The Main Thing
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
A couple days ago I began reading, “Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War” by Robert Coram, the biography of Col John Boyd, one of the most controversial figures in Air Force history. Boyd is most famous for his Energy-Maneuverability Theory a huge breakthrough in fighter tactics and design, the OODA Loop and several other contributions to aviation and military theory and tactics.
Much of the book displays the constant fight between the mad warrior-scientist Boyd and the toe-the-line military establishment at the time, consisting of generals with little interest in change or original thought. Boyd was constantly being cornered by the soul-crushing monster of a bureaucracy at the Pentagon, spending more time convincing the leadership to challenge long-held assumptions than actually working on his theories.
While reading about the struggle of implementing change in a large bureaucracy, the following exchange between a Colonel and a newly appointed Secretary of Defense caught my attention. Secretary Schlesinger was looking for some wisdom on leaving a legacy and Colonel Hallock, a highly respected combat hero offered the following:
You must understand that if you want to leave a legacy it is vital for you to make a quick decision about what you want that legacy to be. If you don’t make a quick decision, you will have no legacy. Because after several months you become so caught up in the business of the Pentagon, so enmeshed with the generals, so overwhelmed with the scope and enormity of the job that it will be too late. Pick a few projects and put the full weight of your office behind them. Guide the projects. Nurture them. Know from the very beginning that they will be your legacy. Force them through the bureaucracy (Coram 279).
I wonder how many Fortune 500 CEO’s could have been saved from incredible failures if they’d had their own Colonel Hallock’s to keep them on track? The fact is large, established organizations are incredibly difficult, if not impossible to significantly change.
It is the desire of most leaders to jump into their role and start a revolution on day one, throwing out the old and bringing in the new…in reality, this very rarely happens. A leader would do much better to focus on two or three key things to change and throw their whole weight and energy behind those…this is the path to truly impacting an organization.
If you liked this article why not subscribe via RSS or e-mail so that you don’t miss out.
No related posts.
2 comments
Hi Cam,
Without getting too political, the military is simply not a business–never has been, never will be. In the military, where higher level folks are asked to make life and death decisions, money is not the driving force behind such actions (you already know this).
I have mixed feelings about directly connecting the military with business; however, your point at the end is very insightful, and proves to me once again that although the military is not a business, the parallels of both entities have a shocking resemblance in a variety of ways.
John Boyd was undoubtedly a gutsy man who was ahead of his time in regards to military theory. He obviously understood the challenges of a bureaucracy and fought tooth and nail with his career on the line numerous occasions to bring about change. Isn’t this basically the definition of a leader? Taking calculated risks that you know in your heart will eventually better an organization with a small amount of buy-in with little or no regard for the consequence to oneself? Although I have yet to do so, I believe leading a group of people into battle would be much the same. How about the CEO of a corporation deciding to launch a radical new product—Steve Jobs and the iPod?
The fine line, however; between military and business is that one involves life and death, the other involves disappointment and probably the loss of a job. However, the skills, discipline, dedication, ability to act under pressure, etc, are skills you will bring with you for the rest of your life.
I agree that change is incredibly difficult to put into action—especially in a bureaucracy I also agree that one of the biggest challenges for most leaders is narrowing down their ideas into two or three likely courses of action. However, the best leaders I know didn’t do things overnight. They didn’t narrow to two or three. They had the ability to rapidly process information and choose the “most correct” course of action rather than the most popular decision. Moreoever, if they chose incorrectly, they admitted the mistake and turned their ships for calmer seas. In addition, these leadership skills were demonstrated consistently, day-in and day-out over a long period of time.
One of the things I have been wrestling with lately is the relationship between leadership and mentorship—meaning: At what point should a leader make the final decision rather than consult his group of mentors/board of directors/peer group?
-Brian
Brian,
Thanks for the great comments. Definitely agree that the life on the line element of the military brings a different dynamic than business. The bureaucracy, however, is very similar with the old often being sacred and protected and the new being cornered and shunned.
As to your question about when to decide unilaterally, that is a good one. Who really knows the answer? My best attempt would be to say that the council of many wise advisers will normally produce a wise answer, but in the times it doesn’t the leader needs to have the courage and insight to choose his own way. I dunno, now you have me thinking, haha!
Cam
Leave a Comment