Goodbye to the Full Metal Jacket leadership style

Move over Sergeant Harman, you're no longer the face of US Military Leadership style

When you think about energizing leaders, you don’t instinctively think about officers in the US Military. On the contrary, I usually flash back to images of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Stanley Kubrik’s Full Metal Jacket for a stereotype involving a boot camp sergeant inspiring his men through the use of hard-edged and somewhat Draconian tactics.

Therefore, it was somewhat of a surprise to find the ideas on leadership included in the the recently published memoir of one-time four-star General Stanley A McChrystal

Former 4 Star General Stanley A McChrystal

You may recall, General McChrystal was doing fine until he apparently got suckered into giving an interview with Rolling Stone, which ultimately became his personal Waterloo

Following unflattering remarks about Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials attributed to McChrystal and his aides in that Rolling Stone article, McChrystal was recalled to Washington, D.C., where President Barack Obama accepted his resignation as commander in Afghanistan.

Here is a good summary of the wisdom about leadership in his book…(prepared by Farnam Street Blog)

He starts off with a statement that is right on point and too little understood. If it was better understood, there is no doubt that many medium sized organizations that aspire further growth would dramatically increase their investment in leadership development. But its point six...about leaders being empathetic that caught me off guard. Empathy was certainly a skill that the bullying Sergeant Hartman could not claim on his Linked-in profile.

1. Leadership is the single biggest reason for success or failure.

So, after a lifetime, what had I learned about leadership? Probably not enough. But I saw enough for me to believe it was the single biggest reason organizations succeeded or failed. It dwarfed numbers, technology, ideology, and historical forces in determining the outcome of events. I used to tell junior leaders that the nine otherwise identical parachute infantry battalions of the 82nd Airborne Division ranged widely in effectiveness, the disparity almost entirely a function of leadership.

“Switch just two people— the battalion commander and command sergeant major—from the best battalion with those of the worst, and within ninety days the relative effectiveness of the battalions will have switched as well,” I’d say. I still believe I was correct.

2. Leadership is difficult to measure.

Yet leadership is difficult to measure and often difficult even to adequately describe. I lack the academic bona fides to provide a scholarly analysis of leadership and human behavior. So I’ll simply relate what, after a lifetime of being led and learning to lead, I’ve concluded.

Leadership is the art of influencing others. It differs from giving a simple order or managing in that it shapes the longer-term attitudes and behavior of individuals and groups. George Washington’s tattered army persisted to ultimate victory. Those troops displayed the kind of effort that can never be ordered— only evoked. Effective leaders stir an intangible but very real desire inside people. That drive can be reflected in extraordinary courage, selfless sacrifice, and commitment.

3. Leadership is neither good nor evil.

We like to equate leaders with values we admire, but the two can be separate and distinct. Self-serving or evil intent motivated some of the most effective leaders I saw, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In the end, leadership is a skill that can be used like any other, but with far greater effect.

4. Leaders take us to where we’d otherwise not go.

Although Englishmen rushing into the breach behind Henry V is a familiar image, leaders whose personal example or patient persuasion causes dramatic changes in otherwise inertia-bound organizations or societies are far more significant. The teacher who awakens and encourages in students a sense of possibility and responsibility is, to me, the ultimate leader.

5. Success is rarely the work of a single leader.

… leaders work best in partnership with other leaders. In Iraq in 2004, I received specific direction to track Zarqawi and bring him to justice. But it was the collaboration of leaders below me, inside TF 714, that built the teams, relentlessly hunted, and ultimately destroyed his lethal network.

6. Leaders are empathetic.

The best leaders I’ve seen have an uncanny ability to understand, empathize, and communicate with those they lead. They need not agree or share the same background or status in society as their followers, but they understand their hopes, fears, and passions. Great leaders intuitively sense, or simply ask, how people feel and what resonates with them. At their worst, demigods like Adolf Hitler manipulate the passions of frustrated populations into misguided forces. But empathy can be remarkably positive when a Nelson Mandela reshapes and redirects the energy of a movement away from violence and into constructive nation-building.

7. Leadership is not popularity.

For soldiers, the choice between popularity and effectiveness is ultimately no choice at all. Soldiers want to win; their survival depends upon it. They will accept, and even take pride in, the quirks and shortcomings of a leader if they believe he or she can produce success.

8. The best leaders are genuine.

I found soldiers would tolerate my being less of a leader than I hoped to be, but they would not forgive me being less than I claimed to be. Simple honesty matters.

9. Leaders can be found at any rank and at any age.

I often found myself led by soldiers many levels junior to me, and I was the better for it. Deferring to the expertise and skills of the leader best suited to any given situation requires enough self-confidence to subjugate one’s ego, but it signals a strong respect for the people with whom one serves.

10. Charisma is not leadership.

Personal gifts like intellect or charisma help. But neither are required nor enough to be a leader.

