Hack

Hack: No room for followers. A guide to creating leaders at every level.

by David Marquet

December 16, 2011 at 5:00pm

13 Comments

Contribution Summary

Summary

Our current leadership paradigm divides people into two groups: leaders and followers. Now that work is primarily cognitive, as opposed to physical, only a model of leaders and leaders will optimize output and engage the passion, intellect, and creativity of all.

Moonshot(s)

Problem

With the advent of farming 10,000 years ago, humankind needed to organize physical work at a large scale. Our cultural norms of control and human interaction, and hence our concept of leadership developed and became ingrained over this time frame. The fundamental paradigm of this leadership structure was that the world was divided into two groups: leaders and followers. As long as work was primarily physical, the leader-follower approach served humankind well, created tremendous wealth, and advanced the quality of life of billions.

Now, however, in a relatively short period of time, work has become primarily cognitive. Unlike physical work, cognitive work is not visible, and hence not subject to coercion. All intellectual work is performed voluntarily. The model that worked so well in the past is no longer optimal. It is the casting of large portions of humankind as followers that saps their intellect, creativity, and passion.

The challenges facing the planet and its inhabitants are too vast to be left to a few "experts" to dictate solutions to the rest of us. We need the full intellectual capacity of the planet's 7 billion humans in order to achieve sustainable, dignified life. We can only accomplish this by eschewing the leader-follower model and adopting a model where everyone engages their full intellect, one of leaders and leaders.

Solution

The leader-leader structure is based upon the three legs of control, competence, and clarity.

The core is control: decision making control must be divested to the lowest level of the organization. In the old days we moved information to authority, now we need to move authority to information. This is the only way to reduce the sense-act delay.

The way to do this is to look at the organizational documents identifying decision making authority. This is the genetic code to your organization's culture. The good news is that you can rewrite it!

Do this exercise at your next offsite:

Pass out a bunch of 5×8 cards and markers.

1. Start with this sentence completion: When I think about the next lower level of management making decisions about [...] I worry that ....

Once you have the set of cards, post them on the wall and go on break. Let people mill around looking at what they’ve written.

2. Group the responses as issues of competence or issues of clarity.

3. Attack issues of competence with training. Attack issues of clarity with organizational alignment.

Technical competence means that the next lower level simply does not have the technical knowledge to make the decision. (Example: they don't understand the temperature pressure relationship in the nuclear reactor 6 hours after a shutdown from full power with a loss of all electrical power). This can be solved with training.

Bonus discussion: in a leader-leader organization employees want to come to training because training is linked to technical competence. Technical competence is linked to greater decision making authority.

Clarity. This is expressed by comments like "They don't really understand what we are trying to achieve here." The word perspective crops up here as well. Clarity is solved with honesty about what you are about and communicating that to all levels of the organization. The most common failure here is lack of vision at the top about what the organization is truly about.

Ultimately leader-leader organizations implement a set of mechanisms. These mechanisms can be divided roughly among the areas of control, competence, and clarity. A set of useful mechanisms follows:

The mechanisms fit under the three keys in the following way:

Control:

Find the genetic code for control and rewrite it.
Move authority to information, not information to authority.
Use “I intend to…” to have people state intentions, not ask permission.
Develop eyeball accountability.
There is no “they” here. It's all "we" within the organization.
Embrace the Inspectors.
Don’t brief. Certify!
Implement Processes that Give Ownership.

Competence:

Take Deliberate action.
Connect training to control.
Continuous learning.
Build on What You Know.
Think out loud.
Effectiveness rather than obedience.
Empower individuals to achieve their own success.

Clarity:

Build trust and cooperation within your organization. Let the competition be with those outside.
Achieve Excellence. Don’t just avoid errors.
Resist the urge to provide solutions.
Develop Real Guiding Principles with your Team.
Continuously and consistently repeat the message.
Begin with the end in mind.
Use your organizational heritage for inspiration.
Immediate recognition to reinforce desired behaviors.
Institute leader-leader.

Practical Impact

The impacts of redesigning your organization into a leader-leader structure are three-fold.

Not only do you achieve exceptional excellence in the moment, but in addition...

You embed the "goodness" of the organization in the people and practices of the organization so that performance lives independent of the current leader, and

You develop additional leaders at all levels of the organization. Leadership development programs don't exist in leader-leader organizations because the way the organization is structured can't help but develp leaders at all levels.

The power of leader-leader might not be evident for 5 to 10 years. This is longer than the organizational time-constants for today's companies.

