Building Teams Blog Series #2 of 3 - Dynamic Followership
Dynamic Followership[1]
West Point is considered by many as the best leadership development institution in the world, and its mission is to educate, train and inspire leaders of character who will lead America’s sons and daughters in the crucible of ground combat under the most difficult conditions. When a new class reports to West Point and enters into this leadership development experience, the first lesson they learn has nothing to do with “how to lead”; rather it has everything to do with “how to follow”.
West Point’s First Lesson on Leadership
When I entered West Point with my classmates nearly 50 years ago, we immediately learned to respond to our upper-class leadership with only one of four possible answers: “Yes Sir”, “No Sir”, “No excuse Sir”, and “Sir, I do not understand”. It was not “follow me”, or “do what I do”; by design it clearly placed us in a subordinate followership position. In other words, the first leadership lesson we learned was not about “leading”; rather it was about “following”. Not much changes at West Point, and even today, when new cadets enter West Point, they too are immediately taught what their four answers are: “Yes Sir or Ma’am”, “No Sir or Ma’am”, “No excuse Sir or Ma’am”, and “Sir/Ma’am, I do not understand”. (The difference is that West Point today includes women – thus including the “Ma’am” in the four answers). What remains the same however, is that the first lesson of leadership is to learn how to follow.
Leaders are still followers
Quite frankly, regardless of whatever level of leadership you find yourself in today, you’re probably also a follower of a boss. The most senior military leader in America’s military is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Although he or she has over a million military members in subordinate positions, the Chairman still must answer to his oversight authority which is the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States. Even though he is a leader of a huge organization, he is still a follower to a boss. And the followership principles he learned as a lowly cadet in his commissioning program are still as important as they are now that he is in charge of so many subordinates.
Boss and staff relations
I have observed the importance of being a great “follower” throughout my career in many circumstances. In previous essays, I’ve mentioned my experiences evaluating military leaders during their 2-week, nonstop, combat simulated training exercise at the Joint Readiness Training Center at FT Polk, LA, and one of my biggest take-a-way lessons, was how subordinate staff members related and reacted to their boss. For example, kicking off the 2-week exercise was an intensive planning session to come up with how the initial operation would be conducted. This planning session is commonly referred to as the military decision-making process, or “MDMP”. A deliberate MDMP – which normally lasts around 24 non-stop hours, is an effort to assess the battlefield and the mission, come up with a couple courses of action, evaluate them, and present them, with a staff recommendation, to the boss for a decision. Normally the staff would throw their “heart and soul” into this effort, and with little sleep, they would deliver a very elaborate staff recommendation in order to gain a decision from the commander. And an observation that I repeatedly saw, was that the subordinate staff poured so much of themselves into this assessment, and with little sleep, they became emotionally attached to their own recommendation and often at great peril. Let me explain.
The decision briefs were always elaborate and well done. But when the staff recommendation was presented, there almost always was a very interesting dynamic that took place between the commander and his staff. The commander got plenty of sleep and was usually very engaged. While the staff was doing their MDMP analysis, the commander would normally circulate the battlefield and talk with many other subordinate, peer and superior level commanders. He would also develop his own assessment based on the input and perspectives of what he observed and those he personally talked with. And when the staff presented their recommendation, the commander would often suggest the staff consider a slight tangent or twist to their recommendation. Because the staff was usually emotionally tied to their recommendation, what occurred next was the staff heard what the boss was suggesting but they often failed to listen. They would normally try to convince the boss on why his suggestion was not going to work, and then try to convince him that their recommendation absolutely had to occur. The boss then countered back and dug his heels trying to convince the staff why he thought his suggestion was better. This exchange would go on for a while, but when it ended, each side was thinking they had convinced the other side to support their proposed course of action. Of course, the boss is in charge, but that does not mean the subordinates were listening to him. We evaluators, who all had a good night’s sleep, recognized the gap between the boss’ and the staff’s understanding of the final decision, and as the staff prepared the written order to what they think was an approved recommendation, the closer the organization got to execution, the more confused the various units were. And it often resulted in a failed mission, simply because of the lack of understanding of guidance and intent, between the commander and his or her subordinate staff.
“Phase 1” and “Phase 2” Decision Making
A mentor once explained to me a successful subordinate is someone who understands their boss’ “phase 1” and “phase 2” behaviors. In other words, most bosses seek problem understanding, staff expertise, and a strong staff recommendation on how to resolve an issue, and to have this analysis provided with candor. This is what he called “phase 1” – a boss who seeks staff input with a staff recommendation and with candor. But here is what’s key. In decision making, at some point a boss will transition from “phase 1” to “phase 2”, and “phase 2” is where the boss has made a decision. Once a decision is made, as long as it is moral and legal, then the boss is looking for a subordinate’s understanding of his or her guidance and intent, and to assume ownership as though it was their own.
The problem subordinates face in this decision-making process is that the more emotionally tied they are to their own recommendation (as was illustrated in my MDMP example), the less they recognize when their boss has transitioned from phase 1 to phase 2. As they may assume the boss is still open to discussion on their recommendation, the more frustrated the boss is becoming because the staff is not listening to what he or she has decided. And since it is a decision, the boss is looking for an understanding and ownership of his or her guidance and intent, and the more the subordinates are arguing otherwise, the more frustrated the boss is becoming.
When it is Time to “Fall on Your Sword”
Granted, there are times when it is necessary to tell the boss his or her decision is “out to lunch”. My advice is when it is time to do this, do so carefully. Ask for a one-on-one session, with a closed door. Lay out your position with facts not emotion. And acknowledge ahead of time, as long as it is a moral and ethical decision, when the door opens, you will be in support regardless of what decision is made. The last thing the boss wants is to have someone on his or her team to go behind his or her back, criticizing the decision especially in a public manner. Loyalty plays a key role in all of this, and from the boss’ perspective, this is important to him or her. If on the other hand it is not legal or moral or ethical, then that is when the subordinate will have to decide whether this is the environment, he or she wants to continue to work in.
Summary
In hierarchical organizations where most of us work, particularly those of us in military organizations, we will not only be leaders within that organization, but we’ll always be a follower as well. Because of that, leadership development institutions will teach how to be a good follower before they begin to teach how to be a good leader, because being a great leader means that you were (and still are) a great follower. Great followers understand their boss. They know when the boss is looking for the staff’s expertise and recommendation. But great followers also recognize when their emotions can cloud their understanding, and regardless, they make every effort to understand the issue from their boss’ perspective. Great followers also recognize when their boss has made a decision, because at this point, and as long as it is moral, legal and ethical, it’s now time to understand guidance and intent, and to assume ownership as though it was their own personal decision. And great followers also know, that if and when there is a time to engage the boss otherwise, that they are ready to do so, even if it means moving to another organization altogether.
Dynamic followers make great teammates. If you want to be a great teammate on your boss’ team, be a great dynamic follower.
[1] This is a title shared by other authors. One I found is: Dynamic Followership: The Secret to Leadership; BusinessMatters UK Magazine 16 February 2014 OPINION Chris Stricklin. Although the content of this essay is entirely my own, it is important to acknowledge “Dynamic Followership” is used by others.