Author: Jocko Willink and Leif Babin
ISBN: 978-1760558208
The book on leadership, written by Jocko Willing - the commander of most highly decorated US special-operations unit of the Iraq War (SEAL Team 3, Task Unit Bruiser). The content of the book tends to repeat itself and I think that you get the gist of the book by reading below excerpts.
EXCERPTS
These leaders cast no blame. They made no excuses. Instead of complaining about challenges or setbacks, they developed solutions and solved problems. They leveraged assets, relationships, and resources to get the job done. Their own egos took a back seat to the mission and their troops. These leaders truly led.
We learned that leadership requires belief in the mission and unyielding perseverance to achieve victory, particularly when doubters question whether victory is even possible.
We hope to dispel the myth that military leadership is easy because subordinates robotically and blindly follow orders. They must literally risk life and limb to accomplish the mission. For this reason, they must believe in the cause for which they are fighting. They must believe in the plan they are asked to execute, and most important, they must believe in and trust the leader they are asked to follow.
Leaders must own everything in their world. There is no one else to blame.
Looking back, it is clear that, despite what happened, the full ownership I took of the situation actually increased the trust my commanding officer and master chief had in me. If I had tried to pass the blame on to others, I suspect I would have been fired—deservedly so.
The leader is truly and ultimately responsible for everything. That is Extreme Ownership, the fundamental core of what constitutes an effective leader in the SEAL Teams or in any leadership endeavor.
On any team, in any organization, all responsibility for success and failure rests with the leader. The leader must own everything in his or her world. There is no one else to blame. The leader must acknowledge mistakes and admit failures, take ownership of them, and develop a plan to win.
If an individual on the team is not performing at the level required for the team to succeed, the leader must train and mentor that underperformer. But if the underperformer continually fails to meet standards, then a leader who exercises Extreme Ownership must be loyal to the team and the mission above any individual. If underperformers cannot improve, the leader must make the tough call to terminate them and hire others who can get the job done.
When it comes to standards, as a leader, it’s not what you preach, it’s what you tolerate. When setting expectations, no matter what has been said or written, if substandard performance is accepted and no one is held accountable—if there are no consequences—that poor performance becomes the new standard. Therefore, leaders must enforce standards.
Once a culture of Extreme Ownership is built into the team at every level, the entire team performs well, and performance continues to improve, even when a strong leader is temporarily removed from the team.
The room was quiet. Everyone understood. They didn’t have to jump for joy at the thought of fighting alongside Iraqi soldiers on a dangerous battlefield. But they did have to understand why they were doing it so that they could believe in the mission.
The most important question had been answered: Why? Once I analyzed the mission and understood for myself that critical piece of information, I could then believe in the mission. If I didn’t believe in it, there was no way I could possibly convince the SEALs in my task unit to believe in it. If I expressed doubts or openly questioned the wisdom of this plan in front of the troops, their derision toward the mission would increase exponentially. They would never believe in it. As a result, they would never commit to it, and it would fail.
Far more important than training or equipment, a resolute belief in the mission is critical for any team or organization to win and achieve big results.
Alternatively, when the team succeeds, everyone within and supporting that team succeeds. Every individual and every team within the larger team gets to share in the success. Accomplishing the strategic mission is the highest priority.
Combat, like anything in life, has inherent layers of complexities. Simplifying as much as possible is crucial to success. When plans and orders are too complicated, people may not understand them. And when things go wrong, and they inevitably do go wrong, complexity compounds issues that can spiral out of control into total disaster. Plans and orders must be communicated in a manner that is simple, clear, and concise. Everyone that is part of the mission must know and understand his or her role in the mission and what to do in the event of likely contingencies.
You must brief to ensure the lowest common denominator on the team understands.
If there is not a strong enough correlation between the behavior and the reward or the punishment, then behavior will never be modified. If the rats don’t know why they received a sugar pellet or why they were just given an electric shock, they will not change.”
When something goes wrong—and it eventually does—complex plans add to confusion, which can compound into disaster.
Prioritize and Execute. Even the greatest of battlefield leaders could not handle an array of challenges simultaneously without being overwhelmed. That risked failing at them all.
Pushing the decision making down to the subordinate, frontline leaders within the task unit was critical to our success. This Decentralized Command structure allowed me, as the commander, to maintain focus on the bigger picture: coordinate friendly assets and monitor enemy activity. Were I to get embroiled in the details of a tactical problem, there would be no one else to fill my role and manage the strategic mission.
Human beings are generally not capable of managing more than six to ten people, particularly when things go sideways and inevitable contingencies arise. No one senior leader can be expected to manage dozens of individuals, much less hundreds. Teams must be broken down into manageable elements of four to five operators, with a clearly designated leader. Those leaders must understand the overall mission, and the ultimate goal of that mission—the Commander’s Intent. Junior leaders must be empowered to make decisions on key tasks necessary to accomplish that mission in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Teams within teams are organized for maximum effectiveness for a particular mission, with leaders who have clearly delineated responsibilities. Every tactical-level team leader must understand not just what to do but why they are doing it. If frontline leaders do not understand why, they must ask their boss to clarify the why. [Gen. Stanley McCrystal: Teams of Teams]
Decentralized Command does not mean junior leaders or team members operate on their own program; that results in chaos. Instead, junior leaders must fully understand what is within their decision-making authority—the “left and right limits” of their responsibility. Additionally, they must communicate with senior leaders to recommend decisions outside their authority and pass critical information up the chain so the senior leadership can make informed strategic decisions. SEAL leaders on the battlefield are expected to figure out what needs to be done and do it—to tell higher authority what they plan to do, rather than ask, “What do you want me to do?” Junior leaders must be proactive rather than reactive.
