When it comes to training, no one does it better than the Australian Army. Hear Warrant Officer of the Army Don Spinks OAM, talk about what makes Army training so effective and about the importance of being a good follower in order to learn how to become a good Leader.
Listen to Episode 12 – Training & Doctrine Podcast on Apple Podcasts.
On the surface, this is a very polished presentation, but scratch that surface and you reveal a message that is condescending to women and misandry by a male promoting what he’s selling to an audience wanting to buy-in. It’s quite despicable really.
This video implies that incompetent male leadership is an epidemic, and it’s not! It also implies that males are viewed as competent based on them being ‘aggressive, assertive, bold, abrasive and over-confident’, but this is absurd and stereotypes all confident male leaders as incompetent, linking this to what the ‘Left’ has characterised as ‘Toxic Masculinity’. It’s unlikely that Human Resources departments the world over have included these characteristics as mandatory selection criteria for hiring senior executives.
We’ve all seen our fair share of incompetent male and female leaders. Incompetence is gender-neutral. The masculine traits describe in the video are not in themselves the problem, at least no more a problem than the over-emphasis placed on feminine traits being better for leading. They’re not.
This is unfortunately a weak argument and typical of the current, popular assault on men, especially in positions of power. On the surface the premise of this argument seems completely plausible; however, in the context of this argument, competence is much more a function of management than leadership. True leadership has little to do with technical ability, which seems to be what is being equated to competence or gender, although males tend to want to lead more because anthropologically they are more dominant than females. There are also a vast array of psychological, social, and personal reasons why females are less interested in rising to the top of organisations and into senior leadership roles, and that’s ok.
The quantity of male leaders has its roots in biology, not gender, and technical ability is a poor measure of one’s competence as a leader. It’s important not to confuse technical ability, being termed here as competence, with pure leadership. It’s also important to understand that gender is a factor in the male to female leadership ratio due to males being predisposed to being dominant.
A much more concerning fact is that many leaders are psychopaths. They exude charisma and win leadership positions but have no empathy, are toxic, and ruin organisations.
Imagine for a second that we flipped this video to be about incompetent female leaders. It would break the internet!
Unfortunately, it is entirely probable that the quest for equality, especially the push for equal quantities (quotas) of females in leadership positions, CEO roles, and on Boards will lead to females being promoted too quickly or beyond their capability. This problem is statistically exacerbated due to the pool of suitable females being low, compared with their male counterparts. The only way to prevent incompetent females from being over-promoted is to allow their rise to be organic and at the ‘right pace’.
In our article on the Planning Process, we provided a planning model based on the Military Appreciation Process (MAP). The MAP is a powerful tool that can help leaders develop detailed and complex plans to address new initiatives or solve “Wicked Problems“.
There will be times though when the time needed to properly research and develop a detailed plan is just not available. Your staff or those you work for will expect you to be able to quickly develop a plan of action to address an impending need. You need a systematic, simple, and effective way to quickly develop a robust plan and you need to be able to quickly brief your staff and executives in an effective, professional, and convincing manner.
This article provides a process for developing effective, consistent Immediate Action Plans (IAP) and is based on the military’s Situation, Mission, Execution, Admin & Logistics, and Command & Signals (Communication) or SMEAC for short.
SMEAC can be used in two main ways. It can be used to develop plans that are tested and rehearsed and kept at the ready to be implemented when a certain condition or set of conditions reveal themselves. It can also be used with great effect by leaders who need to quickly formulate a plan and be able to brief that plan up or down the chain of command.
Situation: Determine the issue or problem that needs to be solved. Gather assumptions. Determine any freedoms of action or constraints. Identify Why the plan needs to be developed and executed.
Mission: This is a mission statement that is written following the format; Who, What, Where, How, and by When. A military mission statement does not include the Why, however, it is important to explain the Why as part of the Situation brief.
Execution: This is where you develop the detail about how the plan will be implemented. In the military, the execution is often rehearsed.
Admin & Logistics: Identify, document, and brief your personnel on any administrative and logistic factors needed to support the execution of the plan.
Command & Communication: Understand the commanders intent 1Up & 2Up. Establish the ‘Chain of Command’ and assign authority. Determine and define who the stakeholders are, what information they need to be provided, who needs to provide it, and in what format, how frequently it needs to be provided, and over what means.
This simple process is used by junior and senior commanders to plan and execute military missions and can be adapted to help new and experienced business leaders by providing a quick, deliberate, robust, repeatable, and memorable method for developing Immediate Action Plans.
