Leadership Lessons from Flight 1549: Sullenberger is More than a Pilot

Today our world celebrates the successful ditch of US Airways 1549, and appropriately lauds her crew and their Captain, Chesley Sullenberger, as heroic.  But Sullenberger showed more than brilliance as a pilot in the emergency landing, double checking the cabin for survivors, issuing clear, calm guidance to frazzled passengers, and speaking to investigators and the media with quiet humility.  He showed character.  As we celebrate, it’s also important that we reflect on the development that produces such leaders of character.

The media was quick to cite Sullenberger’s skill training as a glider pilot and his honor in receiving the Outstanding Cadet in Airmanship award at the Air Force Academy, but there is an incredibly important back story here that leader developers can’t afford to miss.  The Air Force Academy runs a course each summer where second year cadets are taught to solo gliders and to make several freefall parachute jumps on their own, with instruction by upper class cadets.  The course, Airmanship 490, is not a mere military skills training course, but  instead derives from the character development program at the academy (after all, teaching pilots to parachute as a skill seems akin to teaching race car drivers to change flat tires).  The link between dangerous training and the development of leaders of character is at the core of in extremis leadership, and they “get it” at Air Force.

Likewise, the sport parachute team at West Point is viewed as a leader development lab, rather than merely an adventure sports team.  In the six years from 1999 to 2005, the tiny team (only 12 parachutists per class) produced four of the Academy’s pinnacle cadet commanders—the class First Captain—as well as two Rhode Scholars and much of the Corps senior leadership.

Captain Sullenberger mastered the outward focus that allowed him to make tough decisions about landing the aircraft, without getting emotionally balled up with the almost unimaginable responsibility attached to his passengers and other crew members.  Such outward focus and self-confidence is honed in people who are put in dangerous contexts—land the glider, pull the ripcord, or inherit the Earth.  His selfless concern for others is likewise derived from hyper focus on the environment, an environment which of course includes passengers and other followers.

The Air Force Academy is picking apart this miracle of development with good behavioral science.  Professors Steve Samuels and Craig Foster do psychological research on the airmanship course, showing which facets of that course produce statistically significant and lasting gains in psychological self-efficacy (confidence in the ability to handle tasks).  Their work, and the work of others, has convinced the prestigious academic journals Military Psychology and The Leadership Quarterly to produce special issues on leading in dangerous contexts.

The best in our Army “get it,” too.  When I was the artillery coordinator for the 101^st Airborne Division in the mid 90s, the operations and training officer (G3) for the division insisted that I help redesign a benign rifle range so that machine gun fire and artillery shells would land danger-close to infantrymen who would be advancing and firing their weapons among each other as well.  I’m ashamed to admit that I was less than energetic at completing this task; I viewed the procedures required for the range as reasonable for actual combat but perhaps a bit aggressive for peacetime training, and I was concerned about accidents.  The G3 insisted that the value of the range was not merely weapons training, but the immense pressure on the weapons crews and the very real danger that would be faced by the assaulting soldiers.  He was firm that with reasonable safeguards the range would significantly improve the tactical ability of the troops and the combat leadership of their commanders, and he wouldn’t take “no” for an answer.  Thanks to his tenacity, the vision eventually came true.  Range 52 was a great success and subsequently trained thousands of competent, confident, courageous infantrymen.  The G3, as the patient but inflexible architect, demonstrated the moral courage to put his own career at calculated risk to produce the finest infantry soldiers possible. This prescient leader was then-Lieutenant Colonel David Petraeus.  His highly successful “surge” strategy in Iraq was, of course, risky as well, and on a grander scale.

Sully demonstrated those hallmarks of the in extremis leader—extraordinary competence, outward focus, selfless concern for followers—by greasing an Airbus 320 onto a couple hundred feet of Hudson River and shepherding his passengers to safety.  In the process, he showed as much about his character as a leader as he did about his tremendous skill as a pilot. 

