In 2016, Rear Admiral Peg Klein, then Advisor to the Secretary of Defense for Military Professionalism, visited a Marine Special Operations selection program, where I was working. During our conversation, she emphasized that the closer one gets to violence, the more critical leadership becomes. Her insight has resonated with me ever since.
There is a direct connection between leadership and outcomes when faced with danger. When lives are on the line and you depend on your leader to make the best possible decision, leadership is paramount. The Army designates leadership as a combat multiplier, recognizing that effective leadership can significantly enhance the combat effectiveness of a fighting unit.
It’s been a challenge linking the multiplier effect of leadership to athletics and the commercial industry. While leadership is undoubtedly important, how does it truly help win a game or impact the bottom line? This is a fair question that requires a clear answer — one that I have yet to succinctly provide.
I can get there, but it’s not easy to bring coaches and corporate executives along for the ride.
In sports, there is a direct connection between the weight room and winning. Hiring a top strength and conditioning coach and investing heavily in weight training equipment translates to bigger, stronger, faster athletes, which undoubtedly helps win games. However, investing in the development of assistant coaches and the character of athletes does not have as direct a line to winning. Such investments are strategic moves in an industry that often operates tactically.
Similarly, in the corporate sector, there is a direct connection between making your supply chain more efficient and the bottom line. Investing in better monitoring software and productivity experts to tighten operations has a clear return on investment (ROI). However, pulling managers out of their day-to-day responsibilities for leadership training is a tougher sell.
So, how do I convince coaches and corporate executives that developing leaders is as crucial to their organizations as leadership is to the Army’s winning battles?
I don’t.
I can’t.
Instead, they have to see it.
Some coaches can make this connection. When they build processes and systems to equip and empower their assistants to carry out the vision and goals set by the head coach, the entire program’s “combat effectiveness” increases. Similarly, some CEOs recognize that providing managers with leadership training and the tools to enhance thier leadership skills will build employee commitment, resulting in higher job satisfaction, lower turnover, and increased productivity across the board. Only when these teams are winning and these companies are thriving will other coaches and executives start to pay attention.
Only results will convince others.
Leadership and Violence was originally published in Horizon Performance on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
