Back at the team, I pulled the SEAL petty officer aside and apologized for the way I had reacted. I told him I should have deferred to his method. He told me he was wrong to have argued with me about it in front of the rest of the task unit. We left the conversation on good terms. I was determined to not let that happen again.
At the time, I had thought that if I gave way and followed the SEAL petty officer’s lead, it would make me look weak as the leader. But looking back, I realized the opposite was true. Had I given way to the SEAL enlisted leader with more experience, it would have made me a much stronger leader. It would have shown that I was willing to follow as well as lead. It would have served as a powerful demonstration that I knew I didn’t have all the answers and could get behind those with more experience, who were in a better position to lead a particular aspect of the team or the mission.
The minor differences between the two methods we argued about were tactically insignificant. But the missed opportunity to demonstrate my strength as a leader by being a willing follower was a strategic loss. I learned an important lesson from this failure, one that helped me greatly going forward and enabled Charlie Platoon and Task Unit Bruiser to more effectively lead and win.
Every leader must be ready and willing to take charge, to make hard, crucial calls for the good of the team and the mission. That is inherent in the very term “leader.” But leaders must also have the ability to follow. This was a difficult dichotomy: in order to be a good leader, you must also be a good follower. Finding that balance is key.
Principle
Every leader must be willing and able to lead, but just as important is a leader’s ability to follow. A leader must be willing to lean on the expertise and ideas of others for the good of the team. Leaders must be willing to listen and follow others, regardless of whether they are junior or less experienced. If someone else has a great idea or specific knowledge that puts them in the best position to lead a particular project, a good leader recognizes that it doesn’t matter who gets the credit, only that the mission is accomplished in the most effective manner possible. Confident leaders encourage junior members of the team to step up and lead when they put forth ideas that will contribute to mission success. When the team wins, much of the credit goes to the leader, whether or not that leader was the person driving the operation, tactics, or strategy, and a good leader pushes the praise and accolades down to their team.
At the same time, a good leader must also be a good follower of his or her own senior leaders. As we wrote in Extreme Ownership: “One of the most important jobs of any leader is to support your own boss.” When the debate on a particular course of action ends and the boss makes a decision—even if you disagree with the decision—“you must execute the plan as if it were your own.” Only if the orders coming down from senior leadership are illegal, immoral, unethical, or significantly risky to lives, limbs, or the strategic success of the organization should a subordinate leader hold fast against directives from superiors. Those cases should be rare. Chapter 11 of this book, “Humble, Not Passive,” elaborates on this dichotomy.
Under normal circumstances, a good leader must follow and support the chain of command. Often, for natural leaders who are eager to step up and take charge, it may be a struggle to follow a leader who is less competent, less aggressive, uncharismatic, or uninspiring. Regardless, when lawful orders from the boss or higher chain of command conflict with a leader’s ideas, a subordinate leader must still be willing to follow and support the chain of command. Failing to do this undermines the authority of the entire chain of command, including that of the defiant leader. Failing to follow also creates an antagonistic relationship up the chain of command, which negatively impacts the willingness of the boss to take input and suggestions from the subordinate leader, and hurts the team. Leaders who fail to be good followers fail themselves and their team. But when a leader is willing to follow, the team functions effectively and the probability of mission success radically increases. This is the dichotomy to balance: be a leader and a follower.
Application to Business
“I need your help,” Jim said when we connected via phone. “I’ve got a serious dilemma.”
Jim was the leader of the sales team in the products division of a major corporation. He was a highly competent leader—smart, aggressive toward mission accomplishment, and driven to outperform and succeed where others came up short. Like so many good leaders, he was highly competitive and took pride when his team outperformed the other teams in his division.
Jim had read Extreme Ownership and recognized that he needed to make some improvements in his leadership game. He reached out to me to inquire about executive coaching.
“Unfortunately, we aren’t able to provide individual coaching anymore,” I told him. “That is something we used to offer, but with the high demand for our services at Echelon Front, we only provide executive coaching to our long-term clients now as part of our Leadership Development and Alignment Programs.”
Jim was disappointed. At the time, I lived in New York City. Jim lived nearby in New Jersey.
“I’ll make this as little impact on you as I can,” Jim said. “I’ll even jump on a train and come to New York City whenever it’s convenient.”
“What specific leadership challenges are you struggling with?” I asked Jim. “In what areas are you looking to improve?”
“My relationship with my immediate boss isn’t good,” he replied, “and I’m not sure what to do about it. I’ve always been a solid team player, and I’ve gotten along well with every previous boss I can remember. I’m usually their go-to guy. Now, I seem to be in the doghouse and I’m not sure what to do to make it better.”
From our initial conversation, I immediately liked Jim. He was a leader with a Default: Aggressive mentality, and in his struggles with his boss, I saw much of my former self. I made so many of the same mistakes. As I aggressively maneuvered to win the tactical victory, I sometimes created frictions with my leadership that hurt our team in the long run and hindered our strategic mission. I knew that the lessons I’d learned the hard way would be useful to Jim and help him rebuild trust with his chain of command. I also knew that while he likely wouldn’t want to hear what I had to say, he was eager to learn and therefore would be more willing to listen and implement my recommendations. I decided to make some time in the schedule for him.
