A military outfit is a great place to study organizational dynamics, and one of the best places among them is a fighting Navy ship. You can come to an appreciation of what truly matters, what really contributes to victory under stressful conditions, and the role that leadership actually plays.

When the complex arrangement of systems that a ship is becomes joined in combat, its officers are often – even typically – unable to influence the action or even the attitude of their sailors in real time. The truth is, many Army and Marine observers of such crews question whether there is much leadership present on these ships at all, much less during combat.

But if you have ever seen a ship’s crew respond when called to general quarters, you know it is there. It is in the sailors themselves: in their training, the systems they have learned to animate, express, and integrate. It is in their shipmates, the nature of the emergency, the instinct to overcome it.

A ship seemingly sedated into lethargy by the most mind-numbing and endless routine suddenly erupts, transforms. There is an overwhelming burst of the most irresistible activity and energy. Sailors rocket to positions, compartments are sealed, equipment fired up, weapons trained. There is no mayhem in this, but electrifyingly coordinated discipline and training.

Then, just as suddenly, the ship is still again, but with tension – it is a weapon, and it is ready. Ready for the real mayhem to come, from within which each crew member will fight to do the work that everyone depends upon.

There is a lot to be said about how these dynamics appear, unfold, and interact, but one of the most interesting came to mind during a documentary about the USS Hornet in the midst of a vicious, extended kamikaze attack. A sailor involved in the fight was describing the principle emotions that swept through the crew: fear and anger.

One, he noted, overcomes the other from time to time.

Think about what is said, in that statement, and about what isn’t. Consider about whom it is said, and about whom it isn’t. Try to imagine what keeps this crew going, doing its duty, perceiving the evolving emergencies and needs the ship faces and scrambling on its own initiative to meet them – all while overcome, from time to time, by one or the other of fear and anger.

What is the role of leadership here? Where is it coming from? How are we, if we are, to understand the role of “followership” in this scenario, as it is described by the modern leadership movement? What is the role of management? Is there something else – some other place or time – for the contribution of what we understand as the executive role?

In the face of an emergency – whether opportunity or disaster – how would your organization respond in your absence? Does that say something about the value – or about the true nature – of your role? What might that be?

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of general quarters, please see this Washington Post piece about Pope Benedict’s call for the world economic system to be reorganized on the basis of social responsibility and ethics. A forceful and well-intended argument, but do you think this plan will work without powerful individual leaders, possessed of considerable ability to influence all the action in real time?

—

Why not try out this feature provided here by Answers.com: If you double-click on any (non-hypertext-linked) word on the main page of the site, a window will open providing definitions or encyclopedic material about that term, together with links to additional sources of information. Try it out – it’s interesting and fun.

And, of course, while you’re clicking around, don’t forget to click on your choice of an email or RSS-feed subscription to these pages – we’ll be proud to have you join us!

Technorati Tags: military, organizational dynamics, Navy, leadership, combat, officer, influence, action, sailor, Army, Marine, crew, general quarters, training, system, emergency, instinct, routine, weapon, discipline, training, dynamic, USS Hornet, emotion, initiative, followership, management, executive, opportunity, disaster, organization, Washington Post, Pope Benedict, social responsibility, ethics, leader

Last Thursday, I told a story from my days in the Marines about an organizational success that transformed my unit from the worst to the best literally on the instant. Unfortunately, the event was so dramatic and impressive that I drew precisely the wrong conclusion about what brought it about.

It’s true that everyone else came to the same conclusion, but the issue then was not about their opinions, but about my ability to stay focused on the job and to properly command the units to which I was assigned. And so too, the issue today is not about the legions of advisors badgering you about about their paradigm-shattering leadership discoveries, but about your ability to remember your job, and to properly manage your own organizations.

It took me a long time to realize that I had it wrong, longer to figure out what I really should be doing, and even longer yet to come to an understanding of why. But still later than that, I finally stumbled upon the least well-known and easily the most important management thinker of the modern organizational age, Mary Parker Follett.

She put into words – words she wrote decades before I was born – what I was slowly coming to understand, and which I hope you will come to appreciate, also. I’m going to share two key insights of hers that relate to the present context. Consider this one, which is beginning to experience some currency, finally, today:

When there is identification with organizational goals, the members tend to perceive what the situation requires and to do it whether the boss exerts influence to have it done or not. In fact, he need not be present or even aware of the immediate circumstances.”

