The Positive Side of Retreat (or Tactical Retrograde)

There’s a saying in the Army….”We never retreat.”  Instead, when positions is being overrun or when faced with overwhelming opposition, units conduct a “tactical retrograde.”

What’s the difference, you may ask?  It would be a good question, because while technical aspects may differentiate a retreat from a retrograde, it comes down to one thing.  Saving face and putting a positive spin on the message.

At some point in the past, a flag officer likely decided that to admit “retreat” was psychologically damaging to the soldiers on the front line.  If he could, instead, reframe the maneuver as a positive, tactically advantageous action, the morale and willingness to continue the fight would be maintained.  Call it a measure of positive spin.

Ask any private, however, and he’ll roll his eyes and shake his head.  Why? Because he knows better than to fool himself into thinking there is a substantive difference between the two.  From his vantage point, either way, his butt is saved, and he is grateful.

It’s really no different in the corporate world.  Leaders often hesitate or actually refuse to acknowledge situations in which the prudent action is to move backward.  To “retreat” is somehow to admit failure, as if such is: 1) validation of personal weakness or careless mistakes, or 2) a true step backward.

In reality, learning organizations should accept the opportunity to take a step backward, when appropriate, as ultimately a step in the right direction.  The need to retreat is not necessarily a result of poor planning or execution.  Sometimes it’s the unanticipated reality caused by third party actions or decisions that have fundamentally changed the assumptions upon which initial planning and decisions were based.  In fact, refusal to retreat may be the WORST thing a leader can do.

Take a step back, regrouping, reanalyzing the dynamic and fluid environment in which your organization is operating, and reestablishing the tactical advantage is not a sign of weakness.  It is a sign of self-aware, adaptive, and mature leadership.  These are traits to be sought out, to be nurtured in leaders.

So, next time your organization is facing an overwhelming competitive disadvantage, choose retreat (or tactical retrograde, if you’re inclined toward insecure leadership).  Make the strong leadership decision, and save your “troops” to fight another day.

Memorial Day: A Moment for Pause

On April 15th, 1969, while flying a routine reconnaissance mission in international airspace over the Sea of Japan, a U.S. Navy EC-131 aircraft was suddenly and tragically shot out of the sky by two North Korean MIG fighters. This was not a combat engagement, but a routine flight in a peaceful arena. All thirty-one crewmembers onboard PR-21 perished. Only two bodies were ever recovered.

How many Americans have heard this story and know the fate of PR-21? How many Americans have perished in service to our country, in wartime and in peace, only to be forgotten in the annuls of time?

I am humbled to remember the sacrifices of so many Americans. Their willingness to pay the ultimate price for our freedom and our way of life cannot be forgotten. Veterans throughout the ages have understood all too well the dangers and risks of military service, both in battle and in eras of relative tranquility. And yet, they have not run in the face of peril, but stood their ground, side by side their fellow servicemen and women, regardless of politics, ideologies, ethnicity, religion, or social class.

While the realities of our country at war have become strikingly clear in the past decade, for many Gen-Xers, we recall a time in our lives without war.  I remember graduating from high school in the late 1980s, with my classmates, my peers…my friends. Little could I imagine that less than two years after crossing that stage, I would be making a far different walk…to a waiting aircraft, deploying in support of Operation Desert Storm – the first in a long string of deployments and real-world missions as an Army light infantry scout and later as a Russian linguist in the Navy.

I regularly think about the 1969 downing of PR-21. This account provides a stark example of our endangered American heritage, a story of heroism and sacrifice known to only a handful of Americans. The importance of Memorial Day lies here…in remembering and revisiting the sacrifices of those who have died in this country’s defense. For many Americans, the significance of Memorial Day is lost in the faceless identities of those who have served so willingly.

So how is it that I first came to know the story of the downing of PR-21?

In Misawa, Japan, each year, a small handful of sailors and marines pause to remember the crew of PR-21 – tolling thirty-one bells, one for each of the men lost that fateful day in 1969. I count myself proudly among those who recall this particular tragedy. For in the hours and days following each annual memorial service, we took to the skies on missions that mirrored that of PR-21 so many years ago.

It is my hope that each of us will take away from this Memorial Day weekend a renewed dedication to learning about those individuals who have not only put themselves in peril in service to this country, but have lost their lives so that the rest of us may live in freedom. Take the time to personalize your heritage. These thousands of Americans lived selflessly for the ideals that so many of us take for granted. It is not enough for us to live life in the present. We need to be mindful of those who have carved out our heritage over time. Through their willingness to serve and die in service to this country, each and every fallen service member proved that they, indeed, were “worthy of their heritage.” By honoring their memories, we can, in small part, be worthy of ours.

The Buck Stops Here…Or Does it?

Leadership’s a tricky thing, and not always all that fun.  Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.  Jamie Dimon might agree, as would Scott Thompson.  All three execs have found themselves embroiled in controversy in the past several weeks.

In the past year, we’ve seen accountability bubble steadily upward after various incidents involving the U.S. military member actions in Afghanistan.  A few years ago, it was the abuse scandal of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.  Always, a rallying call for leaders’ heads is heard.  Sometimes the leaders are punished, other times not.

Who really is to blame when scandals hit organizations?  Well, clearly it depends on the circumstance, but more often than not, I’d argue the leaders are ultimately accountable.  Here’s why…

It’s all about culture.  And culture is all about leadership.

Think about it.  It’s the leaders of any organization who set the direction and feel of an organization.  Sometimes that’s a loose, innovative, free-wheeling culture, and sometimes it’s a hierarchical, authoritarian, “by-the-book” set of standards and norms.  Jack Welch ran GE in a very formalized fashion, whereas Tony Hsieh has a cubicle amongst all the other cubicles at Zappos.  Both organizations (under their respective leaders) are models of successful, profitable machines in their own right.

The ethics and personal values of the individual leader set the tone for the entire organization.  Simply setting policy doesn’t necessarily the culture.  And merely tweeting as CEO doesn’t change the culture.  But when an executive lives, breathes, and preaches a set of values, and ultimately holds subordinate leaders accountable for those same values, culture begins to shift and solidify.

So, do the values of the leader then mitigate any chance of impropriety within the ranks?  Of course not.  Unfortunately, people at all levels will make mistakes, act irresponsibly or without morales, and, in extreme cases, commit atrocities.  And the individual need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  The leader, however, does bear some responsibility, in my opinion.

Of course, to take that perspective to the extreme, very few individuals would ever accept leadership roles.  To do so would be akin to career suicide.  Or would it?

You see, perfection within the ranks is not the hallmark of strong leadership.  Mistakes will happen.  Wrongs will occur.  But despite that, leaders who can demonstrate, when such situations rear their ugly heads, that they did everything to promote and champion a positive environment of ethical and morale professionalism will prevail.

The military commanders in Afghanistan should be held accountable for the atrocities committed by their troops on the ground.  But that accountability should come in the form of an investigation into whether or not the culture they individually promoted contributed to the atrocities, or if the atrocities occurred in spite of the culture they championed.  In the former, prosecute the leaders as though they themselves perpetrated a crime.  But in the latter, commend the leaders for the positive and uplifting example of ethical leadership they instilled in the majority of their soldiers and/or employees.

Not everyone follows a leader, but as long as the leader is leading with positive and ethical intentions, that’s all that we can ask.  Where they’re not…..well, that’s a different story entirely.