The Depth of Leadership

David Marquet is a man who had the know-how and the opportunity to provide a counter-cultural shift in a heavily structured enterprise. Unfortunately his ideas have not been adopted by the bureaucracies that are at the same time threatened by his ideas, so it is no wonder. The military is not known for its innovation and creativity. This aversion to change may seem a necessary quality to some but it really stifles the ability to be human and to interact with others as humans.

Burdensome administration has clearly been identified as one of the hallmarks of the passing guard, but that guard has not yet passed. I think it will be at least a "generation" or more of the leadership changing hands before the cultural is unilaterally shifted. Adoption of Marquet's ideas now is only in the realm of possibility, vice probability. His situation was unique in that his squadron had all but given up on the idea of success of the USS Santa Fe. That being the case, his commodore had little risk aversion to try something innovative and creative.

Fast forward to today and you have an enterprise trying to systematize Marquet's ideas (a recognized "program" of success). Everyone is now ordered to use the phraseology, "I intend to..." and then carry on if there is no interjection by any team member present. But in practice the officer in charge will not carry on with the confidence he exhibits with this expression until acknowledged-essentially permitted-by his superior officer. So you have the enterprise paying lip service to an effective idea but without having the gall to actually live out the idea. Puppetization of followers into bespoken leaders is a far cry from the advice to "give control, don't take control."

Power, responsibility, authority and technical competence shifts up not down in a bureaucracy unless you intentionally change the "natural" process. Leadership is all about accountability. A leader is held accountable for the mistakes of his team. At this point a leader has the choice of blaming his team or making his team blameless (i.e. competent by learning from the mistakes). Trust is an eerily appropriate term to use here. It's eerie because it doesn't seem like it should apply to this aspect of leadership. It's absolutely appropriate because it is the fabric that power, responsibility, authority and technical competence is woven into. When a leader has to take the punishment for his team, he is highly likely to lose trust in his team and hold his supervisors accountable. So the responsibility moves away from the craftsmen to the supervisors. Another mistake and the managers are given the responsibility to ensure the craftsmen and supervisors are "doing their job." The cycle of stripping trust continues to deteriorate technical competence of the craftsman until they no longer have pride in their work. At this point, you will see people "jump ship."

Honesty, clarity and clear goals are paramount. So in a politically driven environment how is one to show s/he actually cares about her/his people? There are two ways to do this. Convince your people that you care about them regardless of your true feelings (unfortunately it works). Or actually do what is the best for them, at your own expense at times (that's leadership). This last course will net you the love and respect of your team but not your co-leaders and possibly your superiors. It is humbling to be honest with your team. In a highly driven environment where humility is reviled and pride is exulted, you as a leader will appear weak, incompetent and unable to measure up to the acceptable and required standard.

I had the moral courage to not give in to the "You're an f****** officer in the United States Navy, you tell your people what to do and they will do it!" I refrained from "all caps" here because I hate how it looks, but it should have been put in all caps. I walked into an environment where the managers and senior leadership were not generally trusted. I could not work with my team on an open and honest level. It took me too long to build rapport with the supervisors and I came so close to the ledge of jumping into the stereotypical "in-charge" leader. By God's grace I did not. I knew it was not me and I could not sustain the role. I also did not want to change into the kind of leader the system was trying to groom me to be. So the system rejected me.

This was my experience. These are my observations. This is my perspective. You can take anyone else from that environment and potentially get a view contradictory to mine on every point. I think you won't. I had the unique opportunity to read David Marquet's book, "Turn This Ship Around!" at the very beginning of my interaction with this enterprise and to stand as an auditor or evaluator of sorts. I am not bitter. I do not hate this community. I forgive it for the culture of bullying. And I love it for the incredible people I was able to meet, influence and be influenced by. I absolutely love submarine technology and will continue to stand as an outside observer and commentator for years to come. I look forward to a day when people are the number one mission, because that really is our mission. Think about it. Peace and Grace.