By Dave Bushy, PCC
“They just give orders and people follow,” might best describe what I often hear from clients about their perceptions of military leadership.
As a former U.S. Army officer, I find myself curious about such beliefs. It is not uncommon to hear this opinion as I speak with corporate managers about their own styles of leading others.
“I’m not a guy who barks out orders like they do in the Army,” a client might say, while another might note, “I don’t believe in a hierarchical command and control structure like the military.”
I often smile at such remarks and get very interested in the genesis of those beliefs. My own life experience is so different and as a coach, it is my job is to learn how these perceptions both limit and support leadership development and what other areas clients might explore to better understand their own styles.
It’s understandable that misconceptions about the military persist. Hollywood and public perceptions might well cause people to draw conclusions about the military that, in my view, limits an understanding of how the armed forces successfully carry out their missions around the world. So few Americans (Less than 6% of those living in the U.S. have served in the military and less than one half of one percent serve today) have experienced the military that we have come to believe stereotypes that are not at all accurate. It is important to know, first, that the armed forces have a workforce that is more diverse than U.S. corporations, with representatives from every state in the union, all walks of life and a variety of educational and economic levels.* U.S. military leadership is also, very often, much younger than the average manager in corporate America.
So, how do they get the job done?
Not by using one approach to leadership. Not by a longshot. Military leaders learn from the beginning of their training that using a wide range of approaches and capabilities provides the flexibility and opportunity to support team success. And they understand that there are times to include everyone in exploring challenges and developing plans – and times for direct action and commands by leaders. Those leaders who fail to exercise that range are, in my experience, the outliers who fail to inspire their troops.
I remember Army Ranger School. It was undoubtedly the best and most challenging leadership course I have ever attended. Some of it was lecture and demonstration, but most of it was pure experiential learning. And it focused on knowing when and how to assess conditions, make decisions and provide the type of leadership that the situation and environment warranted. It was built on the need for awareness before action.
Preparing for any operation or mission in the Army involves careful planning, deliberating with others and creating a specific plan that covers the details. At Ranger School, we learned the “how” by using a template that always began with the “Situation,” followed by “Mission,” “Execution,” and other critical items including who would lead and even the details of communication. We even synchronized our watches at the end of briefings.
Often, we would use “sand tables” (actual physical models of the terrain) to help our soldiers visualize the topography and the mission, as well as to answer any questions. And those questions very often spurred a dialogue between the leader and their men. A better plan would emerge as a result. We rehearsed the missions and then took turns inspecting each other for necessary equipment, weapons and ammunition. We did our best to never let anything to chance – we did it by caring for each other as a team and looking out for the other soldier, regardless of rank.
We planned and then we planned again. Then we executed the plan and, like business, things invariably changed. Ranger School involved physical challenges like food, water and sleep deprivation, so we could experience real stress when this occurred. When we came under simulated fire from an “aggressor” force, we were taught to be assertive in our command and control. “Make a decision, Ranger!” the instructor would yell, as we deployed our troops. Were all the decisions we made the most optimum? No, but they were decisions based on what we saw and knew at the time.
And after the simulated fighting stopped, what did we do? We conducted an “after action” assessment of the lessons learned. It, too, was structured and was built on learning for the leaders and team members at all levels.
I was fortunate that I did not get sent to combat. But I served with hundreds of leaders who did. I learned from their experience and their range as leaders. They seemed to know – either through intuition or training or a combination of the two – that you are most successful when you work with everyone as trusted colleagues who all have the same goal. You engage them and learn from them and respect their capabilities. You build a team that has the range it needs in all situations.
And remarkably, you learned that you don’t actually end up having to bark many orders.
When the situation warrants it, though, you have built the trust to exercise the credo we learned in Army Ranger School: “Prompt Obedience, Self-Discipline.” Such are the lessons that I have been gifted with throughout my professional life.
Dave Bushy of Boston Executive Coaches – bostonexecutivecoaches.com – is a an ICF-certified coach who was trained at the Gestalt International Study Center (GISC). Dave is a former U.S. Army officer and senior airline executive who works with leaders throughout the world.
*Courtesy of the Council on Foreign Relations