CHAPTER 14
The Heart of Leadership
In the introduction to Part Three, I talk about Drucker’s thoughts on military leadership—some carefully concealed, others explicit from his very early writings—until the 2000s when he boldly claimed the military’s training and development of leaders as preeminent in both quality and quantity over all other institutions.
1 However, for me the confirmation of his point of view was not his words in the classroom, those written in his books, or even this strong testimonial for military leadership in Frances Hesselbein’s book. Rather, it came from a discussion we had over lunch in an Italian restaurant in Claremont, California. I’ll get to that shortly.
Command-and-Control Leadership
Conventional wisdom is that military leadership is command and control leadership, and that it is an outdated style to be avoided. As Drucker liked to say, “What everyone knows is frequently wrong.” While the term “command and control” is used in the military, there is no such thing in the military as command-and-control leadership. Command and control is the exercise of authority and direction over assigned forces by a commander to accomplish a mission. In other words, a commander is responsible for accomplishing a task and has the legal authority to issue orders that are enforceable by law. However, this is not leadership, and it doesn’t refer to how a commander goes about exercising that authority. Simply giving orders is not leadership. In fact, very effective leadership in the military is frequently accomplished by taking the opposite tack and not giving orders at all. I learned this when I was still in high school.
A classmate’s grandfather was a retired army major general. As a senior, I was very proud of my exalted status as a cadet lieutenant, and proud to be invited to a school basketball game with my classmate and his grandfather. After enjoying a candy bar purchased for me by the general, I surreptitiously (or so I thought) attempted to dispose of the wrapper by dropping it between the bleachers on which we sat. I knew it was wrong, but I didn’t want to leave the stands and miss the action while locating a trash barrel. Unfortunately, the general did notice the action I was about to take. He didn’t give me an order, he said only, “You know, although I hate to hang on to trash, but sometimes we have to, because throwing it away sets a very bad example for children.” I’m sure my face turned red. That I remember this incident more than fifty years later says a lot about the effectiveness of indirect criticism as a leadership technique. I have frequently seen and used indirect methods in the military, even though I had the authority to simply give a direct order.
Leadership in Battle
Battle leadership probably represents one of the greatest leadership challenges. Pressure is severe, life is terribly hazardous, and working conditions are poor. There is probably greater uncertainty than in any other type of human activity. Drucker noted, “In no other type of leadership must the leader make decisions based on less or less reliable information.”
2 “Workers” may need to perform their duties with little food and irregular sleep. All must take great risks. Most—followers and leaders alike—would prefer to be somewhere else doing something else.
Even then, an indirect approach can be used. During World War I, General Douglas MacArthur, then a thirty eight year old brigadier general, had been in combat for some time, but had just assumed command of a new brigade in France. After planning an important attack, he went forward and waited in the trenches with the battalion that was going to lead the way. This battalion had never been in combat, much less made an attack. He could see that the young battalion commander was nervous.
He called the battalion commander to him. “Major,” he addressed him, “when the signal comes to attack, if you get out in front of your battalion, your men will follow you all the way to the German positions. Moreover, they will never doubt your leadership or courage in the future.”
Normally, a battalion commander is not supposed to lead an attack from the front. The military tactics manuals said that a battalion commander should be with the company that follows the company in the lead, not in front of the entire battalion. That way, the battalion commander is not as vulnerable and can better control the attack as it unfolds. But MacArthur knew that there was a time when the rules must be violated, and that this was one.
“I will not order you to do this,” continued MacArthur. “In front of your battalion, many German guns will be aimed right at you. It will be very dangerous and require a great deal of courage. However, if you do it, your battalion will succeed. You will earn the Distinguished Service Cross [an award second only to the Congressional Medal of Honor] for your bravery, and I will see that you get it.”
MacArthur then stepped back a few paces and looked the major up and down. He then stepped up to the major again. “I see you are going to do it,” he said. “So, you will have the Distinguished Service Cross right now.” Whereupon MacArthur unpinned one of his own Distinguished Service Crosses from his uniform and pinned it on the uniform of the major.
Of course, the major, proudly wearing the Distinguished Service Cross (which he had not yet actually earned), charged out in front of his troops. And, as MacArthur had forecast, his troops followed behind him. As a result, they succeeded in securing their objective.