This is often interpreted as an affirmation of a kind of mission-oriented guidance, combined with a liberal and wide distribution of authority throughout an organization, enabling employees everywhere to give expression to it. But while that is saying a lot – and while a lot more about it remains to be said – the quote really aims deeper even than that.

It speaks more to leadership as an organizational – as opposed to an individual – characteristic. Let’s just examine one corner of that idea, from the perspective offered by this next excerpt from Follett, here quoting something said to her by a worker in a plant:

I don’t want to be led and I don’t want to be patronized, and I watch all the time to see if I am.”

I have news for you: the problems experienced by my platoon prior to my arrival did not arise from a deficit of leadership – they came from a surfeit of individual leadership imposed on men who didn’t want to be patronized. Sooner or later (as in my case) you learn to not patronize U.S. Marines – nor is it wise to patronize modern-day workers of, really, any nationality or culture.

If you do, and moreover if you actually have the organizational power to do so without meaningful resistance, then you will likely succeed to this extent: you will produce sulking, resentful employees who exhibit a child-like reticence and inertia, getting away with what they can, doing with conspicuous reluctance only what they are told, and perhaps only showing real enthusiasm when they know your instructions are likely to blow up in your face.

The Marines who transformed before my eyes on that US Navy ship that day in the Pacific didn’t do so because of me, specifically. They were not children seeking parenting, lost followers seeking leadership, or even aimless wanderers seeking guidance.

They were young men – Marines – who knew who they were, what they were capable of, and what they wanted to be permitted to do. My role in that transformation wasn’t to lead them out of their own deficiencies – but to inadvertently remove those unwittingly imposed on them by their previous “leaders,” and to act as the messenger bearing an opportunity for them to do what they knew they could do.

Their cheers in that room below decks, heard reverberating throughout the vast ship, were a celebration not of me, or of what I had done for them, but of themselves, of what they knew they could do for themselves and for their unit, and of how they would use this opportunity to give expression to the reality that already existed within them.

Certainly, I had a role, in this story. But the thing is that we all had our roles. The transformation occurred when we each did them side by side, mutually facilitating – rather than suppressing, or even straightjacketing – those of the others.

We’re going to be unpacking this idea over the next few days. For example, some of you may be thinking that perhaps it was the dramatic assignment that did the job. There is both more and less to that than one might think, and we’ll look at it tomorrow. I hope to see you then.

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of the oppressive effects of individual leadership, please do take a moment to view this really quite enlightening piece from the Economist, discussing the cognitive effects of dividing people according to social power.

—

Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.

—

Technorati Tags: Marines, organization, focus, job, command, leadership, manage, management, boss, influence, mission, guidance, authority, employee, patronize, worker, power, US, Navy, follower, leader, Economist, Mary Parker Follett

Yesterday we heard the saga of the author of It’s Our Ship, how he skippered the “best ship in the Navy,” and the conclusions he drew from that experience about leadership. Today, I will regale you with the epic tale of 2^nd Lt. Jim Stroup, the best platoon in the Marine Corps, and what he thought then about how and why that platoon transformed so dramatically.

When I completed my training as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, another brand new lieutenant and I were flown to the then US Naval Base at Subic Bay, in the Philippines, to join our battalion. I had received my commission directly after several years as an enlisted infantry Marine, during which time I had been promoted to sergeant. As a result, unlike most newly minted officers, I was pretty salty, as we say in the naval services. Here’s what it got me:

When I reported to the (legendary) battalion commander, he told me that he had one company in the battalion that he felt wasn’t really combat-ready. And, based on my enlisted experience, that was where he was assigning me.

When I reported to the hard-nosed company commander, he told me that he had one platoon in the company that he felt wasn’t really combat-ready. And, based on my enlisted experience, that was where he was assigning me.

So, there I was: in charge of what was widely derided as the worst platoon in the battalion, even desperately incapable of pulling its weight in combat. And I was expected to use my background and training to remedy that.

Of course, I went right to work. The battalion sergeant-major gave me a big helping hand by reassigning the previous platoon sergeant, and giving me one of the best Marines I’ve ever worked with in that position.

We did all the right things. We called in the platoon’s sergeants and corporals. We outlined what we wanted the platoon to become, and had a broad discussion with them of the condition of the platoon and what we would all work together to do to rectify it. Similar discussions were held with the platoon’s Marines, both with and without their corporals and sergeants present. My platoon sergeant and I felt we were beginning to make some progress, developing trust and confidence in our leadership, slowly but surely bringing the men around.

