Leadership and command
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
One of my favorite military historians is Col. Joseph B. Mitchell. I was reminded of why this weekend as I was browsing through his Military Leaders in the Civil War.
Mitchell says of Robert E. Lee that he was a "sublime" leader. But then Mitchell judges that Lee was deficient in command because he was too polite. Mitchell means that Lee was so polite and courteous that he was "inclined to issue discretionary or vague orders, when clear, preemptory orders were required."
Mitchell contrasts Lee with Stonewall Jackson and Ulysses Grant. I read many of Grants orders for a program I prepared for new managers several years ago. Over a century after he wrote them, there is no doubt what Grant wanted and expected.
Command is devalued today. We've derided the "command and control" management style for so long without thinking, that we've lost sight of the fact that in hierarchical organizations, which is where most of us work, there are times when command is not just desirable, it is necessary.
Command is not micromanagement. Command is telling the people who work for you what you expect and when you expect it. It is telling the people who work for you how you all will know if the action is successful and what are the consequences for failure to perform.
Command is not opposed to local decision making. It enables it. In Marine Corps doctrine this comes under the rubric of the mission order: "assigning a subordinate mission without specifying how the mission must be accomplished."
Note the distinction. It is the responsibility of command to establish the mission and what will be accomplished and communicate that effectively. It is the responsibility of the subordinate to determine how to accomplish the mission in the particular local situation.
If you are responsible for the performance of a group, one of your objectives is to accomplish the mission through the group. "Command" is the part of your job where you communicate what the mission is. If you choose not to command because you think it's inappropriate or ineffective, you leave your people no choice but to guess what you want. And that's just begging for disaster.
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Request your free copy of "Meeting the Challenges of the Boomer Brain Drain: An integrated approach."
Wally Bock has helped people learn to be great bosses for more than a quarter century. His latest book, Performance Talk: The One-on-One Part of Leadership, makes learning key leadership principles almost effortless by teaching through a story and providing lists of resources for further growth.
Click here to find out more about Wally's coaching services.
For weekly tips and resources pointers, check our Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership Letter.
Click here to find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention.
Categories: US Marines, Communication, Leadership Techniques
I don’t know how we can walk this one back, Wally. For many, especially our “progressive” brethren, the state of mind – the hubris - which allows someone to even THINK he or she can command others is the very essence of something very wrong.
This is one of those areas where cultural evolution seems to have moved away from common sense. As you point out, micromanaging is a problem if or when it specifies HOW something should be done, rather than what is to be done in what time frame.
I will say that, quietly on the ground, a lot of managers have learned their own lessons after a few mishaps, and now don’t mince many words about their expectations. It’s just that most would prefer to see it as more effective communication rather than "command."
Reply to this
I agree with Shaun's concern that many of our "right thinking" colleagues would view the presumption of command as "hubris" - but what about the presumption of this often peculiarly self-celebratory personal status of leadership?
The fact of the matter is that command establishes direction and structure around which the organization can fashion itself and develop traction for forward progress.
We can mince words about what to call it - and I say that with full appreciation of Shaun's concern that we get the message across in as un-ideologically disturbing a way as we can, so we get the message through without first shooting the medium - but I would still like to offer my support for what I take as the core lesson here in Wally's post - people want to know someone is in charge and will give meaningful and forceful expression to that responsibility - they will interpret the mission, support, guide, correct, and reward - you, in this environment, will know where you are. You can release the stress that builds up in a new-age world of formless empowerment where many people, including those who are supposed to be in charge, hardly know what's actually going on or how to make it go on.
In my view, the greatest managers - "leaders" if you insist - are really great commanders in the sense that Wally presents them - not as spigots that gush out commands, but as solid presences in the midst of uncertainty who establish what is called in the military a good command environment, within which individuals know what to do, and are allowed and given all possible support to do it.
Reply to this
Thanks Shaun and Jim for your comments and for stopping by.
You're both right about language being an issue and Shaun's comment about "not being able to walk this one back" is dead on. But language is part of the problem in a larger sense.
We've spent decades now muddying the waters. We've debated the difference between management and leadership as if, in the day to day world, it really meant something. We've spent so much time talking about strategic vision that we've forgotten that you make that vision a reality through the everyday, messy business of communicating with people. And we've lavished language and attention on the idea that "you don't need a position or title to lead" that we've forgotten that people who have those titles and positions have an obligation to lead.
Reply to this