3While there are true military geniuses in battle, the vast majority, as in most organizations, are ordinary men and women. Many are not professionals. Not all are suited to their jobs. Professional or amateur, all are stressed far more than in any civilian situation or occupation. Moreover, leaders must not only carry out the mission but also do their best to protect the lives of those they lead. For this reason, battle probably represents a worst-case scenario. No wonder traditional motivators such as high pay, good benefits, and job security aren’t much good when it comes to motivating the troops. There is no “business as usual” on the battlefield.
Why Emulate Military Leadership?
As noted earlier, to some unfamiliar with it, military leadership is not something to emulate. It seems to involve running around shouting orders as in a Hollywood movie or obeying the foolish orders of someone in authority. Most who have been there know better. Sure, as in any organization, there are combat leaders who do a poor job of leading, operating as martinets and providing the models for what popular culture asserts is the way all military leaders lead.
However, the vast majority of combat leaders are not of that mold. Instead, they enable ordinary people to routinely accomplish the extraordinary. In battle, leaders help their followers to reach very difficult goals and complete very arduous tasks. Conditions of leadership in battle represent the worst that any leader might encounter. Peter said, “People cannot be managed; they must be led.” In battle, they are led, and despite the terrible conditions, successful combat leaders build amazing organizations that accomplish their tasks ethically, honestly, and, for the most part, humanely.
Applying Battle Leadership to Organizational Leadership
Although I appreciated the value of what I personally learned about leadership in battle—it formed the basis of most of the recommendations in my first book on leadership in 1989—I wondered whether there were underlying principles or lessons from warfare that were at the root of all leadership success. It was the Bible, specifically the prophets Isaiah and Micah, that spoke of beating swords into ploughshares. Certainly this is a worthy goal. And if general principles of leadership from the worst-case scenario of warfare could be uncovered, leaders from all organizations could use these principles to dramatically increase productivity and the likelihood of success in any project. This would be the heart of leadership.
Swords into Ploughshares
The foundation of my research was a survey sent to more than two hundred former combat leaders and conversations with hundreds more. I asked what they had learned from leadership in battle. I asked about the tactics they used, about the importance of their style and the most important actions a leader must take. I asked about adapting these lessons to their civilian careers. I especially sought those who had become successful in the corporate world or in other nonmilitary organizations after leaving the armed forces. Among the responses I received in the initial phase, sixty two were from generals and admirals.
I found that while they practiced many different styles of leadership, they followed some universal principles to dramatically boost productivity and achieve extraordinary success in all types of organizations. With so many respondents listing three or more principles, I expected a huge list. Napoleon developed and published 115 maxims on the conduct of war. How many hundreds of leadership principles would I uncover after analyzing and tabulating the input from such a large number of respondents?
Surprisingly, I discovered that 95 percent of the responses I received boiled down to only eight principles. Moreover, each of these leaders had seen one or more of these eight principles help them to achieve extraordinary results outside the military. More than a few wrote special notes or letters to express their support for my project. It was as if they had seen payment in blood for what they had learned. They knew its value, and they didn’t want to see it wasted.
In a later phase of my research, I interviewed other successful senior business and organization leaders and reviewed dozens of corporate situations and the actions of their senior leaders. Some had combat backgrounds. Some did not. Some allowed me to use their real names and companies. Some preferred to remain anonymous. Some had developed their own lists of principles of leadership over the years. While their lists differed, they invariably included the eight I had previously developed.
I decided that these were far more than principles; they were actually universal laws of leadership—the heart of leadership. There are hundreds of excellent techniques and rules that people may follow in leading others, but these eight are essential. I believe they are the very essence of all leadership. Although these eight laws are simple, even one of them can make the difference between the success and failure in any project in any organization. You can make many mistakes and still succeed as a leader, but if you violate these universal laws, you will probably fail, even if you are at first successful. No one can guarantee success, because other factors might override anything a leader may be able to do, but there is no question that if you follow the universal laws, your chances of success are much increased.
I believe that these laws are that powerful and that the consequences of following them can be the determining factor in the success of most leaders in most situations. The eight laws are:
1. Maintain absolute integrity.
2. Know your stuff.
3. Declare your expectations.
4. Show uncommon commitment.
5. Expect positive results.
6. Take care of your people.
7. Put duty before self.
8. Get out in front.
In the fall of 1997, I shared this information with Peter. This was at the Italian restaurant in Claremont that I mentioned at the opening of the chapter. Peter wore hearing aids that could be adjusted individually for ambient sounds. In the restaurant environment it was sometimes difficult to be understood. But he made certain that he understood exactly what I was saying and that he grasped the results I had obtained from my research. He was very enthusiastic about the project and encouraged me in my desire to publish my research in an applied volume for managers. The resulting book was
The Stuff of Heroes: The Eight Universal Laws of Leadership.