The battalion was aboard ship and the squadron was at sea. To keep us busy, the battalion commander held an order-writing competition for all the platoon commanders. The scenario called for a ship-to-ship raid, and the lieutenant who won would be allowed to actually exercise his plan with his platoon against another ship in the squadron.

Now, admittedly, the competition was a bit spotty, but as it happens, I won. So now I was going to prepare the weakest platoon in the battalion, riddled with the worst morale, to conduct this highly visible exercise. Had I not thought of that, beforehand?

I gathered my Marines in a room below decks, and informed them that they had been selected to perform this raid. There had been rumors among the Marines in the battalion that something like this was afoot, although the details weren’t out.

But I want to tell you that as soon as I uttered the words, “You have been selected,” the room simply erupted in a roar of celebration. I was absolutely stunned, and at first I was unsure of what was going on. But I saw that the Marines were electric with excitement, thumping each other on the back and cheering wildly.

The weakest platoon in the battalion. The worst morale. I was told later the thunder of their celebration was heard on the flight deck.

For the next several days these Marines stormed through our ship with tireless discipline and focus, practicing their roles in areas we had mocked up to resemble the target ship. They discussed the intricacies of the plan endlessly, and worked on their own time to refine both the plan and their ability to execute it.

The day of the raid came. I sent two teams on smaller helicopters to seize critical areas of the target ship before I arrived with the rest of the platoon. The pilots of those helos later told me that as they were setting down on the target, with still several feet to go, their helos suddenly elevated several yards.

Confused, they looked back, and the Marines were already gone. They then saw the lead Marines charging past on the way to their objectives – they were so pumped up they had leapt out of the helicopters before they had touched down.

The battalion operations officer later told me he was amazed at hearing the phase reports come in. Each had been met early, and the raid was completed virtually without a hitch and well ahead of schedule. The skipper of the target ship commended my Marines on their knowledge of the strange ship (of a sort Marines typically never see), and for their skill in securing it so effectively and so quickly.

A few days later, back on our own ship it was platoon physical exercise time. This ship was a helicopter carrier, and had a large flight deck that was secured from flight operations for part of each day so the infantry units could run. The change in my platoon was unbelievable.

They were no longer the sulky, resentful agglomeration of misfits that many people even came out to make fun of. They were an incredibly disciplined unit of fighting men. They ran in an aggressively tight formation – no one would dare break it – and they chanted in resolute unison, with penetrating energy, power, and pride.

I had pilots coming to me and asking me what I had done with the platoon. Now, mind you, pilots hardly notice infantry types in the normal course of events, but that platoon had been so bad that everyone knew about them. And now they were so transformed, so unmistakably formidable – really, unquestionably now the best in the battalion – that everyone noticed that as well.

My battalion and company commanders eyed my platoon with the greatest satisfaction, content in the wisdom of their assigning it to me. I was celebrated both within the battalion and among ship’s crew who had barely known what a Marine was previously. There was talk of a personal decoration.

Of course I had displayed remarkable personal leadership, hadn’t I? I had transformed the worst into the best – and enduringly, I might add; the platoon was unmatchable for the remainder of the deployment and beyond. I was well on my way to becoming a truly great military leader. That’s what everyone seemed to believe, and it’s what they said.

I believed it, too. How could I not?

But I was wrong. Both to my own cost and that of the units I commanded for some time after that. It took me a long time to figure that out, longer to figure out why, and even longer to understand what had really happened. But that’s just my obtuseness – it’s not as difficult as all that.

I’ll tell you why I was wrong, and about what had really happened, next week. In the meanwhile, please be sure to stop by tomorrow for the weekend safety brief. See you then!

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of taking overly long to sort such riddles out, please see this delightfully encouraging piece (for us Baby-Boomers) on the aging brain and wisdom, from the NYT.

—

If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!

Technorati Tags: Navy, leadership, Marine Corps, US, Subic Bay, Philippines, battalion, infantry, sergeant, combat, training, Marine, trust, confidence, wisdom, military, leader, Baby-Boomer, brain, NYT

The U.S. Navy is perhaps the most technically-oriented service in the American military. Officers work their way up by developing and demonstrating comprehensive and immediate skills in the numerous individual systems that make ships responsive in combat. The focus here tends to be on technical competence – not necessarily on the sort of personal leadership ability that is emphasized more during an officer‘s development in the other services, especially the Army and the Marines.

