What is it with business media fawning over SEALs? It has nonstop SEAL articles.
The articles all suffer from the same problem: they tell you the results, implying that reading about them will get you the results, at least partly.
If that were the case, SEALs would just read these articles. They don't because reading the articles doesn't get you results. Training does. It's like expecting to get strong by reading about lifting weights.
People who want the results would do better by training. You don't have to train like a SEAL to get helpful results in business, but you need to do more than just read.
I've always thought that there should be more hand-on bootcamp-style training available to civilians in areas like business. Funnily enough from what I've read it sounds like YC is somewhat like that for the first few months.
During a competitive boat race in Navy SEALs BUDS training, six teams competed for victory. After the first five races, there was a clear split: Team A placed first after every single race, and Team F had finished dead last. Jocko and the other instructors wanted to try something: what would happen if they took the group leader from Team A and put him in Team F's boat?
Guess what? Team F won the next race. And the next. And the next. See, it wasn't because the crew weren't good enough. It's because the new leader in Team F's boat wouldn't tolerate anything but the best. He set a new performance standard through his action and lifted the achievements of those around him.
I was reminded of the Athenians in Sicily during the Peloponnesian War. The Sicilians were being badly beaten by the Athenians, and in desperation they appealed to Sparta for help. Sparta didn't send thousands of troops but one general, Gylippus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gylippus). That pretty much did for Athens in Sicily.
Sure, that of Gylippus is a very good historical example, but it simply doesn't fit.
I mean, Gylippus came from another society (Sparta) evidently better at educating their generals and soldiers.
Here we have someone that is giving advice on how to become good leaders, and he gives as an example the good leader of Team A and the bad leader of team F.
The only issue being that BOTH the team leaders were instructed by the same people and with the same methods, so if these methods were so good, there shouldn't be such a bad leader in team F.
I really like his channel. Some episodes are boring and the books are kind of long when he reads in the beginning but overall I like them. Love the Q/A episodes though. My favorite episode for anyone who wants to just check it out is 69 - The Real Top Gun.
One piece is probably relevant in war but not as much in tech companies:
> Good leaders don't make excuses, they find a way to win
In war, if you lose a battle people on your team die. In tech, if you lose you hopefully learned a valuable lesson you can take into the next battle. All you lost was money (and runway probably).
Granted, the industry's obsession with "failure is good" may be taken a little bit too far sometimes. You have to win at least part of the time or you go out of business.
I agree with the comments from @ryanx435 and @bitexploder.
Leadership is definitely something that draws parallels across all professions. The toughest realms for leadership are definitely amongst those where life is at risk or the stakes are high. Military is just one such example. However, you may also consider several other scenarios which demand exemplary leadership: like hostage negotiations, standoffs, medical relief, natural disaster & calamity management, space missions etc.
A lot of material on such subjects provide insight into how good leaders managed the best outcome for their teams, while facing immense odds. How such stuff applies to your field of work, or your thoughts on leadership is entirely upto you.
The intent however is that the reader/listener is inspired enough to rise against odds and find the inner will to resolve the task at hand (in their own field, whatever it may be), while also ensuring that the team involved has improved trust, inspiration and motivation as an outcome.
Here are some videos I find inspiring. I'm from India. These are by the Indian military and special forces, on similar lines to those of the article above. They give great insight into the challenges, thought process and leadership by example.
2. Attributes of leadership - by Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw
This was a talk addressing students. This talk discusses some fundamental attributes of leadership.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSvLFPFXjc8
3. An account of the Kargil War - by Col. Lalit Rai
This video is slightly long. However it is a great account of leadership at its finest, and how exceptional results can be achieved by leading from the front.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1rIkwAoZGg
Here we go. Yet another "the workplace is like a combat zone and we should all be SEAL's" fawning article. No it isn't. And no we shouldn't. I most definitely can't do the job of a SEAL. And SEAL's most definitely can't do my job (developing software that run airlines). And the 5 "leadership skills" the article waffle on about? That is leadership 101. The same kind of obvious common sense stuff you learn from any management consultant wanna-be. On top of that, I actually had a manager years ago who was an ex-special operations whatever guy. He was the most incompetent manager I have ever had. And he had some stiff competition.
if you'd ever actually listened to Jocko's podcast you'd know that often the reason soldiers fight is for their brother next to them.