Militaries throughout history, are based around building blocks of four-to-six-man teams with a leader. We call them ‘fire teams.’ That is the ideal number for a leader to lead. Beyond that, any leader can lose control as soon as even minimal pressure is applied to the team when inevitable challenges arise.”
Trust is not blindly given. It must be built over time. Situations will sometimes require that the boss walk away from a problem and let junior leaders solve it, even if the boss knows he might solve it more efficiently. It is more important that the junior leaders are allowed to make decisions—and backed up even if they don’t make them correctly. Open conversations build trust. Overcoming stress and challenging environments builds trust. Working through emergencies and seeing how people react builds trust. “Junior leaders must know that the boss will back them up even if they make a decision that may not result in the best outcome, as long as the decision was made in an effort to achieve the strategic objective,”
1) Maintain the element of surprise; stealth is more important than speed as we approach this target. 2) After the breach, once we make entry, speed is most important. Let’s get this target cleared and secured in a hurry.
A broad and ambiguous mission results in lack of focus, ineffective execution, and mission creep.
Leaders must carefully prioritize the information to be presented in as simple, clear, and concise a format as possible so that participants do not experience information overload.
The true test for a good brief is not whether the senior officers are impressed. It’s whether or not the troops that are going to execute the operation actually understand it.
Leading up the chain takes much more savvy and skill than leading down the chain. Leading up, the leader cannot fall back on his or her positional authority. Instead, the subordinate leader must use influence, experience, knowledge, communication, and maintain the highest professionalism.
While pushing to make your superior understand what you need, you must also realize that your boss must allocate limited assets and make decisions with the bigger picture in mind. You and your team may not represent the priority effort at that particular time. Or perhaps the senior leadership has chosen a different direction. Have the humility to understand and accept this.
One of the most important jobs of any leader is to support your own boss—your immediate leadership. In any chain of command, the leadership must always present a united front to the troops. A public display of discontent or disagreement with the chain of command undermines the authority of leaders at all levels. This is catastrophic to the performance of any organization.
Once the debate on a particular course of action is over and the boss has made a decision—even if that decision is one you argued against—you must execute the plan as if it were your own.
Don’t ask your leader what you should do, tell them what you are going to do.
Jocko had always encouraged us to be aggressive in decision-making. But part of being decisive was knowing and understanding that some decisions, while immediately impactful, can be quickly reversed or altered; other decisions, like shooting another human being, cannot be undone. If we waited to take this shot we could later change course, while a decision to pull the trigger and engage this shadowy target would be final.
“They haven’t found a way to work together. They are both possibly interviewing at other companies. And now, they are plotting against each other. All this has detrimental impact to your company’s performance. Not exactly the kind of leaders I would want working for me.” “But, if I do that, what happens to their teams?” Darla asked. She was concerned about the immediate consequence that the loss in technical knowledge and expertise would mean to the company and how their teams might react. “You said that you didn’t think there are any die-hard fans of either within the team,” said Jocko. “Even if there are one or two loyalists, do you really want people loyal to these types of leaders working at your company? Let me ask you this: Are there any high-potential frontline personnel that could take their jobs? It may be time for a battlefield promotion.
“How do you want to be perceived?” I asked Darla. “Do you want to be seen as someone who can be held hostage by the demands—the threats—they are making? Do you want to be seen as indecisive?”
As a leader, you want to be seen—you need to be seen—as decisive, and willing to make tough choices. The outcome may be uncertain, but you have enough understanding and information to make a decision.
A leader must lead but also be ready to follow. Sometimes, another member of the team—perhaps a subordinate or direct report—might be in a better position to develop a plan, make a decision, or lead through a specific situation. Perhaps the junior person has greater expertise in a particular area or more experience. Perhaps he or she simply thought of a better way to accomplish the mission. Good leaders must welcome this, putting aside ego and personal agendas to ensure that the team has the greatest chance of accomplishing its strategic goals. A true leader is not intimidated when others step up and take charge. Leaders that lack confidence in themselves fear being outshined by someone else. If the team is successful, then recognition will come for those in charge, but a leader should not seek that recognition. A leader must be confident enough to follow someone else when the situation calls for it.
Leaders who lose their temper also lose respect. But, at the same time, to never show any sense of anger, sadness, or frustration would make that leader appear void of any emotion at all—a robot. People do not follow robots.
Of course, a leader must be confident but never cocky. Confidence is contagious, a great attribute for a leader and a team. But when it goes too far, overconfidence causes complacency and arrogance, which ultimately set the team up for failure.