“Okay,” I said. “Let’s do it. How about we meet up in Manhattan sometime in the next couple of weeks?”
Jim was excited and eager to link up. We arranged a time and meeting place.
The place was a finely decorated New York City social club with a long and storied history, whose members included highly successful business leaders and titans of Wall Street. Having grown up in the country in rural southeast Texas, I was much more comfortable in jeans and a flannel shirt or the clothes I wore while stationed in San Diego: a T-shirt, surf shorts, and flip-flops. But as we often say at Echelon Front, there is no growth in the comfort zone. So I donned the required suit and tie for the venue and went to meet Jim.
My first impression confirmed what I had gleaned in our phone conversation: Jim was a driven leader who truly cared about his job and the team he led. He genuinely wanted to be the best at what he did, earn the respect of his peers and leaders, and he was determined to find ways to improve his leadership game. After some initial conversation, we dove into the leadership challenge with which he was struggling at the company.
“I feel like my boss is being unfairly harsh on me and my team because he doesn’t like me,” Jim stated. He described how he’d previously been recognized for a particular standout performance by the senior vice president of the division—his boss’s boss.
“That recognition seemed to turn my boss against me,” Jim continued. “It culminated with a big blowup recently.”
“What was the big blowup?” I inquired.
“It happened a few weeks back when I went in for my annual performance review,�
� Jim answered. “Our team had done well overall. I was expecting strong marks, just as I’ve received in the past, and I was stunned when he handed me the review with a lower rating. I mean, there are some areas where we could have done better. But this rating was far lower than it should have been.”
“How did you respond?” I asked.
“I blew up at him,” Jim admitted. “I felt it was an insult to me. And, most important, it hurt my team’s paychecks. Our bonuses are directly tied to that performance rating. Lower marks meant less money for my team to feed their families. I was furious about this and I told the boss so. Things got pretty heated. He blew up at me and I stormed out of his office.”
“That doesn’t sound good,” I said. “It seems your boss is intimidated by you.”
“That’s probably true,” Jim conceded.
“That means that his ego is getting in the way,” I said. “A good, confident leader would welcome any subordinate leader’s strong performance and praise from the top. That’s great for the entire team. But a weak leader, one who lacks confidence in him- or herself, will be intimidated by strong performers. And that seems to be the case here.
“I understand this situation because you are a lot like me,” I explained. “This is exactly the situation I found myself in on multiple occasions throughout my Navy career. And I couldn’t figure out why.”
I explained to Jim that while it might surprise many who haven’t served, there are weak leaders in the Navy and other branches of the U.S. military, just as there are in any facet of leadership in the business world. In fact, from my days at the U.S. Naval Academy to my time on two different Navy surface ships through my years in the SEAL Teams, the number of leaders I deeply admired and respected were relatively few. That is just the way of the world, even in an organization as highly screened as the SEAL Teams: good leaders are rare; bad leaders are common. There were certainly times when I worked directly for a boss I thought was weak, risk averse, or just plain timid. Back then, I was a young and inexperienced but headstrong leader. I would often butt heads with a boss with whom I disagreed over the smallest of things. I would then find myself alienated, as the black sheep among my peer group of junior leaders on the team. It was never where I wanted to be. At the time, I put all the blame on my boss. Looking back, however, I realized that many of the problems that arose for me were self-induced. When I didn’t respect my boss, I allowed that to show at times in the way that I spoke and acted. To a boss who clearly lacked confidence, I flexed my ego instead of putting it in check. I failed to recognize that a leader who lacks confidence would be hypersensitive to any perceived slight or lack of professionalism in my communication with him. People often describe such situations as a “personality conflict” or “personality clash,” meaning two people of very different mentalities who simply don’t get along. But that is merely an excuse. I explained to Jim that there was much I could have (and absolutely should have) done to prevent those frictions from developing. It was yet another recognition of the power that is the mind-set of Extreme Ownership: it’s not about others; it’s about you.
“So what do you intend to do now?” I asked.
Jim wasn’t sure what his next step should be. He disagreed with the boss’s assessment and wanted to appeal the evaluation to the vice president of the division.
“I’d like to go back into the boss’s office and set things straight,” Jim said. “But I’m worried that it will only result in further escalation and add fuel to the fire of an already bad situation.”
“If you go back into the boss’s office and tell him he’s wrong, that he should change his review, what do you think the results will be?” I asked. “Even if you lay out some quantifiable data to support your argument, is this an argument that you can win?”
Jim recognized this course of action would not achieve the desired result. Without question, it would only further inflame tensions. Even if the highest echelon in the chain of command forced his boss to raise the team’s marks in the evaluation, the difficulties this would create for Jim and his team in the long term would be greatly compounded. Changing the evaluation would be a Pyrrhic victory—a tactical win that resulted in a strategic loss.
