Capt Jack had it Made!

Captain Jack Aubrey was the commander of the HMS SURPRISE in the 2003 film "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," as adapted from Patrick O'Brian's series of novels.  The movie itself is probably the finest cinemagraphic representation ever of the realities of life aboard a naval vessel in the days of, "Wooden ships and iron men."  Though Capt Jack is fictional, his position as master of a fighting frigate is clearly historical.  From my position as a commander in the 21st Century I look at Capt Jack with great envy.  While he was at sea, his only duty was to ensure that his men were doing their duty and that ship was well tended, fitted and fought.  He had little, if any, administrative minutiae to fog his days.  He kept logs, wrote letters, and read & reread accounts of other naval officers, to be sure, but the majority of his time was spent on the weather decks ensuring that his ship was on course and "tight." 

 

Unlike Capt Jack, I am constantly buried in an avalanch of paperwork to the extent that it takes significant effort just to get out of my office.  There is so much that I could do that I have had to deliberately choose what will not get done.  Modern communication technologies, as great as they are, more often add to time pressures than take away from them.  Here's an example.  When I first came on active duty we had very few computers capable of performing word processing.  As a result, if I wanted to type up something official, I had to use a typewriter.  We didn't even have electric ones - just manuals.  When I finished writing my document and wanted to forward it to someone in another command, I either had to hand-deliver it, or put it in a messenger envelope and have it sent through our courier system.  If I sent it at the beginning of one week I might reasonably expect a documenatry response by the beginning of the next week.  Now someone will forward a 15-page document by email and expect it to be read, digested and critiqued in less than an hour.  That might be fine if it were done only once a day.  The reality is that the ease of generating documentation with today's technology means that the quantity of documentation has multiplied exponentially.  This boils down to a lot more time looking at my computer and trying to dig through my "in" box than I would like to be spending. 

 

Good leadership is about people.  Just as life is about people.  Everything else pales in importance to people.  If my paperwork doesn't have a beneficial effect on the people with whom I am charged to lead, then it is counterproductive and a "sea-anchor" slowing progress.  There are some collaborative tools out there that I want to investigate using in order to decrease the time it takes for me to handle paperwork, but for the moment I still find myself signing my name up to 50-60 times a day on documents that I usually have to reacquaint myself with in order to ensure that what I'm signing is accurate & trustworthy. 

 

No matter how important a piece of paper is to the operation of my unit, I still need to get out to see, and be seen by, the people I lead.  I've already had several situations in which I have learned things just by visiting my people, that I otherwise never would have known.  In those situations I have learned of needs that I could fill in order to help my people get the mission accomplished.  There is no great leadership without presence.  No email or video teleconference can make up for looking someone in the eye and dripping sweat with the people in your charge. 

 

Jack Aubrey had it good.  He was on a small ship with a contained amount of sailors.  They learned very quickly what was important to him and what he expected.  That is critical for anyone in a leadership role.  One of the things I'm doing to get out from behind my desk is that I'm going to get a stand-up desk soon.  It will make walking away from my office that much easier, because I'll already be standing.  More updates on this later.

 

If you haven't done so yet, watch "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World."  It's a great leadership film.

 

Dirk

What are Your Standards?

Part of almost every military officer's career is the study of leadership.  I will caveat that and say that, though we almost always talk of "leadership" as a positive virtue, the fact is that leadership is often bad, because bad leadership is pretty easy.  It doesn't take much effort to lead poorly.  Great leadership, on the other hand, is inconvenient.  It requires focus and effort on almost everything put personal desires and comfort. 

 

So, we study good leadership in order to have the tools to lead well those of whom we have been given charge.  I keep several books on leadership on my desk and every day read a few passages or paragraphs in order to get thoughts on leadership flowing.  One passage I read last week really got me thinking about the standards by which we critique ourselves and our oranizations.  The author mentioned how a large athletic shoe company might motivate their employees by setting a goal to "beat" their major competitor, or a rental car company might do the same.  The author mentioned these as possible means by which an organization may establish unifying goals for its members - goals/objectives that motivate everyone to work together to achieve. 

 

The more I thought about this passage, though, the more it bothered me.  It finally hit me why I think this type of goal-setting is only second-rate at best.  Setting your sights on outperforming a competitor, in effect, means that you are letting the competition set the performance standards.  If we succeed by just being "better" than another organization (and what metrics do you use to make the comparison?), then what do we do when we "arrive?"  Does the goal then become, "staying ahead of the competition,"?  If so, the competition is still the one setting the standard by which we judge ourselves. 

 

I just don't think there is any way around the need to have objective, immutable standards by which we judge our own performance and the performance of the organizations with which we are associated.  Let's take our athletic shoe company as an example.  Instead of setting a goal to provide a greater monetary return for investors than the current, "industry leader," this company could decide that its objective, immutable standards include high quality products, great customer service and a corporate environment in which excellence, honesty and valuing individuals are the most important characteristics of daily operations.  What the competition does or doesn't do has no impact on those standards at all.  In fact, the company could be tracking very well on all those standards but not be the "industry leader" in terms of profitability.  So what?  Most people who we want to be around would much rather be part of an organization in which excellence and taking care of people are highly valued and rewarded. 

 

A benefit of being imperfect human beings is that we can always improve.  Therefore, if we have standards that require perfection to attain, we may never get there, but we can always get closer than where we are right now.  Objective, immutable standards of performance keep us focused on the right path and protect us from using subjective comparisons to others in order to justify complacency or laziness.  Improvement is a journey, not a destination.

 

"Take responsibility, finish well & have fun!"

Dirk