A leader must be brave but not foolhardy. He or she must be willing to accept risk and act courageously, but must never be reckless. It is a leader’s job to always mitigate as much as possible those risks that can be controlled to accomplish the mission without sacrificing the team or excessively expending critical resources.
Since the team understands that the leader is de facto in charge, in that respect, a leader has nothing to prove. But in another respect, a leader has everything to prove: every member of the team must develop the trust and confidence that their leader will exercise good judgment, remain calm, and make the right decisions when it matters most. Leaders must earn that respect and prove themselves worthy, demonstrating through action that they will take care of the team and look out for their long-term interests and well-being. In that respect, a leader has everything to prove every day.
The Dichotomy of Leadership - A good leader must be:
- confident but not cocky;
- courageous but not foolhardy;
- competitive but a gracious loser;
- attentive to details but not obsessed by them;
- strong but have endurance;
- a leader and follower;
- humble not passive;
- aggressive not overbearing;
- quiet not silent;
- calm but not robotic, logical but not devoid of emotions;
- close with the troops but not so close that one becomes more important than another or more important than the good of the team; not so close that they forget who is in charge;
- able to execute Extreme Ownership, while exercising Decentralized Command.
Subordinates or direct reports don’t expect their bosses to be perfect. When the boss makes a mistake but then owns up to that mistake, it doesn’t decrease respect. Instead, it increases respect for that leader, proving he or she possesses the humility to admit and own mistakes and, most important, to learn from them.
It means so much when one of your people comes and talks to you and you sit down and say, “Okay, let me take some notes on what you’re saying.” That means so much to them. And sometimes people forget that. They forget how horrible it is to look up and see the boss blowing someone off or saying, “I don’t have time for you right now.”
And how do you build relationships? You build relationships by respecting people. By being humble. By listening. By telling them the truth. By having integrity and telling people the truth.
You can’t lie to people. And lie is a strong word, because I don’t think people are generally lying to each other on a regular basis. But leaders sometimes use half-truths and they shadow things. But you can’t do that because people see right through it. Even if someone doesn’t know what the truth is, they definitely know when they’re not getting the truth.
When being truthful, when being honest, you also have to be tactful. Being truthful and honest doesn’t give you permission to be a jerk. If you’re working with your subordinates and they screw something up, you don’t say, “That was a horrible job. You let me down.” No. The first thing you do is you take ownership and say, “I obviously didn’t give you good-enough guidance.” Then you discuss what went wrong. But the point that I’m trying to make is that there are people that are blunt, honest leaders and everyone hates them because they don’t have any tact. They don’t maneuver. They don’t use mental jiu-jitsu. They don’t think. They don’t assess the whole situation. You’ve got to be a chess player, not a checkers player. You’ve got to influence people.
Because when you start taking ownership of things, it can be very intimidating for the person that’s above you. They might think, “Dang. This guy is bold. He is stepping up and taking charge.” And they might get intimidated by that, so you have to be careful. So, what you have to do is some indirect maneuver warfare. Some mental jiu-jitsu. For instance, if they don’t want to come up with a plan, maybe you say, “Hey, boss, what do you think of this? Would this be a good plan?” You give them the plan, but you are letting them think it is theirs by appearing to seek guidance or approval.
If your subordinate is stepping up and doing your job and doing it better than you, don’t get mad. Instead, step up yourself and start figuring out how you can improve what you are doing. How can you look up and out? What other areas can you focus on since your subordinate leader has stepped up and is making things happen? Which, by the way, is exactly what you should want as a leader: for your team to step up. That is awesome. We want that. That’s Decentralized Command. That’s building leaders underneath you to take over your job, which should always be your goal as a leader.
But if someone’s not doing what they’re supposed to do, or they’re failing, or they’re letting you down, then, yes, you’ve got to get in their grill and micromanage them.
The other time you might need to micromanage is when you’re mentoring someone. Because now I’m sitting side-by-side with you. I’m breathing down your neck a little bit. That can be viewed as micromanagement. But again, sometimes it’s necessary. If you don’t know the ropes yet, I’ve got to show you the ropes. That means I’ve got to sit by you and make sure you know it. If I’m teaching somebody something in a work environment, that can also be viewed as micromanagement—and it actually is. Because I’m saying, “Put this over here. Put that over there.”
If you do have to micromanage for a short period of time, it should feel like a chore for you that you don’t like doing, and it shouldn’t last forever. You can get in there and you can micromanage for a certain amount of time, but then you need to say, “Okay, you got this. You know what you’re doing. I’m stepping back.” Then you have to step back, because no one likes to be micromanaged. Once you get people up to speed, step back, and let them run. Let your leaders lead.
How do you recover from a mistake? If you make a mistake, own it. The worst thing you can do if you make a mistake is try to avoid taking blame for it.
I wanted my platoons to think: I wanted each guy to think that he was the most important guy. I wanted the radioman to think he was most important because he could call in fire support. I wanted the corpsman [combat medic] to think that he was most important because he was going to save everybody. I wanted the snipers to think they were most important. I wanted the machine gunners to think they were the most important because they were going to lay down the fire and get us out. I was always a big supporter of all of them. And you need them all, because it’s a team.