Challenges

The greatest challenge to creating a leader-leader organization are the cultural biases we all have that impel us toward a leader-follower model. The leader-follower model is seductive psychologically because we "feel good" about the strength of personality in a charismatic leader who unhesitatingly gives orders.

The leader-follower model is seductive rationally because it has been the most effective model for human organization and interaction for the past 10,000 years.

Unfortunately, with work now being cognitive and not physical, that is no longer going to be the case.

First Steps

The first step to leader-leader is to divest control. As leaders and organizations grapple with the practical issues of divesting control, they will learn that competence and clarity (three sides to an equilateral triangle) need to grow as well.

If I only relied upon you for your physical work and to do as you were told, then it didn't matter if you understood what we did as an organization (clarity). Since you had no decision authority, then your technical competence didn't matter either.

Implementing leader-leader is an iterative process: give control, build competence, ensure clarity, repeat.

While this is happening, the mindset will shift from thinking of leaders and followers to leaders and leaders.

We will act our way to a new way of thinking.

Credits

Leader-leader was developed in the unlikeliest of places -- on the nuclear powered submarine USS Santa Fe by Captain David Marquet from 1999 to 2001 in response to dissatifaction with the hierarchial model of leadership.

Dr. Stephen Covey rode the Santa Fe and called it the most empowered organization he'd seen and wrote about it in his book The Eigth Habit.

However, the power of leader-leader grows with time. Only now, 10 years later, is the success of the experiment evident with continued success of the ship and a highly disproportionate selection of additional leaders from that crew.

Input

Comments

Chary Chigurala

December 19, 2011 at 5:33am

This is an interesting hack. Although I agree with the leader - leader model in concept, I do believe that there are significant practical issues in implementation. Given the cross cultural issues in the current globalised world, we need to think about 'why would a successful leader divest control? what is in it for them to divest control? Remember that control is very dear in many cultures (as distinct from anglo-saxon culture). Its historical, cultural and deep rooted.

Secondly, are we expecting clarity to be provided from the top or are we suggesting that clarity to be achieved at every layer of the organisation. If the assumption is that the clarity to be provided from top, then this doesn't change the current leader - follower model a bit. However, if we are expecting everyone to have clarity, its a fantastic vision to have. But the key question is 'how do we achieve it?'

David Marquet

December 19, 2011 at 7:27am

Chary, thanks for your comments, great points.

Exactly right on the culture issue. That was THE problem for me personally to overcome, as well as that of the crew. What you give up is personal adulation. What you achieve is enduring success through the people and practices of your organization. Unfortunately, many "leaders" want to be missed after they leave. This, of course, is narcissism, not leadership.

In the original implementation on board a nuclear powered submarine, clarity of purpose was provided externally. The issue was, in the organization the day-to-day activities became centered on avoiding problems rather than achieving excellence. The "why" was lost. It wasn't so much as providing the purpose, as peeling back the layers of obfuscation and letting the clarity shine through.

At the next level down, organizational guiding principles, they were developed by the crew in a series of sessions.

That won't always work, though.

What I've seen in as other organizations deal with this is that there tends to be a self-selection. [step 1] Once the organization is clear on its purpose, the people who want to participate gravitate to it (apply for jobs). Those that aren't passionate find other things to do. This can be a lengthy process.

Look at Occupy Wall Street -- no clarity of purpose. Articulation of what wasn't desired, yes. Result, loss of enthusiasm.

Anything you can point me to wrt the culture issue or further thoughts on clarity would be appreciated!

Chary Chigurala

December 21, 2011 at 5:49pm

David, You may find these articles interesting

http://www.hbs.edu/research/facpubs/workingpapers/papers2/0102/02-088.pdf

Are We Ready for Self-Management? http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5507.html

Best regards

Chary

BTW - I invite you to rate my Hack, if you haven't already done

Clint Greenleaf

December 18, 2011 at 7:44pm

Dave Marquet is the real deal. The Navy benefited from his expertise, as did our country, but the ultimate winners of his leadership style and genius are the sailors who served under him. He built real leaders throughout the military and has been able to distill this wisdom into a digestible format for the rest of us.

David Marquet

December 19, 2011 at 7:27am

Thanks Clint. Semper Fi!

David Adams

December 18, 2011 at 11:22am

David Marquet's leadership insights are revolutionary because he truly understands that what most organizations do is cultivate followers. I have seen first hands the tremendous gains that are made by developing and trusting real leadership at all levels. Using his techniques will result in an intellectually honest team where each individual is empowered to own his piece, innovate, and improve individual and collective performance to go get positive results. If leaders will take the the time to truly study, understand, and implement his leader-leader methods it will result in a real break through.

David Marquet

December 19, 2011 at 7:30am

Thanks David. God speed to your and your crew!

