converted into actual sales. The business had a particularly long turn time from orders placed until payment was received. This included designing, testing, approval, and manufacturing—all of which included transport lag times to and from Asia, where the manufacturing took place. That meant very long and capital-intensive delays between when deals were signed and when final payments were made by the clients.

  The CEO continued rattling off her plan to me: “I can see where we are headed right now. The number of leads we are getting, the referrals are increasing, the closing rate for the team is going up. We are going to explode next year and I want the team to be more than ready. Default: Aggressive, right?” she asked me, referring to the combat leadership principle I had discussed with her and her team a few days before.

  “Absolutely,” I replied. “Default: Aggressive!”

  I liked that attitude and always had. That afternoon, she explained the plan to me in more detail, the positions she was duplicating, new positions she was creating, and how she was going to structure the company. It was impressive. She had a great vision of where the company was going and the immense capacity it was going to have to execute orders and deliver results on par with some of her biggest competitors.

  In order to house the expanding team, she was looking at new locations for the business—or, at a minimum, expanding her current location to include one of the adjacent spaces. However, she was leaning toward moving to a new location more professional in appearance. The company’s current location was run-down from years of declining business, and the building didn’t come across as a first-class operation.
The CEO knew the value of first impressions and was determined to change that.

  “The new location has potential for even more growth,” she explained, “which I know we are going to need!”

  Hearing this aggressive mind-set was like music to my ears, and the CEO’s dynamic and enthusiastic attitude had me completely on board.

  “Outstanding,” I told her, and then I doubled down on this attitude: “If you set up the right groundwork, infrastructure, and put the right people in place now—you will be ready to take over the world next year.”

  At that point, filled with fervor and moxie, we literally high-fived each other like a couple of high school kids who had just won the state basketball championship.

  What a great way to end the meeting. I walked out of the building that day looking forward to our next meeting the following week.

  But as I drove to the airport for the flight home, I sobered up from the excitement and realized I was actually pretty emotional about the company: good emotion, but too much emotion. I realized I was caught up in the owner’s enthusiasm and relishing her aggressive mind-set. For that very reason—for the CEO’s long-term good and the good of the company—I needed to check myself.

  When I got home that night, I sent her an e-mail thanking her for the great meeting. I praised her attitude but then tapered those thoughts. I told her that before she moved forward with any big decisions, we should do a serious and unemotional analysis of the financials, a conservative view of operating capital and growth potential, and forecast how the company’s overhead would increase in the near and long term. I asked her to have her team put together these numbers for our meeting next week so we could discuss them.

  When I met with her the following week, she was still enthusiastic, which was great to see. But I had to keep myself in check. I had to make sure I didn’t get caught up in enthusiasm and the attitude of aggressiveness. I had to ensure that she wasn’t being overly aggressive—even reckless.

  “I think we are still good to move forward,” the CEO said, leading me into her office, where her chief financial officer (CFO) and human resources director were waiting.

  “Great,” I replied. “Let’s look at the numbers.”

  The CFO presented a few slides explaining the company’s financial outlook. When it came to the bottom line, it was tight—too tight for me to feel comfortable. But perhaps doable.

  Then I noticed one word on the predictive sales chart: “Stretch.”

  “I see you have ‘Stretch’ written there. Are these your stretch goals?” I asked the CEO.

  She stumbled a bit, then confirmed, “Well, they are—kind of—but as we expand our sales force, we should be able to hit them.”

  “You mean a sales force that you haven’t hired, haven’t tested, haven’t trained, and who haven’t been proven yet?” I asked, growing concerned.

  “Well, not yet, but…,” she replied, fading off.

  “We both know that none of those are easy with salespeople,” I said. “Not the hiring, not the training, and certainly not the proving. New salespeople are hit-and-miss in every industry. And if you are looking at accomplishing your stretch goals based on a stretch sales force, you might have some major issues.”

  “Well, if it takes a little longer to get there, we can just take a little longer,” the CEO pushed back. “We have time.”

  “Are you sure?” I asked. “Bring up the budget again, will you?” I said to the CFO.

  He put the budget slides up on the screen. I took a look in greater detail this time.

  “Your stretch goals barely cover your overhead—and as overhead goes up, it won’t get any better,” I observed.

  “But we need to be positioned to dominate next year,” the CEO stated, subconsciously appealing to my affinity for being aggressively prepared. I had to check myself—and her.

  “I get that,” I responded. “But look. Without achieving stretch goals, in six months, you won’t break even. As you are sitting waiting for payments to come through, you’ll have burned through your operating capital. Now, you could go and get a loan or look for investors, but that is a short-term sacrifice for which you will never stop paying. And if the trend continues without any external money, in a year, you will be upside down. In eighteen months, you could easily be in a position vulnerable to some really bad investor deals, or a forced buyout—or even worse: bankruptcy.”

  “But what if I do make the goals and then we aren’t ready?” the CEO asked. “I thought I needed to be aggressive?”