4
Drucker and the Eight Principles
To give you some idea of Drucker’s feelings about leadership in this regard, I will share his responses to each “law” at the time I shared them with him, which I have reconstructed from notes I scribbled at the time. I have since found written references by Drucker that confirm his responses to each “universal law.” In each case, I have cited only one reference, although there were sometimes many.
Jim Collins, author of the mega best seller,
Good to Great,
5 told Ira Jackson, dean of the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management, that his book, based on extensive research, could have been called “Drucker Was Right.” After locating these references and reading what Drucker had written, I felt the same about my own research.
1.
Integrity First “You are entirely right and absolutely correct in listing this as your first law. A leader can be well liked and popular and even competent and that’s all well and good, but if he lacks integrity of character he is not fit to be a leader.”
Drucker wrote: “They [followers] may forgive a man a great deal: incompetence, ignorance, insecurity or bad manners. But they will not forgive him lack of integrity.”
62.
Know Your Stuff “This seems obvious, but some managers do try to cut corners rather than mastering the knowledge that they must have and that is essential to the quality of their performance.”
Drucker wrote: “Leadership rests on being able to do something others cannot do at all or find difficult to do.
73.
Declare Your Expectations “I’m uncertain what you mean by this. If you mean that a leader should declare his objectives, his mission—by all means.”
Drucker wrote: “Each manager, from the ‘big boss’ down to the production foreman or the chief clerk, needs clearly spelled out objectives. . . . A statement of his own objectives based on those of the company and of the manufacturing department should be demanded even of the foreman on the assembly line.”
84.
Show Uncommon Commitment “The failure of many is because they show no commitment, or commitment to the wrong goals. This gets back to your third law. Commitment comes from a worthy mission and then strong commitment.”
Drucker wrote (referring to the Ford Motor Company’s disastrous Edsel project in 1958): “And so when it got into trouble, nobody supported the child. I’m not saying it could have been a success. But without that personal commitment it certainly never could be.”
95.
Expect Positive Results “There is a cautionary tale. One must not be a ‘Pollyanna.’ Still the central thought is correct. One cannot be negative and succeed in anything.”
Drucker supported this “law of leadership” because of his strong belief that there were just two essentials for any business. One is marketing; the other, innovation. Innovation requires a change leader who has to expect positive results because going against old ways, especially when the business is successful, always means overcoming the opposition’s tendency to declare, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Yet that’s exactly when change must occur, according to Drucker.
6.
Take Care of Your People “Many managers are failing to do this, and it will catch up with them.”
Drucker wrote: “A leader has responsibility to his subordinates, to his associates.”
107.
Duty Before Self This point requires some further definition. What I meant by this is that leaders have a duty to accomplish the mission and a duty to take care of those for whom they are responsible. Addressing a leader’s own needs must come only after fulfilling this duty.
“This should be the basis of all leadership. The leader cannot act in personal interests. It must be in the interests of the customer and the worker. This is the great weakness of American management today.”
Drucker wrote: “Douglas MacArthur ... built a team second to none because he put the task first. . . . He was also unbelievably vain, with a tremendous contempt for humanity, because he was certain that no one came close to him in intelligence. Nevertheless, he forced himself in every single staff conference to start the presentation with the most junior officer. He did not allow anybody to interrupt.”
118.
Get Out in Front “Very true—as junior leader or as CEO the leader must be where the work is the most challenging. During World War I losses among higher ranking officers were rare compared with the losses they caused by their incompetence. Too few generals were killed.”
Drucker wrote: “The human being himself determines what he contributes.”
12
Drucker on the Heart of Leadership
Drucker agreed with the principles of leadership I had uncovered. He spoke in strong support of each, but especially of the first—maintaining absolute integrity. However, he added that there were other useful principles of leadership, among them that a manager must first decide to be a leader. While all of the principles I had uncovered from battle leadership would help, the prime principle, according to Drucker, was what I called “duty before self.” “A leader, any leader,” he said, “must be for the benefit of others and not for oneself.” In his writings, I discovered that it was this that he felt distinguished true leaders from “misleaders” such as Hitler and Stalin.