This is a reflection of the circumstances of the varying units when in combat. When an Army or Marine unit is engaging an enemy force, often only the leadership environment assiduously and continuously cultivated up to that point, and given immediate and individual expression under that stress, can seem to be holding a unit together.

But aboard a Navy ship at war, there is no danger of anyone slipping away into the hills. Everyone knows that both their unit’s victory and their individual survival depend on the technical knowledge and ability of the one man issuing orders from the captain‘s chair on the bridge. And if you are ever aboard a ship that goes to general quarters, you will see that reality in breathtaking action – everything and everyone responds as one to their training, and to the skipper‘s command.

And yet, the Navy consistently seems to produce some of the most impressive individuals in terms of what is more traditionally understood as leadership that I’ve seen in the military. Out of that technical development pipeline come some truly remarkable ship’s captains. How does that happen? We’ll be touching on that general question over the next few days.

But here’s one Navy officer’s take on it: Captain D. Michael Abrashoff is the best-selling author of It’s Your Ship, which launched a busy speaking career for him on his retirement from the service. In this new book, It’s Our Ship, he undertakes to emphasize a point he feels he insufficiently addressed in his first book.

One of his purposes here is to point out how everyone in the unit must be engaged not only to advance the unit’s goals, but to intelligently and proactively integrate their own disparate disciplines in doing so. He does a fine job with this. In particular, he provides one of the best and most illuminating descriptions I’ve seen of an important executive threshold, the passing from specialist to generalist management.

There are a number of genuinely practical lessons for managers at all levels in this book, effectively illustrated with stories from the author’s experience as skipper of a powerful Navy warship, and amplified with vignettes from some of the civilian organizations he has worked with since his Navy days.

One thing the author makes no bones about, however, is his belief in the importance of individual leadership. Indeed, this book may have the densest population of the word “leader” and its derivatives that you will have encountered in some time.

In my view, this is a weakness. From “tales from the front lines” books like this I want to learn what you did, not how singular you are for having done it, or how electric an effect you had on your staff.

For example, members of the author’s crew don’t seem to be able to do anything while under his command, or to make something of themselves subsequently, without making him “proud” of them. This may seem like a minor blemish, but it mars the text repeatedly. It reveals a distinctly paternalistic and patronizing suggestion that these people’s accomplishments are essentially the product of the author’s leadership, as though their individual abilities and characters, while necessary prerequisites to their successes, were not sufficient ones. Only under his leadership were they able to find themselves and to blossom.

One major surprise for me arose from one of the author’s stated purposes for writing this book. He begins it with a remarkable admission concerning his career as skipper: “. . . I never did one thing to help another ship in the group in the two years I spent as [my ship's] commander.” In fact, he goes on, he practically gloated in besting his fellow ship captains.

He commendably acknowledges this as a shortcoming. It is one he dedicates the book, at least partially, to examining in order to help his readers avoid his mistake.

But when you turn over the last page of the book, you will find that this has not been done. There is a brief discussion of how he thinks he should have gone to his own boss and suggested how the latter ought to establish policy to incentivize the author and his fellow skippers to work better together – a remarkably presumptuous endeavor for a subordinate line – rather than a staff, say, an executive – officer to undertake.

But there is no discussion of professional networking and mutually beneficial collaboration that the skippers could have initiated on their own. This happens all the time in the military, despite the very real competition. Rather, after the introductory revelation of this heartfelt failure, we hear no more of it. Why is that?

This is a helpful book, but I do strongly caution the reader to tread skeptically and carefully through the purported lessons on leadership in this volume. Try to look past the peculiarly insistent glorification of the intensely self-referential leader that is woven throughout the text, to the many truly insightful stories about organizational goals advanced and staff development accomplished that are there, as well.

For those with no military experience, this is a genuinely eye-opening introduction to the world-class management challenges faced by one alert, proactive, and, in the end, highly effective US Navy officer. It will also offer many actionable ideas for civilian managers at all levels both for administering their organizations and developing their own careers. Pick up a copy. Just (as with everything you read) keep a good lookout as you navigate your way through it!

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of mistaking the sizzle for the steak, please see this superb explanation of the vital differences between branding and advertising, by Cam Beck of ChaosScenario.

—

Have you noticed the blue “Sphere” icon, below? When you click on it, it will produce a window offering you content related to today’s item from other blogs and the regular media. Give it a try!

And, while you’re clicking around down there, don’t forget to subscribe, by email or RSS reader!