Are organisations today acting as good corporate citizen or a “social justice warrior”? When most of us think about Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) we think about gender, race, disability, and LGBTQI+… We don’t tend to think about diversity of views or freedom of expression. But is this PC world we live in suppressing innovation and preventing necessary dialogue, in fear of offending individuals or minority groups; and is this good for business? Is ‘left’ the only direction we can drive business today? Is it only ‘ok’ to have your own views so long as they fully align with those of the organistion and are leaders leading, or following current trends? The Diversity Council Australia used the term “PC Gone Mad” in their 2019-2020 Inclusion@Work Index Report but did they go far enough?
Dr Kevin Donnelly AM, wrote ‘How Political Correctness is Destroying Australia’ released in January 2018, where he discusses the threat posed by the cultural-left to Australia and Western civilisation and explores the rise of political correctness in Australia including: the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism; Safe Schools, same-sex marriage and the LGBTQI sexuality and gender agenda; and what it means to be Australian.
Is it no longer safe to have your own thoughts or speak your mind, or do our current cohort of leaders need to stand up, apply commonsense and demonstrate genuine leadership!
Law and order are under attack with calls to ‘de-fund’ the police, and Seattle now has a newly formed nation downtown. Peaceful protests have morphed into riots and looting with the destruction of property and even the death of a black Police Officer exercising his duty to serve and protect the people who killed him. In some parts of the country, the urban landscape scape more resembles the streets of an active war zone than the peaceful suburbs that 6 months ago where the peaceful residence of the world’s leading economy.
So what, or who has allowed the “greatest country in the world’ to implode on itself?
I think the answer is obvious. Weak leadership by weak leaders!
Love him or loath him, President Donald Trump is one of the world’s most powerful and often most controversial leaders. Whether or not you agree with his politics or his leadership style, there’s no denying President Trump was elected over other leaders because the people of America believed his policies. Or maybe he was just the least bad option available at the polling booth on the day. I believe the manner in which President Trump addresses the current turmoil gripping his country will define his Presidency.
There is a famous quote by Edmund Burke in a letter he addressed to Thomas Mercer where he wrote “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The world is watching and wondering, what will President Trump do…
In a recent interview with Fox News Reporter Harris Faulkner, President Trump talks about how weak leadership is not compassionate.
During my time in the Army, I learnt a few things about leadership that I feel are worth sharing. From my experience in and out of Defence I’ve found these lessons are as applicable to the business world as they are to leading troops in a war zone! Here are a few I hope you find useful and can apply to your role as a leader at any level within your organisation.
Leaders are expected to lead. This sounds intuitive right? Well it’s surprising how many leaders doubt their leadership ability. I recall working for a Brigadier General who headed up the Army’s Logistic Support Force (LSF). This Brigadier was an accomplished leader in-charge of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment. I worked for the Brigadier for two years and still hold him in the highest regard for his stoic poise and ability to lead with absolute confidence.
I ran into this Brigadier many years later when he was working as a senior executive with KPMG. As we reminisced about our time at HQ LSF, he revealed to me how much he appreciated the council of those who supported him, including mine and noted that every day as he got dressed in his service uniform he stood in from of the mirror and recited to himself over and over “They expect you to lead them. They want you to lead them. They need you to lead them”.
I had never thought that this consummate leader needed to perform a daily affirmation to help him step out in front of his troops and lead. If you are a leader who lacks self-confidence, you must find your affirmation. You must also understand that your troops see you as their leader and want, and need, you to lead them with confidence.
“The behaviour you walk past is the behaviour you accept”. This quote was made famous by the former Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison AO, when addressing ‘the troops’ about misconduct towards female soldiers.
What General Morrison was saying was that not acting to address bad or inappropriate behaviour has two effects: it normalises the bad behaviour; and it makes those who observe it and do nothing, complicit.
Addressing bad behaviour can be very difficult, especially as it often starts out seeming quite innocent. However, minor indiscretions can quickly escalate if left unchecked. Never walk past or accept bad or inappropriate behaviour.
The ‘wire’ refers to the barbed-wire obstacles we place around our defensive positions on operations. Being outside the wire means you are exposed, away from friendly troops and in hostile territory. When you are inside the wire you are under the protection of inter-locking machine guns, fortifications and pits and in the company with others willing to die for each-other and the mission.
The concept of no enemies inside the wire is one of absolute trust. In the business world you can’t afford to let enemies infiltrate your organisation. This includes anyone who doesn’t have the best interests of your organisation at heart. If you do, you have let the enemy inside the wire.
When I was a newly promoted Corporal, I was called into a Platoon briefing where the Platoon Commander delivered his Mission Brief. My task was to return to my Section of eight soldiers and deliver my Mission Brief with my Platoon Sergeant tagging along to listen in.
