I enjoyed reading this one; the thesis that vision can be a cyclical escape hatch was insightful and interesting. I wonder how it overlays with management and mobility of leadership talent - are we in the midst of a two speed executive market? Ie come with me onboard - and then let me handover to exec B to replace me and deliver watered down vision (shoot for the moon land in the stars?) I think the dangerous thing about visionary leadership is the old foe the ego. The problem with vision is when it will inevitably be challenged by those required to do the implementing - how might that negotiation go?
Thanks JP. I think is about rewarding implementation effectiveness, not rewarding vision only. Good strategy should be robust to individuals changing roles too. If your strategy changes every few months it wasn’t a strategy
Humility is really important too— are you pivoting wisely, or just chasing your tail trying to escape reality and accountability?
Jocko’s offsider Leif says there are only two leadership styles— effective and ineffective. Effective leaders achieve the objectives of their organisations and teams, ineffective ones don’t. At the end of the day it’s the real world results you create that matter, not the half-finished plans abandoned for something you also don’t complete (speaking to myself as much as anyone else lol)
Like all this - what’s quite compelling (and challenging) is looking at the layer of leaders in an organisation tasked with implemented the vision, change etc. often middle managers, often not enough power to truly influence across the extent required to deliver the change and often stretched to deliver their own outcomes while managing up and down. Too much off this leadership study focuses on the top down, when it’s my view most of the leadership should focus on the middle increasingly flat layer.
You’re speaking my language mate, leadership development isn’t just about developing individuals but also culture and capability across whole organisations. Even military who are stereotyped as hierarchical and inflexible have embraced complexity and systems approach rather than a top down command and control approach, because it works.
You need to empower the people at the coalface by giving them clear direction plus authority to exercise their own judgment to achieve the objectives.
I enjoyed reading this one; the thesis that vision can be a cyclical escape hatch was insightful and interesting. I wonder how it overlays with management and mobility of leadership talent - are we in the midst of a two speed executive market? Ie come with me onboard - and then let me handover to exec B to replace me and deliver watered down vision (shoot for the moon land in the stars?) I think the dangerous thing about visionary leadership is the old foe the ego. The problem with vision is when it will inevitably be challenged by those required to do the implementing - how might that negotiation go?
Thanks JP. I think is about rewarding implementation effectiveness, not rewarding vision only. Good strategy should be robust to individuals changing roles too. If your strategy changes every few months it wasn’t a strategy
Humility is really important too— are you pivoting wisely, or just chasing your tail trying to escape reality and accountability?
Jocko’s offsider Leif says there are only two leadership styles— effective and ineffective. Effective leaders achieve the objectives of their organisations and teams, ineffective ones don’t. At the end of the day it’s the real world results you create that matter, not the half-finished plans abandoned for something you also don’t complete (speaking to myself as much as anyone else lol)
Like all this - what’s quite compelling (and challenging) is looking at the layer of leaders in an organisation tasked with implemented the vision, change etc. often middle managers, often not enough power to truly influence across the extent required to deliver the change and often stretched to deliver their own outcomes while managing up and down. Too much off this leadership study focuses on the top down, when it’s my view most of the leadership should focus on the middle increasingly flat layer.
You’re speaking my language mate, leadership development isn’t just about developing individuals but also culture and capability across whole organisations. Even military who are stereotyped as hierarchical and inflexible have embraced complexity and systems approach rather than a top down command and control approach, because it works.
You need to empower the people at the coalface by giving them clear direction plus authority to exercise their own judgment to achieve the objectives.