“Is it good for your team for you to have an antagonistic relationship with your boss?” I asked. “Does that benefit them? Does it benefit you?”
Jim understood that this wasn’t good for anyone. His frictions with the boss hurt him and everyone on his team.
“In order to be a good leader, you must also be a good follower,” I said. “And right now, you’re failing as a follower.”
Jim looked at me, surprised. My response was unexpected. He was a competent leader and not used to failing at anything. I knew it was likely the opposite of what he wanted to hear. But I knew that it was the truth, and it was what he needed to hear.
“If you’re failing as a follower, then you’re failing as a leader. And that means you’re failing your team,” I explained. “You’re telling me that there aren’t any areas where you and your team can improve? You are currently at optimal performance and can’t get any better?”
Of course there were areas in which he and his team could improve, Jim conceded. And once he admitted this fact, he then acknowledged that some of the critiques in the boss’s evaluation, though harsh, were not untruthful. There were a multitude of ways he and his team could improve communication, increase efficiency, and build stronger relationships with their customers and other departments to enable greater mutual support and effectiveness.
“As we wrote about in Extreme Ownership,” I said, “these things are ‘simple, not easy.’ And though you’ve read the book multiple times and understand the basic concepts, the principles can be difficult to implement in your life. Both Jocko and I struggle with this at times, just like anyone—and we wrote the book!
“What you need to do,” I instructed, “is recognize your failure as a follower. Go to your boss and take ownership. Accept the critical evaluation and the negative marks. Acknowledge that you must do better. Then, lay out in detail for your boss the major steps you will take to improve in each of the areas where your marks were low. It’s not enough to just say it. You have to do it. You must demonstrate through action to improve in each area.”
Jim looked back at me in disbelief.
“One of the toughest but most important lessons I learned from Jocko,” I explained, “is that you should strive to have the same relationship with every boss you ever work for, no matter if they are good or bad. Whether they are an outstanding leader whom you admire, a mediocre leader who needs improvement, or a terrible leader for whom no one on the team has respect, you must strive to form the same relationship with all of them.”
I explained that the relationship to seek with any boss incorporates three things:
1) They trust you.
2) They value and seek your opinion and guidance.
3) They give you what you need to accomplish your mission and then let you go execute.
“Whether they are good, bad, or indifferent as a leader doesn’t matter,” I concluded. “You must build a strong relationship with your boss founded on trust and support. If you do that, you will succeed as a leader by enabling your team to succeed. And since most of the world can’t do this, you will run circles around your peers and outperform everyone else.
“Your mission, going forward,” I stated, “is to build a better relationship with your boss. Be a good follower. Repair the trust with your chain of command. So, go and make it happen.”
Captain “Main Gun” Mike Bajema and the brave Soldiers that crewed his M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank maneuver to support U.S. and Iraqi dismounted troops in Ramadi. Mike commanded “Bulldog”—Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 37th Armored Regiment (1-37) of the 1st Armored Division. Team Bulldog and his battalion, the “Bandits” of Task Force 1-37, were an exceptional group of Soldiers that aggressively led the “Seize, Clear, Hold, Build” strategy into some of the most dangero
us, enemy-held territory in the city: South-Central Ramadi. With so many friendly units, including the Lima and Kilo Companies of the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, operating in a small city only a few miles across, careful contingency planning was mandatory to deconflict friendly forces on the battlefield and reduce the extreme risk of “blue-on-blue” or friendly fire.
(Photo courtesy of Mike Bajema)
CHAPTER 10
Plan, but Don’t Overplan
Leif Babin
FIRECRACKER CIRCLE, RAMADI, IRAQ: 2006
My heart was racing. It felt as if it were pounding out of my chest and I couldn’t catch my breath. We were in an all-out sprint, running as fast as we could for a full city block. All I could do was put one foot in front of the other under the crushing weight of the rucksack on my back. A rucksack, or “ruck,” was military jargon for what the rest of the world called a backpack. Mine was filled to the brim with a ridiculous amount of gear and ordnance: extra hand grenades, extra magazines for my rifle, flares, spare batteries, 40mm grenades for my M203 grenade launcher, food, and water. It was my first operation into downtown Ramadi—a violent, highly dangerous, enemy-infested area—and I had prepared for every contingency imaginable. I was loaded out for World World III. But while I was supposed to be leading my team, looking out for the good of everyone else in the patrol, I was instead dragging ass and sucking wind. It was all I could do to keep up.
We had planned this operation to accompany two squads of U.S. Marines from Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment (3/8 Marines), 2nd Marine Division, into a nasty area of central Ramadi near a street intersection known as “Firecracker Circle.” It had been given that name not for harmless fireworks like we use to celebrate the Fourth of July but for the massive IEDs that tossed heavy armored vehicles in the air or blasted them into pieces.
The Dichotomy of Leadership: Balancing the Challenges of Extreme Ownership to Lead and Win Page 22