Last Wednesday, I discussed Chapter 7 of “Men Against Fire“. That chapter ends with a discussion of leadership, closing with the admonition that “It is not always possible to lead from behind”. At the time, I wasn’t quite sure what to do with this discussion, aside from pulling out a pair of striking passages. After some reflection, however, I think there is a valuable, general lesson to be drawn from Marshall’s thoughts on wartime leadership: “horses for courses”, in short.
Reconnaissance
Marshall opens his discussion of leadership with this remark:
The axiom that there is no substitute for personal reconnaissance applies as fully as ever …
He goes on to present thought experiments and historical incidents in support of this proposition. He indicates that there are two factors which demand that an effective commander be, from time to time, on the scene:
- He must form a synoptic picture of operations
- He must see to it that small but critical engagements are handled correctly
As far as it goes, this is fine, but there is an important unspoken assumption lurking about.
Competence
Marshall assumes that the commander knows his business. More precisely, Marshall assumes that the commander knows the business of the forces he commands. In combat, this seems like a reasonable assumption; although there are many specialties in warfighting, it seems plausible that a commander can and will understand the problems of the men on the front line.
In other undertakings, however, this assumption is not so sound. Consider the situation of an automaker’s CEO. Such an enterprise is engaged on many fronts (finance, marketing, sales, engineering, design, labor relations, and many more) any one of which might be critical, and not all of which can be mastered by one man. In such a situation, the CEO might be unable to be an effective leader. The question of whether he lead effectively is one of what he knows, and what challenges face his firm at the moment. If the two sets overlap a great deal, he may excel, if they do not, he is at sea.
Steve Jobs
As far as I can tell, Steve Jobs has two real gifts:
- He has a strong, and acute, design sensibility
- He knows how to give a good presentation
I think that a fair reading of Apple’s renaissance would have to credit a series of astoundingly well-designed products, coupled with some tremendous showmanship. In other words, Jobs’ expertise lines up well with the challenges Apple undertakes.
It is to his credit that Jobs found a way to make Apple’s business a matter of his expertise, but I think there is no question either that (a.) Jobs set out to craft a strategy that played to his strengths or (b.) there was no guarantee that such a strategy could be found.
Leadership
What I take away from Marshall’s discussion of the imperatives of wartime leadership, and from the fact that a man cannot be an expert in all things, is the simple idea that success is largely a matter of doing what you’re good at. (Yes, developing capabilities is important too, but, at the end of the day, you’ll be good at only a finite number of things.) If you want to lead effectively, you must take on challenges in those domains in which you are expert. Those challenges might be presented to you, or you might craft them as part of a strategy to reach some goal. The second scenario is probably more profitable.