Technorati Tags: U.S., Navy, American, military, skill, combat, competence, leadership, officer, development, Army, Marines, war, victory, survival, captain, general quarters, skipper, command, Abrashoff, executive, specialist, generalist, management, manager, organization, leader, professional, networking, collaboration, competition, career, branding, advertising, Cam Beck, ChaosScenario

Among the many great hopes pinned on the MBA is that attainment of it suggests meaningful things about one’s knowledge, ability, and character. That is not an overstatement of the regard in which it is held.

While it is fair enough to assume that someone who has completed such a program can be expected to know what was taught in it, his or her ability to apply that knowledge cannot be assumed with equal confidence, despite all the hyped-up internships, case studies, and role-playing exercises.

Moreover, many MBA programs have jumped on the leadership bandwagon, and presume to “teach” leadership and to “make” leaders. The best that can actually be laid at the doorstep of the MBA in this respect, however, may be ambition and some degree of self-discipline.

Let’s just stipulate to this: many holders of MBAs are indeed talented managers and even, according to the popular understanding of the term, leaders – and ethical ones, at that. But not because of their MBA. Something else in their background led to their development of these abilities, and to the character which possession of them implies. If you want those abilites and character, you need to look deeper than the MBA alone.

Otherwise, you may get only knowledge and disciplined ambition. As Warren Buffett famously observed, you want intelligence, energy, and integrity in your managers; and if you don’t get the last one, the first two will kill you.

Of course, you have to look somewhere – use something as a discriminator – but if not the MBA, then what? Please consider the following, from a comment on Tuesday’s post made by Cam Beck, of ChaosScenario:

I couldn’t think of a group of people I’d trust more with my life – or my business.”

Wouldn’t you love to be able to say that about your managers? Cam is speaking of a readily identifiable group of people immediately prepared to step into management roles at organizations of all types and at all levels. It is quite a simple matter to distinguish and verify a person’s assertion of membership in this group. And, in case you think we are talking about MBAs after all, note the balance of the quote: “MBA optional.”

For what group of people would an MBA be optional as preparation for a career in management – not to mention as an indicator of success? Cam is referring to the military.

He makes the significant point that people who have honorably completed tours in the military are not only likely to have learned management skills to an unparalelled degree – they have also self-selected from the pack for some of the most important qualities that organizations seek. Chief among these is the desire to work as part of a team to pursue worthwhile objectives that transcend individual ambition.

I must say that as a military man, myself, and an observer of organizations of all types all around the world, I am hard-pressed as well to find a more reliable indicator of management talent and character than the military. But there are a couple of things about this: For one, the supply is far from sufficient to meet the demand. And, for another, who says there aren’t other comparably valuable and reliable sources of management ability?

Are there? Might there be other distinct and readily identifiable groups of people whose readiness to step in to management positions is strongly indicated by their membership of those groups? This, by the way, largely rules out educational programs – we need to be talking about experience, here.

Could a work history in certain not-for-profit outfits fall into this category? How about other volunteer activities, such as membership in community organizations? Are there other callings or even, simply, industries that convey this sort of information?

Can we come up with ways to help organizations relegate the MBA to a more appropriate value: helpful, perhaps – but optional?

Tomorrow we’ll look at evaluating managers from another angle. Please do drop in for that!

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of optional, might the MBA – or education, generally – actually be simply ineffective as an indicator of future performance? Please see this fascinating post on the topic by Tyler Cohen of Marginal Revolution. Be sure to view the comments, also.

—

Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.

Technorati Tags: MBA, knowledge, ability, character, confidence, internship, role-playing, leadership, leader, ambition, self-discipline, manager, character, Warren Buffett, intelligence, energy, integrity, Cam Beck, management, organization, preparation, career, success, military, team, supply, demand, work, not-for-profit, volunteer, education, Tyler Cohen, Marginal Revolution

Insular thinking is a real danger in all walks of life, and certainly in business. Unfortunately, it is also all-too common.

Last year, for example, we noted here an item about some senior managers who had been sent, as part of their annual training, on organized outings with volunteer groups. Some were positively thunderstruck at the teamwork skills they developed while self-organizing the unloading of roofing tiles from a pickup truck. Another praised the experience as an opportunity for senior management to “organize something and work with people.”

I wonder what the managers of the volunteer organizations learned in turn from these awe-struck visitors. The truth is that many volunteer organizations are brilliantly managed at all levels – by people who started as volunteers, and who rose up through the ranks. To the degree that they experience formal education, it is to supplement – not to replace – their real training. Peter Drucker dubbed one of these the “most effective organization in the U.S.”

