Creating leaders

In what some may argue is an unfair comparison, since retiring from the military most individuals I've encountered in positions of leadership in the civilian sector are ill equipped (or ill suited) to the responsibilities inherent to such positions.  Far too often I've seen someone who displayed technical/professional competence or having specific personal connections unwisely advanced to leadership positions, without benefit of training, education, or experience in the principles, responsibilities, traits, or requirements of leadership.  Consequently, many, if not most, of these individuals are woefully deficient as leaders.  Exacerbating the problem is that often these individuals first fill leadership positions at relatively high levels, at which their inevitable errors are dramatic and broad in impact.

At this point it is worth mentioning that individuals who fail as leaders, after being placed in these positions without the aforementioned training, education, or experience are not necessarily bad people.  They happen to make horrible decisions, adversely impacting those they supposedly lead.  I'd argue many of these mistakes are the result of the lack training, education,and experience.  I'll provide a couple of examples to illustrate the observation.

Example #1.  A nationwide non-profit hired on a relatively young individual, with no-to-minimal leadership experience to serve as the top officer.  Over time, it became crystal clear he wasn't aware of basic tenants of leadership, particularly the value of human capital.  Known for ranting and raving, he publicly belittled subordinates; castigated managers in email broadcast to the entire organization; refused suggestions for improvement; and sought to marginalize those who dared disagree with his views.  The revolving door of the headquarters staff and perpetual reorganizations illustrate the impact of his leadership failure.  Further, his communication skills were abysmal, as he rarely if ever communicated in substantive ways with the all-too-critical leaders at the chapters.  (Note: communication is defined as meaningful exchanges between two or more individuals.)  Instead, he isolated himself in an aloof and insular manner.  Over time, he lost the trust and confidence of the organization.  For one, I judge the fault for the circumstances to be equally divided between the individual and the board of directors that hired him.  Leadership education, training, and experience matter.  The absence of  leadership skills manifested itself time and time again, demoralizing the organization.  This young man was insufficiently prepared to assume the position and responsibility of a national organization. 

Example #2.  At a major public university, the director of one of the most important offices on campus was put into place by a senior administrator, who had previously served as the office's director.  The new director was a technical whizz and could make systems that supported the office sing.  However, she'd never been trained in leadership or held any position in which she'd learn it.  Over time, this adversely impacted the office.  However, though apparent to all, nothing was done because she had top cover from the individual who had elevated her to the office directorship.  Over time, the university and others knew she was an failed leader, but could do nothing.  Failing to lead by example from the front, she'd call meetings and then fail to attend.  She failed to respond to calls and email from across the campus.  She'd fail to recognize superlative efforts of her staff, yet was manic in pursuing a dress code.  Once more, the absence of leadership training, education, and experience displayed itself in a woefully deficient leader.  As an aside, after years without one, the university initiated a leadership training program.  It was something, though lacking a core, central leadership ethos upon which a leadership philosophy could be built.  In fact, the "key" speakers could actually be viewed as teaching the wrong lessons.  One famously told a class that they shouldn't be concerned with regulations and policies.

These are just two examples of many I've noticed in the civilian sector.

Where some may not like the comparison, I'll nevertheless offer that the Marine Corps ethos includes the education and development of leaders. From day one, Marines are taught leadership and are expected to develop as leaders.  The same leadership traits and principles apply for Privates as they do for Generals.  In addition to the intense training, Marines are placed in positions of increasing responsibility, to take the leadership lessons and put them into practice.  There is a good reason Second Lieutenants don't lead Marine Expeditionary Forces.  Simply put, they haven't the experience.  The young officers start with platoons and work their way up the rank structure, leading units of increasing size and complexity.  Those who excel move up to command battalions, regiments, and divisions.  They learn a comprehensive leadership ethos, complete with traits and principles.  And they garner experience along the way.  When an officer is selected to command a Marine Expeditionary Force, he has decades of training, education, and experience as a leader, unlike the man in example #1 and the lady in example #2,

Alluded to is another critical failing in the civilian sector: the absence of institutional leadership philosophy, traits, principles, expectations, etc.  An organization must establish them and everyone in the organization must know these and be required to adhere to them.  With such as approach, the institution/organization can develop leaders from within, allow them to grow and mature, thereby providing a pool of internal candidates for advancement.  One obvious advantage of internal candidates is that it is positive for morale when employees know they can work hard to move up in the organization.  Furthermore, ti provides for stability, rather than the constant state of flux experienced in many organizations, like the two sited in the examples.

So, when it comes down to it, leadership really isn't that challenging.  The organization must establish, promulgate, and adhere to a leadership philosophy, then train and educate leaders, and finally provide them the experience to grow and become the higher level, senior leaders of tomorrow.