After my brief was complete, my Platoon Sergeant pulled me aside and asked me how I thought I did, to which I replied that I thought “I had nailed it”! My Platoon Sergeant paused for a second, then proceeded to tell me that I had just done a fantastic job of delivering to my Section the Platoon’s Mission, not my Section’s Mission.
As a Section Commander, it was my job to distil from the Platoon’s Mission what were the exact activities and tasks my Section needed to perform in support of the Platoon’s Mission and how those tasks interrelate with the rest of the Platoon. Make sure you know what your mission is.
Equally as important as knowing your mission and being able to articulate it to your troops, is the need to understand and support your commander’s intent.
This means that when your ‘plan goes south’ and your mission is compromised, you can continue moving forward and support the larger campaign. It also means that you understand that your commander likely knows a lot more about the overall battle than you do. While you may not always agree with your commander’s decisions, once the order is given, you need to support it as if it were your own.
I recently had an indiscretion where I disagreed with a decision made by the leaders in our business. When I verbalised my concerns in front of the group I realised I had lost sight of the bigger picture and forgotten to support my commander’s intent. As a leader, I had also forgotten how much weight my comments carry over my staff. The time to voice your opinion is in an appropriate forum prior to a decision being made. Once a decision has been made, remember to put aside your personal views and opinions and support your commander’s intent.
In the military, there is an absolute need to push power and decision making, as far down the chain of command as possible. Those junior soldiers fighting on the front line can’t be led effectively by Generals in the rear echelons. The Corporals and Lance Corporals at the forward edge of the battle must have the authority to make decisions that directly impact their mission and the very lives of those they lead.
In most business scenarios, the battlefield is much less dramatic, but the principle of decentralised command is just as valid. Empowering your staff to make critical business decisions is a powerful business principle. It has the added benefit of widening the decision-making bottleneck and freeing up senior managers, who are otherwise bogged down making or approving tactical decisions.
This rule states that a commander should use one-third of the time available to plan the mission and allow the remaining two-thirds of the time for subordinate commanders to plan and execute their missions.
Too often in business, this rule tends to be reversed and those responsible for executing the mission have insufficient time to develop proper plans, resulting in failed missions.
A leader who fails to apply the one-third two-thirds rule is setting up his subordinate leaders, and the business, to fail.
On the battlefield, we always have ‘one foot on the ground’. Metaphorically, this means prioritising your effort and developing robust plans to efficiently and effectively execute those plans.
Having too many objectives in play at one time always results in disaster. Also, making every task ‘priority one’ means no task is ‘priority one’. Prioritising and executing those activities most critical to mission success is without a doubt the single most important lesson any leader needs to learn.
These are a few of the lessons I have learned from my time in the military. I hope they resonate with you and you can apply them in your day to day leadership of your “troops”.
After joining the Australian Regular Army at the age of 17, I served 21 years in various engineering, logistics, project management and leadership roles, including operational service overseas. I served 10 years with infantry units including 5/7 RAR (Mechanized) and the 4th Battalion Commando, before discharging as a Warrant Officer Class One (WO1).
We’ve all heard it a million times, “Projects are how organizations effect change”. But are the changes truly aligned with the organisations strategic direction? Is the Business Case solid but focused on delivering the wrong outcomes? Ever heard the saying “the surgery was a great success, but the patient died”?
Maybe there’s a need to focus more on the benefits that the change is supposed to create rather than the outcomes of the project! Stephen Covey would suggest that we ‘start with the end in mind’ allowing us to work back to the start of the planning process so we plan the right project from the outset.
Benefits Realization Management is a multi-staged process for identifying benefits to determine whether projects, programs, and portfolios can produce the intended business result and then executing and sustaining the change.
The effective uses of Benefits Mapping and Benefits Realisation sets professional project organisations apart in the industry. Engagement with clients as early as possible during their strategic planning will help steer their decisions towards implementing the changes, and projects, that will ultimately deliver their vision. Wanna know more?
I’m sure you have all heard the saying “make a decision and stick to it”. My caveat for this is “make the RIGHT decision and stick to it”. There is no sense in sticking with a bad or wrong decision just to conform with the belief that good leaders stick to their ‘guns’. It’s far better to allocate sufficient time to the planning process allowing for the right decision to be made than it is trying to justify an ill-informed decision once in execution.
When time is lacking and a quick decision is necessary, you should always aim for the ‘least bad decision’ possible and be prepared to fail fast, course-correct quickly, and accept the fallout.