But formal education actually may be a major source of the insular mindset of many professional managers, today. The notion that formal schooling in business – particularly an MBA – is fundamental to success in business is so entrenched that is it hard to even consider the possibility that there might be alternatives.

A classic example of one of those alternatives, though, is the military. Most officers and non-commissioned officers do not have formal business training at all, much less an MBA, but they run organizations of all sizes and incomparable complexity. From the general or admiral commanding globe-girdling operations, to corporals and petty officers precisely coordinating the activities of people of the most diverse socio-economic backgrounds engaged in the most demanding and vital tasks, the military consistently produces unmatched examples of managerial excellence. When the time comes for them to return to a civilian career, would you really turn them away because they don’t have an MBA?

Maybe you would. This interesting BusinessWeek collection of articles describes the MBA as the indispensable stepping stone into a management career for military members returning to civilian employ. The general impression is conveyed that the incomparable managerial and leadership skills these people learn in the most demanding environment of all needs to be “fine tuned” via a civilian business school curriculum.

I would venture, though, that if the civilian managers, educators, and advisors who believe that would spend some time in the military – say, by volunteering for the reserves – they, like the group mentioned at the beginning of this post, might learn something they hadn’t previously known about teamwork, and about organizing things and working with people. More importantly, they might learn something about the inadequacies of their own preparation for management, and of the assumptions regarding it that they had previously cherished.

There is nothing inherently wrong, of course, with business education in and of itself. But it is not preparation for management, and it does not make someone otherwise inappropriate for a career in management suitable for one. Nor, it can easily be argued, is it even a vital element in a broader management development package.

Unthinking reliance on the MBA – or the encouragement to do so – simply blinds one to the many brilliant opportunites for strengthening a management team and breaking out of the sort self-narrowing group-think about what management really is and where it comes from that afflicts much of the writing about (and some of the practice in) the field, today.

Put away talismanic faith in the MBA. It doesn’t protect you. It doesn’t shield you. It only constrains you behind self-justifying superstition.

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of magic, please stop over to see this insightful evaluation of how it ensnares even high-achievers, by Carmine Coyote at Slow Leadership.

—

If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!

—

Technorati Tags: business, manager, training, volunteer, teamwork, management, organization, experience, education, formal education, professional, business, MBA, military, officer, non-commissioned officer, general, admiral, corporal, petty officer, excellence, civilian, career, BusinessWeek, leadership, skill, educator, advisor, management development, group-think, superstition, Carmine Coyote, Peter Drucker

The US Marine Corps Birthday Ball organized by the Marine Detachment of the US Consulate General in Istanbul, Turkey, was held recently to celebrate the 232^nd anniversary of the establishment of the United States Marine Corps. The event was attended by senior American diplomats in town for important regional and bilateral negotiations, several NATO officers, a broad range of the American expatriate community, and numerous members of Turkish society.

Whether as a formal event by a group, or solitary contemplation by an individual, Marines celebrate this day wherever they are around the world. And the element around which it all revolves is the cake-cutting ceremony.

At our celebration, the Marine Detachment Commander, the Consul-General, and the oldest Marine present (me, this year) stood as the birthday cake was rolled in. The youngest Marine in the detachment then joined us. The first piece of cake was cut and offered to the Consul-General in reciprocation of the honor of her attendance.

The next was presented to me. My role was to take a bit of the cake, then to pass it on to the youngest Marine next to me. He accepted it, and took his own piece from it.

This simple ceremony symbolically represents the passing from one generation to another of the skills, knowledge, wisdom, and traditions of the Corps. The new generation shoulders this legacy, weaves its own accomplishments into it, and then passes it on in turn.

This is both a proud and painful role to play, whether symbolically or in real life, isn’t it? Whether for Marines or other military men and women, or for you in your own career, whether you are passing along the accumulated wisdom and traditions of your life’s work and calling, or assuming responsibility for their protection, growth, and perpetuation, it can be a terrifying, crucial moment.

Will you subordinate yourself to your work by relinquishing it when the time has come, allowing others to take it up? Indeed, will you develop them so that they are ready at any time to do so, and with greater assets, training, and ability than you?

Will you subordinate yourself to the work by taking its full weight upon your shoulders with humility and courage when it is passed to you? Moreover, will you constantly strive to develop your ability to execute that work, and to prepare it, whole and hopeful, for passage to the next generation?