Physical appearance, poise, and outward self-confidence can be confused with leadership—for a time. I saw many new lieutenants arrive to battalions and fail to live up to the expectations their handsome, broad-shouldered look generated. Conversely, I saw others overcome the initial doubts created by small stature or a squeaky voice. It took time and enough interaction with followers, but performance usually became more important than the advantages of innate traits.

Later in my career, I encountered some figures who had learned to leverage superficial gifts so effectively that they appeared to be better leaders than they were. It took me some time and interaction —often under the pressure of difficult situations—before I could determine whether they possessed those bedrock skills and qualities that infantry platoons would seek to find and assess in young sergeants and lieutenants. Modern media exacerbate the challenge of sorting reality from orchestrated perception.

11. Leaders walk a fine line between self-confidence and humility.

Soldiers want leaders who are sure of their ability to lead the team to success but humble enough to recognize their limitations. I learned that it was better to admit ignorance or fear than to display false knowledge or bravado. And candidly admitting doubts or difficulties is key to building confidence in your honesty. But expressing doubts and confidence is a delicate balance. When things look their worst, followers look to the leader for reassurance that they can and will succeed.

12. People are born; leaders are made.

I was born the son of a leader with a clear path to a profession of leadership. But whatever leadership I later possessed, I learned from others. I grew up in a household of overt values, many of which hardened in me only as I matured. Although history fascinated me, and mentors surrounded me, the overall direction and key decisions of my life and career were rarely impacted by specific advice, or even a particularly relevant example I’d read or seen. I rarely wondered What would Nelson, Buford, Grant, or my father have done? But as I grew, I was increasingly aware of the guideposts and guardrails that leaders had set for me, often through their examples. The question became What kind of leader have I decided to be? Over time, decisions came easily against that standard, even when the consequences were grave.

13. Leaders are people, and people constantly change.

Even well into my career I was still figuring out what kind of leader I wanted to be. For many years I found myself bouncing between competing models of a hard-bitten taskmaster and a nurturing father figure— sometimes alternating within a relatively short time span. That could be tough on the people I led, and a bit unfair. They looked for and deserved steady, consistent leadership. When I failed to provide that, I gave conflicting messages that produced uncertainty and reduced the effectiveness of the team we were trying to create. As I got older, the swings between leadership styles were less pronounced and frequent as I learned the value of consistency. But even at the end I still wasn’t the leader I believed I should be.

14. Leaders are human.

They get tired, angry, and jealous

and carry the same range of emotions and frailties common to mankind. Most leaders periodically display them. The leaders I most admired were totally human but constantly strove to be the best humans they could be.

15. Leaders make mistakes, and they are often costly.

The first reflex is normally to deny the failure to themselves; the second is to hide it from others, because most leaders covet a reputation for infallibility. But it’s a fool’s dream and is inherently dishonest.

16. Leadership is a choice.

Rank, authority, and even responsibility can be inherited or assigned, whether or not an individual desires or deserves them. Even the mantle of leadership occasionally falls to people who haven’t sought it. But actually leading is different. A leader decides to accept responsibility for others in a way that assumes stewardship of their hopes, their dreams, and sometimes their very lives. It can be a crushing burden, but I found it an indescribable honor.

In the end, “there are few secrets to leadership.”

It is mostly just hard work. More than anything else it requires self-discipline. Colorful, charismatic characters often fascinate people, even soldiers. But over time, effectiveness is what counts. Those who lead most successfully do so while looking out for their followers’ welfare. Self-discipline manifests itself in countless ways. In a leader I see it as doing those things that should be done, even when they are unpleasant, inconvenient, or dangerous; and refraining from those that shouldn’t, even when they are pleasant, easy, or safe.

Yes, leadership is indeed a choice, which is why so many business executives need to start leading or get out of the way of the many talented professionals they hired for their expertise. Yet too often, it's indecision which causes business failure as the person supposed to be leading impedes progress. 

All in all, McCrystal makes some excellent, if not entirely new points. What is new for me is to discover that a Four-Star General in the US military espouse beliefs that would not be out of place in Annual Report of any US Corporation. Especially EMPATHY...the ability to personalize the feelings of others, ...particularly employees.  Because if a corporate leader is empathetic to his or her employees, they in turn are more likely to empathize with their customers, and that is a recipe for innovation and greater profitability. Time to say goodbye to the Full Metal Jacket leadership style both in the military and right here on the home front in the corner offices of Corporate America.

Energizing Leaders often Laugh at Themselves...No Kidding!

Yep its official...leaders who self-deprecate are viewed more favorably than their non-self-deprecating counterparts. This means these self-detractors are well on the way to being perceived as energizing and even transformational leaders.

For me being self-deprecatory is second nature. I have no choice. As someone who is a genuine klutz, laughing at myself has always served as a solid defense mechanism. But seemingly for the non-klutz executive population its much harder to  poke fun at themselves.

Well that's your problem! ...Get over it...Stop taking yourselves so seriously!...You put on your pants on one leg at a time...just like the rest of us. 