The reasons that they enlist/join up in the first place, however, are unique to each individual. After joining up it is often out of the individual soldiers control about if they are sent to war or not.
Jocko has a wonderful podcast where he reads exerts from various historical military auto/biographies. He really focuses on the extreme realities and hardships of war, and how good leadership is often the key ingredient that can keep a unit operating and keep their soldiers alive.
The real leaders in a war of aggression are those who don't show up or fight on the other side. "Leadership" and "excellence" and all that wank is really just that, wank. It's a compensation price for those who got broken as kid and never mustered any resolve worth a crap later on.
> He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
-- Albert Einstein
Prove me wrong. Me, directly, instead of hiding behind each other. In other words: lead, follow, or get out of the fucking way.
Eistein apparently wrote that in 1931 - but in 1939 when faced with the appalling prospect of a nuclear armed Nazi Germany he co-authored a letter to FDR with Leo Szilard recommending that the US research atomic weapons.
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, war is literally hell and the people I know who feel this more strongly are combat veterans, but outright pacifism in the face of a relentless aggressor like the Nazis would have achieved nothing but utter disaster and a "sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age".
Edit: From my own perspective I think our potentially fatal weakness as a species is how easy we are to lead. With a powerful enough leader people will do anything - good or bad.
You are falling into a classic fallacy of dismissing the information due to it's source. The fact is the war happened and these SEALs learned what they learned, working as one of the most effective units in the war. What you wrote could be true, while everything Jocko has to teach you can be true and useful too. I was extremely skeptical, but I read his book and there is value in what he teaches. It isn't all trite militaristic BS. Some of it is, of course, he has his world view, but that is easy enough to separate from what made them so good in a chaotic environment. I encourage anyone reading this to put aside their well earned bias against most military figures and dig a little deeper if the topic of leadership and personal responsibility are of interest.
None of what you said actually makes sense. "Real leaders in a war of aggression are those who don't show up or fight on the other side", then what about people who command from the field? What about the massive ability of a General's ability to affect the outcome of a war from the planning rooms?
Even your final phrase, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" makes no sense because there are literally no other courses of action available and you make no real defense of any of the three beyond preceding that statement with a quote from Einstein which you seem to feel is sufficient simply because... Einstein said so?
[+] [-] spodek|8 years ago|reply
The articles all suffer from the same problem: they tell you the results, implying that reading about them will get you the results, at least partly.
If that were the case, SEALs would just read these articles. They don't because reading the articles doesn't get you results. Training does. It's like expecting to get strong by reading about lifting weights.
People who want the results would do better by training. You don't have to train like a SEAL to get helpful results in business, but you need to do more than just read.
[+] [-] beaconstudios|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grecy|8 years ago|reply
Step one is convincing the citizens it's worthwhile.
They need to up the image of their military, especially their elite who are seen as "the persona" of the military.
[+] [-] gadders|8 years ago|reply
During a competitive boat race in Navy SEALs BUDS training, six teams competed for victory. After the first five races, there was a clear split: Team A placed first after every single race, and Team F had finished dead last. Jocko and the other instructors wanted to try something: what would happen if they took the group leader from Team A and put him in Team F's boat?
Guess what? Team F won the next race. And the next. And the next. See, it wasn't because the crew weren't good enough. It's because the new leader in Team F's boat wouldn't tolerate anything but the best. He set a new performance standard through his action and lifted the achievements of those around him.
