Balancing Extreme Ownership with Decentralized Command
I've written before on accountability being part of the underlying philosophy accompanying everything I do. This extreme ownership means that I take 100% responsibility for my team's plans, our operation and our execution. Also for the success but especially the failure of those missions. Extreme ownership does not mean doing everything yourself. 100 percent ownership does not equate to being a micro-manager. This is a lesson I learned the hard way.
Taking an attitude of extreme ownership can rob the team of initiatives to own themselves and set the dangerous precedent of doing everything yourself. When I tried to run everything, the team would sit back and wait for my decision. The daring and boldness in the team evaporated. Creativity faltered. A general feeling of lethargic passiveness set in. I didn't realize it, but my extreme ownership lead to extreme disempowerment.
Decentralized Command to delegate decision-making authority to those in the trenches
Micro-managing doesnt work because no single person can overlook multiple people operating in multiple dynamic environments. With too much control, people dont act with any traces of initiative.
In my case, backing off lead to my squad running forward and becoming proactive. Leadership means empowering the team and giving them the authority to make in-the-moment decisions so that they may execute their initiatives with confidence and conviction. The decision time is faster and the decision quality is better.
Problems do not solve themselves. You want the team's default to be aggressive in overcoming obstacles and making the most out of opportunities. Dictating the situation and not being dictated by the situation. A default 'aggressive' attitude does not mean anger or emotional towards other people, but a proactive and bullish attitude towards problems. The team is not motivated to be aggressive when you are breathing down their neck.
Nonetheless: The leader must monitor what is happening. The leader must step in if the train is derailing or contradicting the big strategic objectives. But the leader should avoid giving instructions on execution. Decentralized command empowers the team to make decisions within the scope of their role.
Not overcorrecting the pendulum
When I realized what my behavior had wrought, I overcorrected too heavily in the other direction. The laissez-faire leader is no better than the micro-manager.
Instead of mentally shutting off, the team started thinking too much and received too little direction. Instead of moving towards our strategic goals, we all ran off in random directions. When the team is too decentralized, no one knows where to go. And when a leader gives direction, the "why" must be crystal clear. In the military they refer to this as the commander's intent. If the explanation is "because I said so", then you have already lost, because "anyone who must say 'I am the King' is no true King".
A tight-loose-tight mindset
The tight-loose-tight (TLT) model from Rune Ulvnes resonates with me for how well it juxtaposes the two sides of the spectrum. TLT proposes that a leader be deeply involved at the beginning and at the end of projects. At the beginning to sharply define the scope and the "why" and at the end to review the "what" and affirm it's connection to the "why". The "loose" phase in the center gives the team autonomy in finding the "how". In other words: define the problem space and then decentralize command to the team.
For me, extreme ownership is a hallmark of good leadership. It encompasses explaining the strategic vision and giving the team the trust and freedom to properly execute defined tactics. Extreme ownership is taking responsibility and not playing the blame game. Taking ownership of everything in your world is empowering, because forging your destiny should be best placed in your own hands. For anyone who wants to read more on concepts such as "decentralized command" or "extreme ownership", I strongly recommend The Dichotomy of Leadership by Jocko Willink.