Many of you know that the US Marine Corps has a hard-earned reputation in its field. I am here to tell you that it didn’t come from reading books on inspirational leadership, taking seminars on the latest management craze, or getting worked up about “cutting edge” organizational design theory.

It came from focusing on its charter, anticipating and examining the many ways this does or could translate into specific goals and duties, and then preparing itself materially, organizationally, and morally to attain them.

It is important for managers in the civilian world to understand that they have little to learn as “leaders” from examples of the great individual military captains in history. The realms of operation are too different to admit of broadly useful lessons drawn from one world for application in the other.

What they can learn from, however, is the internal dynamics of military organizations; the way they prepare for and respond to the stress of discharging their mission.

A key example of this is the inherent ability to prepare every individual in the organization to be ready for any eventuality, including taking command. And to prepare younger generations for every possibility, including being suddenly left alone with all the responsibility.

Is your organization ready?

—

Today’s tips: Please take a moment to visit Cam Beck‘s post at ChaosScenario, for some important videos and links related to today’s topic. You will want to view also this piece from the WSJ and this one from the San Jose Mercury News, which take slightly different approaches to the subject of succession planning; we’ll be discussing these differences at greater length soon.

—

If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!

Technorati Tags: US Marine Corps, Marine, US Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey, NATO, American, generation, skill, knowledge, wisdom, traditions, responsibility, training, execute, work, leadership, goal, manager, leader, military, organization, mission, command, responsibility, Cam Beck, WSJ, San Jose Mercury News, succession, planning

We’ve spent the last couple of days talking about two distinct problems with the use of leadership characteristics lists to develop leaders. We noted that when advocates of superlative individual leadership attempt to raise the leadership persona to a level of self-referential virtue, they may actually be inadvertently promoting a harmful cult centered on personal loyalty, rather than the pursuit of organizational aims.

But, of course, we persist in trying to sort out this fundamentally flawed premise. So, today, we’ll briefly cover a third problem: the notion that we can use such lists of traits to identify people as (or as not) leaders, and safely assign or promote them on that basis.

In this context, let me mention that I am currently reading Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin, at the much-appreciated recommendation of Wally Bock, author of Three Star Leadership. The author provides an excellent explanation of Abraham Lincoln‘s difficulties with the generals he initially relied upon to prosecute the Civil War.

She explains in brilliant detail how these officers so dramatically possessed one or another of the unmistakable marks of leadership. One inspired fabulous loyalty and “followership.” Another was intelligent and forward-looking. Yet another was renowned for technical competence. All were utter, even disastrous failures.

We all know who not only ultimately succeeded, but who literally triumphed as commander of the Union forces. It was Ulysses S. Grant. Moreover, he rose to notice not for his possession of any item in this class of personal leadership traits. In fact, he seemed to possess none of them. He never drew attention to himself and, indeed, seemed hardly ever to attract any; he even had a distinctly non-military bearing.

What he did do, is the job. Over and over again, with reference solely to accomplishment of his mission, rather than to the aggrandizement of his own reputation or career. His battlefield victories – not his personal characteristics – are what brought him to Lincoln’s attention and, ultimately, to successful command.

This is a strikingly problematic area. The idea that we can recognize leaders based on their personalities (and without meaningful reference to their results) seems to have quite a hold on people, even to the point where it flies in the face of contradictory facts, the existence of which they acknowledge.

We wind up getting people who are, as they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle. Moreover, we can be so seduced by form that we throw substance out the window. There can hardly be a better example of this than was provided in a timely and insigtful comment to yesterday’s post, made by Steve Roesler, author of All Things Workplace.

One of Lincoln’s own significant personal characteristics, and one that indeed contributed to his accomplishments, was the ability to stand outside the hysterically intoxicating passions that were swept up by the urgency of the issues, clouding deliberate consideration of them. He was always ultimately able to ground his actions in the higher purpose they were intended to serve, rather than in what he or others thought ought to originate from him as a person – and he had plenty of pressure to do the latter.

Moreover, he sought people for assignment to positions of authority who were, ultimately, able to do the same.

So should you.

—

Here are all the posts in this series:

1. The argument for individual leadership
2. Humility? Check. Sincerity? Check . . .
3. Passionate? Check. Inspirational? Check . . .
4. All hat, no cattle
5. We’re here to help you
6. The lengthened shadow of the leader
7. Sticks and stones

—

Today’s tip: Yesterday’s Business Week included a timely piece, given our discussion here yesterday of the problems with the concept of inspirational leadership, about – you guessed it: inspirational leadership. It even has its own list of secrets, so please do take a moment to read it. Then come back to tell us what you think is really being described.