I was reminded of the Athenians in Sicily during the Peloponnesian War. The Sicilians were being badly beaten by the Athenians, and in desperation they appealed to Sparta for help. Sparta didn't send thousands of troops but one general, Gylippus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gylippus). That pretty much did for Athens in Sicily.
[+] [-] jaclaz|8 years ago|reply
Sure, that of Gylippus is a very good historical example, but it simply doesn't fit.
I mean, Gylippus came from another society (Sparta) evidently better at educating their generals and soldiers.
Here we have someone that is giving advice on how to become good leaders, and he gives as an example the good leader of Team A and the bad leader of team F.
The only issue being that BOTH the team leaders were instructed by the same people and with the same methods, so if these methods were so good, there shouldn't be such a bad leader in team F.
[+] [-] josephcooney|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xJRS|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] myth_drannon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway2016a|8 years ago|reply
> Good leaders don't make excuses, they find a way to win
In war, if you lose a battle people on your team die. In tech, if you lose you hopefully learned a valuable lesson you can take into the next battle. All you lost was money (and runway probably).
Granted, the industry's obsession with "failure is good" may be taken a little bit too far sometimes. You have to win at least part of the time or you go out of business.
[+] [-] ryanx435|8 years ago|reply
and yet both war and tech leadership is the same: driving a group of humans to work together towards a common goal.
[+] [-] fapjacks|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dancryer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pshirali|8 years ago|reply
Leadership is definitely something that draws parallels across all professions. The toughest realms for leadership are definitely amongst those where life is at risk or the stakes are high. Military is just one such example. However, you may also consider several other scenarios which demand exemplary leadership: like hostage negotiations, standoffs, medical relief, natural disaster & calamity management, space missions etc.
A lot of material on such subjects provide insight into how good leaders managed the best outcome for their teams, while facing immense odds. How such stuff applies to your field of work, or your thoughts on leadership is entirely upto you.
The intent however is that the reader/listener is inspired enough to rise against odds and find the inner will to resolve the task at hand (in their own field, whatever it may be), while also ensuring that the team involved has improved trust, inspiration and motivation as an outcome.
Here are some videos I find inspiring. I'm from India. These are by the Indian military and special forces, on similar lines to those of the article above. They give great insight into the challenges, thought process and leadership by example.
1. TEDx - Capt. Raghu Raman - How the armed forces do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ-IBRGfJyY
2. Attributes of leadership - by Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw This was a talk addressing students. This talk discusses some fundamental attributes of leadership. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSvLFPFXjc8
3. An account of the Kargil War - by Col. Lalit Rai This video is slightly long. However it is a great account of leadership at its finest, and how exceptional results can be achieved by leading from the front. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1rIkwAoZGg
[+] [-] mbrodersen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kikimaru|8 years ago|reply
Pretty ironic, considering they're talking about the Iraq War (an invasion founded on lies & deceit)
[+] [-] ryanx435|8 years ago|reply
The reasons that they enlist/join up in the first place, however, are unique to each individual. After joining up it is often out of the individual soldiers control about if they are sent to war or not.
[+] [-] ryanx435|8 years ago|reply
it is most definitely worth a listen or three
[+] [-] thinkfurther|8 years ago|reply
> He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
-- Albert Einstein
Prove me wrong. Me, directly, instead of hiding behind each other. In other words: lead, follow, or get out of the fucking way.
[+] [-] arethuza|8 years ago|reply
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, war is literally hell and the people I know who feel this more strongly are combat veterans, but outright pacifism in the face of a relentless aggressor like the Nazis would have achieved nothing but utter disaster and a "sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age".
Edit: From my own perspective I think our potentially fatal weakness as a species is how easy we are to lead. With a powerful enough leader people will do anything - good or bad.
[+] [-] bitexploder|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PeanutCurry|8 years ago|reply
Even your final phrase, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" makes no sense because there are literally no other courses of action available and you make no real defense of any of the three beyond preceding that statement with a quote from Einstein which you seem to feel is sufficient simply because... Einstein said so?