May 7, 2024
by Stephen T. Messenger
In 2004, I left the United States Army to try my luck in the civilian sector. Overnight, I went from an infantry officer spending two tours in Afghanistan and Iraq with hardened warfighters to supervising a warehouse shift at a Fortune 500 distribution center with middle-aged, blue-collar civilians from a rural town.
To say there was a culture change would be quite an understatement. My four years of military service was focused on fighting and winning our Nation’s wars while keeping our soldiers alive in combat zones. It quickly shifted to bottom-line production numbers and shareholder profits.
I arrived leveraging military leadership attributes and found them helpful, but also noticed my style of leading didn’t quite work. The employees didn’t need a militaristic leader who directed operations like a combat patrol. They needed a participative leader who took time to build consensus and collectively facilitate success.
It took me a few weeks to realize my leadership style was not the best version to lead this particular group. I slowly shifted to match the environment.
We all bring specific skillsets and attributes with us. Yet sometimes, our go-to methods may not be what the organization needs at the time. The best leaders take time to understand their culture and climate and bring to the table leadership styles that most effectively lead that team.
The American Way of War
The United States military has fought in a distinct manner for decades. It is tailor made for large scale combat utilizing a vast industrial base and is at its best in engagements such as World War I, World War II, and the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
In his book “The American Way of War through 2020,” Strategist H. H. Gaffney describes this as “characterized by deliberate, sometimes agonizing, decision-making, careful planning, assembly and movement of overwhelming forces, the use of a combination of air and ground forces, joint and combined, applied with precision, especially by professional, well-trained military personnel.”
Yet, this method starts to fall apart in counterinsurgencies such as Vietnam and post-9/11 Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States military entered all these conflicts with significant combat power advantages and overwhelming firepower yet struggled to achieve their objectives.
In 2007, the United States encountered a quagmire in Iraq where a civil war was killing over 90 civilians per day. The American way of war, which focused on killing and capturing the enemy, large scale combat operations, and creating large bases to stage operations, was not working.
General David Petraeus, newly assigned U.S. Commander in Iraq of all forces to include 30,000 surge troops, realized that while his military leadership was sound, the traditional style was not. Formerly the Commander of the U.S. Army’s Combined Arms Center in Fort Leavenworth, the Army’s intellectual think tank for doctrine and studies, Petraeus spend years revamping counterinsurgency doctrine leveraging experts upon experts.
In the process, he sought to achieve a mindset change that the people of Iraq were not the enemy, but those who needed protection. His strategy focused on making the people the center of gravity, not the enemy. He emphasized getting out of our bases and putting boots on the ground. He directed interacting with people, gaining their trust, and constantly engaging local leaders.
This was a fundamental shift in tactics. Petraeus realized that the current style of operations was not working. The people of Iraq didn’t need more war—they needed help to rebuild. General Petraeus didn’t change the nature of war, but the character, and he adjusted his style across an entire army to do so.
What Got You Here May Not Work
Leadership coach Marshall Goldsmith talks about the evolution and changing styles of leadership in his book “What Got You Here Won’t Get You There.” He states there’s a fallacy where our past successes justify continuing the exact same behaviors that made us successful over and over again. That didn’t get the U.S. military far in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
Goldsmith argues we become encouraged by our success and are blinded to the fact we may have to change based on different positions or jobs. We could argue this even applies to the conversation with a person who may need a different style of communication to motivate them.
While Goldsmith’s book is focused on people moving up the promotion ladder, it’s a great commentary on how, much like the stock market disclaimer, “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” If we continue to act the same way without understanding what our organizations or individuals need at that certain time, we’re bound to fail.
For example, he says that in general, “People in their 20’s want to learn on the job. In their 30’s they want to advance. And in their 40’s they want to rule.” While not all encompassing, it’s a commentary on how we need to understand our people’s motivation to excel. We must be the leader they need, not the one we set as our default.
Light Switch Leadership
In my current job, I jump from meeting to meeting throughout the day. I run the gamut of recognizing others, mentoring individuals, leading diverse groups, receiving guidance from my boss, holding others accountable, speaking in public, just walking around, and many other settings. Each one I walk into requires a slightly different tone and tenor of leading.
Without changing myself too much, I often flip a switch like entering a room, and having a style that fits that particular audience – I call it “Light Switch Leadership.” The tones could be serious, funny, concerned, motivating, or a number of emotions that are required in that moment.
I remember once having to counsel an employee about a very serious issue, and a short five minutes later I was hosting a retirement ceremony with their family and friends. When I walked out of the first meeting, I had to flip the switch from serious and deliberate to celebrating a great career. It’s not about being fake; it’s about giving our audiences what they need at the time.
The Leader They Need
At any point in our leadership journey, we have to understand what the organization needs, not what we want or have to give at that moment. Much like the United States military was early on using a hammer in Iraq and Afghanistan when we needed a precision knife, we have to adapt our style to what our people need from us.
When we can read the room well and adopt our leadership style as appropriate, it keeps the focus less on ourselves, and more on the organization. That is serving our people.
Subscribe at the link above to The Maximum Standard. This platform is a free, no-ad site designed to help others live up to their full potential as a leader. Thank you for committing to something greater than yourself. Your leadership matters.
We are also looking for authors. You will reap the benefits by having an idea, putting it down on paper, wrestling with it a little, and publishing it for others to see. I encourage you to take this bold journey with us. We have editors standing by to help you.
This website is a personal blog and all writings, podcasts, opinions, and posts are the authors’ own and do not represent the views of the United States Army nor any other organization. Podcast music credit in this audio file is to: “Alex Productions – Legends” is under a Creative Commons license (CC BY 3.0). / @alexproductionsnocopyright
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🌆 Royalty Free Epic Cinematic Music -…
The Maximum Standard 