—

Did you know you can click on the green “Share This” icon below and uplink this post to any of the major social content sites, or email it to your friends and colleagues? Give it a try right now! (And, while you’re at it, don’t forget to subscribe, and encourage your friends and colleagues to do so, as well!)

Technorati Tags: leadership characteristic, leader, individual leadership, leadership, organization, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Wally Bock, Abraham Lincoln, Civil War, loyalty, followership, competence, Ulysses S. Grant, leadership trait, mission, Texas, Steve Roesler, Business Week, inspirational leadership

A short while ago, Dr. Ellen Weber published a piece in which she noted 100 words of inspiration she had discovered during her readings. She then asked some authors to choose one of those words and do some writing about its application in a business setting. I selected “veterans,” from an item Cam Beck wrote at Markeing Profs Daily Fix.

Cam’s essay was motivated by an article about military veterans entering the workplace, which appeared to take an unduly simplistic view of military people and their skills. Like Cam, I am a Marine, and can also get a bit exercised over this issue; I have written (a subscription-only article for Execunet) and been quoted on it before, and this is why I chose this topic.

Dr. Weber wanted the essay to be about something that could be done in the workplace in the coming week, so just think of this as being about hiring and assignment decisions managers can start using, and benefiting from, right away. Here goes:

Civilian employers tend to have certain beliefs about what military employees might be like, and many of these are myths that arise from an increasing civilian lack of familiarity with military life (as the years, over 30 now, pass since the end of the draft and the beginning of the all-volunteer force).

For example, I myself was once confronted by an employer who delighted in his delusion that, as a former Marine, I would uncritically accept and obey all orders with inexhaustible energy and mindless loyalty. That relationship didn’t work out.

Obedience to orders is, of course, important in the military, but, especially in formations like the American military, trust and confidence in the legitimacy and appropriateness of those orders is paramount. Moreover, loyalty in the military is typically to peers at least as strongly as to officers (managers), and any orders that a civilian manager issued that were destructive of that instinct would immediately undermine any loyalty that manager could expect.

One other problem along these lines is the idea that military people are thoughtless, uncritical, and lack imagination or initiative. The facts are that military people – at all levels, right from the very lowest on up – are trained and expected to exhibit leadership and initiative. They are full of ideas to advance their unit’s cause and, where appropriate, expect to have those ideas heard.

What’s more – military employees have been spoiled by their experience in uniform. While they certainly have developed discipline, the ability to work and think with minimal supervision, and a uniquely entrepreneurial sense of unit loyalty, they also have had many things provided to them, from room and board to world-class training. Their seniors (Abu-Gharaib and the like notwithstanding) have been among the most widely and comprehensively skilled managers and leaders in the world. They have also benefited from some of the most intelligently designed career development programs available anywhere.

They also, curiously, think that this sort of thing is standard everywhere, if not exceeded by civilian outfits. Is your company going to meet those expectations, or disappoint them?

How about this: The military affords greater responsibility and control over greater human, material, and financial resources with more potential direct impact on organizational goals to people at a younger age than any other organization in the world. For example:

Can you imagine a civilian company giving a teenager, after barely a year of training, control of something as technically sophisticated, expensive, and dangerous as a tank, and then expecting him or her to operate it in exquisitely delicate coordination with dozens of other teenagers operating other tanks? How about F/A-18 pilots, in their mid-20s, leading complexly organized squadrons deep into enemy airspace and exploiting information sources originating from around the globe and in orbit above it to engage their targets. Or young lieutenants leading 40-100 heavily-armed young Americans into the face of enemy defenses?

Can you match those challenges? Can you engage and stir the ingrained instinct for taking serious action and profound responsibilities that these young Americans are accustomed to? If not, you might find yourself dealing with dispirited and unproductive employees, and failing to understanding where the source of the problem is.

As you can see, there are challenges for both the employer and the former-military employee who find each other. But if the proper socialization to the new environment (for both of them) is made, and if both can live up to each others’ unique and legitimate expectations, then you have really got something.

—

If you enjoyed this post, please take a moment to use the “Share This” icon, below, to let your friends and colleagues know about it. And don’t forget to remind them to subscribe!

Technorati Tags: Ellen Weber, inspiration, veterans, Cam Beck, military, workplace, Marine, managers, loyalty, imagination, initiative, leadership, discipline, supervision, Abu-Gharaib