A lot has been written about the importance of leaders allowing themselves to be vulnerable. Check out this Harvard Business Review article by Jeffrey Cohn and U. Srinivasa Rangan
Using the word “vulnerable” to describe leaders who display good traits such as being open, transparent, and willing to share lessons they have learned, is a misuse of language. Webster’s Dictionary defines being vulnerable as ‘capable of being physically or emotionally wounded‘ and ‘open to attack or damage: Assailable’. Is this what we expect from our leaders, or is this a linguistic reflection of the victim culture plaguing society today?
There is a fine line between what followers view as ‘vulnerability’ and what is in fact just ‘weak, emotion-driven leadership’. What the HBR article promotes, is that CEOs need to prepare prodigies and aspiring leaders for the challenges of becoming a future leader, which is prudent.
Unfortunately, these sorts of articles use language that allows them to be misinterpreted and gives rise to emotive decision-making and leadership paralysis. Military leaders at all levels are trained to operate under significant pressure, often in a VUCA environment, and this requires stoicism. To quote DavidGoggins, it requires a ‘callusing of the mind‘.
Today’s leaders are expected to demonstrate a high degree of empathy, be supportive, be ‘politically correct”, generous, and agreeable. These are all great leadership traits, but like anything, there needs to be balance. Many leaders now struggle to make hard decisions and are often too afraid to actually lead. They spend too much time being ‘vulnerable’ when they should be thinking critically, planning with purpose, and leading by example. It’s important not to confuse leaders who foster psychological safety and speak freely with subordinate leaders and followers, with leaders who are vulnerable. These are very different scenarios and lead to divergent outcomes.
I often reflect on how much more I respected and trusted the strong leadership of 30, 40 and 50 years ago compared to what I see as weak leadership today. It’s not that the leaders of the past were better people or led more effectively. Many of them could have done with a little more empathy and political correctness and I guess that’s the point. A little more, not the massive pendulum swing commonly applied to social issues today. I’m fighting a losing battle as many leaders today don’t like conflict and find it terrifying to make any decisions, let alone hard decisions. They are unwilling to exercise what Jocko Willink refers to as “Extreme Ownership“. Do yourself a tremendous favour and read Jocko’s book.
I’m not suggesting leaders don’t accept failure or seek to identify their blind spots, and they should have discussions with subordinate leaders and general staff about risks and issues. Leaders who openly display their anxiety and fear do not demonstrate courage or instil much-needed confidence in their staff or their organisations.
As a proponent of critical thinking, the way words are used is important to me. I ask everyone to think critically when they are told they need to be ‘vulnerable’ and to understand what that really means.
We need to stop promoting the idea that being vulnerable is good. It’s not. Being a mature, stoic leader, who is considered, driven to action, open, empathetic, and willing to share lessons learned should be what we’re aiming for.
If we accept ‘vulnerable leadership’ into the vernacular it is a slippery slope to accepting excuses and emotion-led decision making and that’s just plain bad leadership.
There’s been a disturbing trend on social media and in online leadership articles of late. A trend that sends a misguided message to upcoming and incumbent female leaders. A subliminal ‘call to arms’ for female leaders to adopt traits that are undesirable for any leader. Traits such as being aggressive, bossy, uncompromising, and non-collaborative and normalising this behavior by reframing the language and promoting the female leader as strong and powerful. There is also the notion that women are criticised and even penalised for demonstrating the same behaviors and characteristics as their male counterparts. The same behaviors and characteristics that everyone agrees are undesirable in male leaders. If they are being criticised, it’s because they are emulating the bad leadership demonstrated by many male leaders; behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated regardless of gender.
There are many articles and media posts promoting the idea that these bad behaviors are solely male traits and that women wanting to climb the corporate ladder need to embrace them. Check out this Forbes article by Liz Elting where she discusses the “five traits every woman leader needs to embrace”. Many articles like this have been published in recent times, and we get it! Women want to be respected and treated the same as their male counterparts.
The hard thing to understand is the notion that the bad behavior we despise in some high profile, inept male leaders, the aggressive, arrogant, condescending, and non-collaborative behavior, is somehow what female leaders should aspire to and emulate. Anecdotally, bad leadership is not expressly the domain of male leaders, and every leader should strive to set the moral and character example for their organisation and their community. Too often nowadays, bad leadership behavior is displayed by both genders, at every level of leadership and across both the private and public sectors. What is most difficult to understand is why anyone would think the opposite of bad leadership is worse leadership!
This is not to suggest that women should be timid or passive leaders. The hope is that they don’t try to copy their male counterparts and raise the leadership bar and provide a more empathetic, collaborative, and considered approach to how leadership is performed.
We need to change the message and the language we use to inspire women, and men, to be better leaders. Good leadership is underpinned by good character and we should all be striving to be better leaders, not worse; otherwise, we become that which you despise.