  “Well … you do need to be ready and you do need to be aggressive. But being aggressive doesn’t mean throwing caution to the wind. It doesn’t mean taking catastrophic risk that can and should be mitigated. And it doesn’t mean relying on unrealistic stretch goals. You need to get aggressive with risk mitigation and with securing long-term success for the company. You need to get aggressive with you maintaining full control and ownership of the company. You need to get aggressive with budgeting and contingency planning. That’s what you need to get aggressive with. Otherwise, you’re putting yourself, your hard work, your team, and your company at risk.”

  The CEO nodded, beginning to understand where I was coming from.

  “Look,” I continued, “you know how when I explained Default: Aggressive to your leadership team the other day, I explained in detail that I didn’t mean getting aggressive toward your people? And how screaming and shouting as a leader wasn’t the kind of aggression that helps you lead? Of course, there are times when you have to be firm with people, but it has to be balanced. Aggression is a great attribute, but it can spin out of control. This is a similar situation. Getting aggressive here and growing your overhead isn’t going to help you or the company. It is just going to leave you exposed and vulnerable to risk. So. Let’s reset, take a look at the end state you are trying to achieve, and come up with a measured, balanced way to get there. Then create a plan that has some embedded checkpoints, triggers, and branch plans so that the risks you take are controlled, calculated, and also provide some exit strategies in case things don’t go the way you expect them to.”

  The CEO nodded and smiled. “I guess I just like being aggressive a little too much. But yes. This makes sense. There is definitely a way to get this done with less risk and more control.”

  With that, we went to work. We formulated a plan that slowly increased infrastructure and support as the sales team not only grew but proved itself with actual deals closed. The office move was pulled out of the plan, and even the expansion of the existing office was put off until the current space was truly overflowing. She also decided to cut some other expenses: she downsized the warehouse for storing product that wasn’t being used to capacity and decided to eliminate one of the three account managers who hadn’t built much business yet. When she briefed me on the changes to the plan, I smiled.

  “I like it,” I told her.

  “I do too,” the CEO admitted. “And it is a good way to be aggressive: instead of getting aggressive in preparing for an unknown future, I got aggressive cutting costs and managing my P & L3.

  “And you know what?” she asked me.

  “What’s that?” I asked.

  “It still felt good,” she replied, happy she was able to direct her aggressive mind-set to lead her company by focusing that attitude in the right direction and balancing aggression with clear, unemotional thought and sensible risk mitigation.

  As lead sniper and an enlisted leader for Task Unit Bruiser’s Delta Platoon, J. P. Dinnell also served as point man, the most hazardous, first in line position in the patrol, responsible for identifying forward threats and successfully navigating the team to their target or destination. Delta was attacked and engaged by enemy fighters on a vast majority of the patrols they conducted during this deployment. Here, J.P. courageously leads Delta Platoon and their Iraqi soldiers through the streets after a sniper overwatch mission in eastern Ramadi. Even after grueling hours in the Iraqi heat under constant enemy
attack, J.P. maintains his discipline: weapon at the ready with eyes scanning for threats.

  (Photo courtesy of Samuel Peterson)

  CHAPTER 7

  Disciplined, Not Rigid

  Jocko Willink

  CENTRAL BAGHDAD, IRAQ: 2003

  Why the hell are all the guys in that Humvee smoking? I wondered.

  As I glanced at the Humvee in front of me, it looked as if someone flicked a cigarette out of the vehicle, the glowing red embers creating tiny explosions against the side of the Humvee and the street around it. Then I saw another one. And another one. A few seconds later, reality hit me. Those weren’t cigarette embers hitting the Humvee. They were bullets.

  It was the first time I had been shot at—and I didn’t even know it. Our SEAL platoon was in a convoy of Humvees in central Baghdad, headed toward a notoriously violent part of town. In the early days of the Iraq War, our Humvees had no armor. The vehicles had no doors and were thin-skinned—bullets could pass right through the exterior. They were not meant for urban combat, making the incoming small-arms fire a real threat.

  Unfortunately, we couldn’t see where the enemy fire was coming from, so we did not return fire. A minute or two later, we pulled into our destination, a small outpost in north-central Baghdad. Once our convoy stopped inside the compound, a radio call came over my headset. One of my guys was hit. Over the radio, the medic asked which vehicle the wounded man was in. The call came back that the wounded man was in vehicle four. I got out of my vehicle, did a quick visual assessment of our current tactical situation. All vehicles were in line on the road on which we had driven into the compound. The road ran parallel to the nearby Tigris River, to our right. We had driven past the main building in the outpost, protected by rows of large wire-and-fabric boxes filled with sand and gravel, called HESCO barriers. The wall of HESCO barriers extended along the bank of the Tigris opposite the main building, but as the road continued past the main building, the HESCO barriers came to an end. It didn’t seem like a big concern to me, as the Tigris was fairly wide and small arms would likely not be effective from the bank on the other side.