Terry Williams

December 18, 2011 at 8:41am

After reading details of the leader-leader structure, I spent some time conceptually applying the structure against my own past experiences -- both as a traditional "leader" and "follower" -- and have the following observations:

(1) Maximum potential. The leader-leader method drives individuals and organizations towards maximum potential rather than placing the continual drag of thwarted growth, thwarted opportunity to contribute, and narrow decision making on the organization. Leader-leader embeds a strong vitality and empowerment into the fabric of the structure.

(2) Maximum knowledge sharing. Through leader-leader, knowledge is captured and employed by every individual within an organization. However, too often -- those empowered to make decisions (or impose boundaries) are a step or two or three away from the activity or the customer. The leader-leader method has the opportunity to leverage knowledge gained and in use throughout the organization.

(3) Maximum motivation. Mr. Marquet acknowledges that the leader-follower model is seductive -- especially for the leader who can become invested in ego or in protecting one's position either through control or through seeking to avoid mistakes. Conversely, the lack of motivation of those without true leadership opportunity can lead to lackluster performance. This can greatly impact both large and small organizations.

I also think the leader-leader method, when employed broadly by many organizations, could spill over to impact our culture as a whole -- building a stronger commitment to personal responsibility and understanding that the leadership of each individual contributes to the positive outcome for the whole. Innovation, education, and personal productivity are all tied to one's view of their own contribution and the belief in the impact they can have upon their lives and the lives of others.

David Marquet

December 19, 2011 at 7:30am

Ms. Williams, thank you for your thought discussion.

The knowledge sharing is a great point. We are now looking at a synergy between social media and the leader-leader concept. Any specific thoughts you would have there would be great.

My hope is that we do get to cultural change, and improve the way we treat each other as people, one person at a time.

happy holidays,

David

Bruce May

December 16, 2011 at 10:27am

David Marquet offers great insight into key issues of leadership and management. His approach is well aligned with basic approaches and key concepts in performance management which have been pointing to changes in management style that ultimately lead to what he describes in his "leader-leader" model. This approach is indeed a dramatic change from traditional ideas about leadership that are deeply ingrained in our culture. Changing these attitudes will be challenging but this “leader-leader” model answers the call for greater accountability, engagement and improved performance by employees.

Tellingly, David picks out a key theme that suggests that we may no longer have any choice in the matter. Technological competence for front line employees was a minor concern in 19th and 20th century business models. However, today It is the key ingredient in a technology and information driven economy. I applaud David’s “leader-leader” model which could easily rise to the forefront of our thinking about how we manage and operate organizations in the new economy. That David has walked his talk as commander of the USS Santa Fe and successfully implemented this model speaks volumes about the practical challenges that we all face in finding effective solutions for evolving business models and management strategies that effectively respond to the needs of organizations in the 21st century.

David Marquet

December 19, 2011 at 7:32am

Thanks Bruce.

I think you are right wrt performance management. I'm not an expert (or even a novice) on that. Would like to learn more.

Happy holidays,

David

David Sims

December 14, 2011 at 11:45am

This is an interesting idea, and I really like the observation that a manager's lack of trust in the tier below can be broken down into two basic categories, fear of lack of competence, and lack of clarity.

But I think this hack overlooks the aspect of time and development: people are at different points in their career and they have different levels of expertise based partly (though not solely) on the amount of time they've been at a task or in an organization or field. Think of the early models of leadership development: apprentice, journeyman, master. These three levels laid out a path of development to learn skills that were probably mostly intellectual, though with physical aspects, too. Apprentices and journeymen weren't inferior people, they just weren't developed enough to become masters yet. But it would have been a disservice to the craft to call everyone a master.

David Marquet

December 19, 2011 at 7:40am

Thanks David.

The apprentice/journeyman/master construct is an interesting one. For a while (recently) the Navy was even grouping enlisted ranks along these lines.

Are you thinking about this construct along the dimension of leadership or along the dimension of technical competence?

You got me thinking about the apprentice/journeyman/master construct with respect to decision making.

The leader-leader approach is this:

Instead of moving information to authority, move authority to information.

A good illustration of this is the response to Fukushima.

The plant manager had to coordinate with off-site agencies in order to vent the overheating and overpressurizing #1 plant. [Information flowing up the chain to authority]. As a result, venting was delay, pressure reduction was delayed, injection of cooling water was delayed, core damage and release of radioactivity was worse.

In a leader-leader model, it would be recognized that the on-site plant manager would have the best information about the status of the plant and would thoughtfully deconstruct decision authority to his position.

thanks again for getting involved,

David