Face it, if the most powerful man in the world can do it then surely you can. I'm talking about no lesser man than President Ronald Reagan. 

One of my favorites stabs at himself came after he took media scorn for nodding off at the White House during the day.  A week later he responded by saying,

 “I’ve given my aides instructions that if trouble breaks out in any of the world’s hot spots, they should wake me up immediately — even if I’m in a Cabinet meeting.”

Not convinced by the Gipper...well the more scientifically minded among you might appreciate this extract from the Behavioral Science Experiment that confirms my opening assertion that Energizing Leaders often laugh at themselves.

Authors

Colette Hoption, Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University, Seattle, Washington, USA

Julian Barling, School of Business, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, USA

 Nick Turner, Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

Humor and leadership

Humor in the workplace has been identified as beneficial for reducing stress (Yovetich et al., 1990), promoting a “fun” culture (Fleming, 2005; Holmes and Marra, 2002), encouraging group cohesion (Francis, 1994), and encouraging communication (Greatbatch and Clark, 2003). Specific to leadership, humor has been described as a way of preserving leader modesty (Kets de Vries, 1990) and improving the leader-follower relationship (Avolio et al., 1999). There is also evidence from cadets in the US Military Academy that “good leaders” (as defined by cadets’ subjective experience) were associated with “a warm humorous style” and consistently rated higher on humor than “bad leaders” (Priest and Swain, 2002, p. 174).

However, humor has also been considered taboo, subversive, incompatible with work, and limited to the “rude and foolish” (Collinson, 2004; Malone, 1980; Morreall, 1991).
Although those perspectives are seemingly contradictory, our conceptualization of the relationship between transformational leadership and humor allows for both of these perspectives to be correct: some forms of humor are destructive, such as those that demean others, whereas other forms of humor are constructive, such as those that preserve and even strengthen the leader-follower relationship. In other words, it is the nature of the humor that is critical. Consistent with Martin et al.'s (2003) humor styles, we suggest that humor which targets the joke-teller (self-deprecating humor) has a different effect than humor which targets its audience (aggressive humor).

Self-deprecating humor deliberately targets the person who is telling the joke and is a form of affiliative humor: a “non-hostile, tolerant use of humor that is affirming of self and others” (Martin et al., 2003, p. 53). However, self-deprecating humor should not be confused with self-defeating or self-disparaging humor, in which “there is an element of emotional neediness, avoidance, and low self-esteem underlying [this] use of humor” with its purpose to “ingratiat[e] oneself or gai[n] approval” (Martin et al., 2003, p. 54; Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). While self-deprecating humor conveys an honest and humble look at oneself, self-defeating humor expresses a depressive and negative view of the self.

It follows that leaders who use self-deprecating humor are willing to make themselves potentially vulnerable by identifying their weaknesses, and exposing kernels of truth (Westwood, 2004). As such, self-deprecating humor de-emphasizes status distinctions within the relationship so that leaders who use self-deprecating humor appear closer to or on the same level as their followers (Kets de Vries, 1990; Martin et al., 2003).
Consistent with the notion that self-deprecating humor will benefit leader-follower relationships, Ziv (1984) reported that individuals who could laugh at themselves were perceived as more likeable than those who could not. In addition, because much of leadership involves getting work done through others, humor is especially important for leaders as the ability to laugh at oneself has been positively correlated with persuasiveness (Lyttle, 2001).

Let us now focus our attention on the four facets of transformational leadership and how they may be associated with self-deprecating humor in different but complementary ways. Honesty is integral to idealized influence (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999), and as such, idealized influence should be enhanced with a frank look at oneself rather than promoting self-aggrandizing images characteristic of narcissists and pseudo-transformational leaders. We expect that self-deprecating humor is one way in which a leader can express an honest look at him/herself. Inspirational motivation appeals to followers’ emotions (Bass, 1985), and we expect that the genuine mirth following a humorous self-deprecating statement would only enhance followers’ positive affect (Martin et al., 2003). Self-deprecating humor may also reinforce intellectual stimulation through modeling; leaders who use self-deprecating statements oppose the traditional and pervasive depictions of heroic leadership (Meindl et al., 1985). 

By confronting such predominant notions of leadership, we expect that followers will be inspired to challenge other assumptions and ultimately foster out-of-the-box thinking, creativity, and innovation. Finally, self-deprecating humor improves interpersonal relationships (Martin et al., 2003), demonstrating that the leader understands the importance of preserving the dignity of others which is central to individualized consideration.

In summary, transformational leaders are interested in the advancement, achievement, and needs of their followers. They are other-centric, and as such, they would be more concerned with promoting an egalitarian leader-follower relationship than exaggerating the status distinctions between themselves and their subordinates. Self-deprecating humor is one viable way for transformational leaders to achieve those means.

And they go on and on as demanded by the Scientific method...here's a link to the full report.

I guess I never realized by laughing at myself I was being a "subversive." Goes to show one man's subversive behavior is another man's energizing behavior!