Acronym

Wish I heard the general, Lisa. Thanks for the observations. Sounds very worthwhile.

Far be it from me to differ with a general officer, but I do have another perspective, if I am understanding his comments correctly.

One of the responsibilities of a senior executive/officer, IMHO, is to encourage and support the development of mid-level and junior executives/officers. I think his point was that being in continuous communication via technology made this more difficult.

One method for the development of mid-level and junior execs/officer is to encourage (and insist) that they: 1) use their initiative to identify opportunties and threats; 2) use their experience to identify solutions, including recommendations for the best course of action.

How many time can all of us recall someone coming to us saying, "There's a great opportunity/problem, and something needs to be done!" A good senior exec/officer should never accept such an observation without asking, "And what are the options to respond and what's your recommendation?"

The difference between identification of opportunities/problems and understanding how to address the opportunities/problems may be one of the key differences between developing and developed leaders. It's not hard to spot an opportunity/problem. The challenge is what, if anything, to do about it. All too often, mid-level and junior execs/officers look around for someone else to address the situation.

Encouraging (and insisting) that mid-level and junior execs/officers come up with recommended solutions may be one of the best mentoring practices of a senior exec/officer.

If I have a difference with the general it is that I don't think this leadership situation is affected by technology. It is just as easy to insist on a sound recommendation over your Blackberry as it is when individuals are eyeball to eyeball.

You're absolutely correct in your understanding of what the general was saying, Virgil. And you have a great point--it is possible to be available on the Blackberry and yet still require your junior execs to give recommended solutions. That's something we should all do, whether long distance or face to face.

I think he was going a step further, though; he was arguing that real leadership is tested under fire (literally in the case of the military, less so in most other workplaces) and that there's a big psychological difference for a young leader who has to make and implement a decision on his/her own, as opposed to a young leader who is making recommendations but knows the boss is available to make (or just give official blessing to) the final decision.

What do you think? Is it valuable for a young leader/exec to have that experience of standing completely alone to make a decision, or can he/she develop as a leader just as well when in direct communication with a supervisor?

Good point, Lisa. I think you (and the general) are right: leaders do need the ability (and confidence) to "stand alone" and make (successful) decisions.

Military leadership is rather unique: decisions in combat are often in a life and death context. Thus, leadership in a combat environment does often require more frequent and intense "stand alone" decision-making. But there are critical and challenging decisions to be made in the non-military world as well--decisions that affect the lives and well-being of people and institutions, for example.

How do military (and non-military) leaders get to successful "stand-alone" leadership? Hopefully, through observation, training, trial and error (not too many please), experience, and the support of mentors, colleagues, superiors and subordinates.

At the end of the day, however, leadership is about making decisions.

In these days of "leadership by teams", "distributed leadership", "posses", You Tube, My Space, etc., do you think that most association leadership decisions are (or should be) "stand alone" leadership situations? Inquiring minds want to know... :-)

I think a developing leader needs to have strength in both areas: standalone, the-buck-stops-here decision making and distributed-leadership decision building (as opposed to making) as well. Especially in associations, where, as you wisely point out, many leadership situations are anything but stand alone.

I think it's important for developing leaders to some experience with both kinds of situations before they move into a CEO or similar position. I think it would make it much harder to succeed as a new CEO if you didn't have a grounding in both sides of the equation. Not impossible--but more difficult.