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

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?'

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'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.

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 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.

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.