Establishing Your Leadership in Crisis

As the executive officer of an infantry battalion in Iraq, I was assigned a new lieutenant several months into our deployment.  Our mission presented little need for his Chemical Corps skill set, so he was put to work in the command and control center to learn about our organization, mission, and current situation.  Adam proved to be extremely motivated, intelligent, and interested in joining the fight, and after two weeks was offered (and eagerly accepted) the opportunity to serve as an infantry platoon leader.  I had confidence in Adam, but he faced enormous challenges in establishing credibility in this new role; he was new to the unit, inexperienced, had limited combat training, was joining an established team, and held a specialty that is viewed with condescension by many combat Soldiers.

Adam spent his first night as a combat infantry platoon leader watching cement dry.  He was responsible for the lives of the 35 Soldiers securing a section of road in a previous ambush location and the mission was to ensure that an improvised explosive device (IED) could not be placed in the wet cement.  Adam shared with me that he finished his first night as platoon leader with increased confidence, thinking “I can do this; I can lead an infantry platoon in combat.”  Two days later Adam recalls watching a Bradley Fighting Vehicle burn to the ground as he maneuvered his platoon into Sadr City, Baghdad.  A few minutes later, Adam remembers seeing a rush of smoke before being thrown violently to the floor of his armored vehicle, only to regain his feet and have machinegun fire impact the ballistic glass next to his face.  Adam’s vehicle and his platoon’s trail vehicle had both been struck by large IEDs and his entire platoon was caught in a well prepared ambush in Baghdad’s most complex urban terrain.  On only his third day as platoon leader, Adam was awarded the Bronze Star for leading his platoon’s counterattack and its aggressive, disciplined combat actions against a determined enemy.  Adam’s effectiveness, in light of his obvious challenges, provides an interesting opportunity to explore assuming leadership of organizations in crisis contexts, and how one might overcome issues of limited experience and preparation that impact trust in the leader.

Learning Orientation:  Adam credits his five days of “on the job training” with the outgoing leader for much of his success.  In this brief time, he was able to demonstrate his capacity to rapidly understand the environment, the mission, and his role in the unit, and simultaneously demonstrated his own commitment to learning, a willingness to learn from his experienced subordinate leaders, and the value he placed on their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Shared Risk and Common Lifestyle:  Adam recounted the visible looks of disappointment he received when his soldiers learned he was a Chemical Officer with no combat experience and very little infantry training.  He knew he had an uphill battle, but gained respect by modestly sharing, when asked, that he had requested assignment to the infantry and voluntarily traded his position in the unit headquarters for the opportunity to live forward in Spartan conditions and lead Soldiers in combat. He left no doubt that sharing risks and hardships with his new team was exactly where he wanted to be.  Leaders in crisis can’t afford to extravagantly advantage themselves in terms of compensation or lifestyle.

Competence and Trust: It was critical for Adam to demonstrate he was capable of leading the platoon and to gain his Soldiers’ trust.  Five days with the outgoing leader was insufficient to overcome the extent of his technical, tactical and experiential deficiencies, so Adam instead established his leadership competence by demonstrating self awareness of his limitations and highlighting his maturity, caring, and sound judgment by engaging his most respected and competent subordinate leaders.  He developed plans and made decisions in preparation for life or death missions.  This reinforced a learning orientation, accelerated his development, demonstrated his trust of subordinate leaders’ judgment and abilities, convinced the subordinate leaders that his leadership would contribute to their safety, and gained buy-in from the entire unit without undermining his right to make the final executive decision.

Crisis leaders are not always in position at the start of the crisis—some arrive, as Adam did, in the midst of in extremis challenges.  All of us who need techniques to rapidly build trust can reflect on the principles that drove Adam’s success as an in extremis leader.

–

Todd Woodruff R MAJ 1-14 IN BN XO

Mayday Leadership – Competence and Focus

It’s hard for those of us who lead in both routine and dangerous conditions to recognize how we change, as leaders, when lives are on the line.  But there is a unique leader character demanded by followers when leader decisions may influence their physical well being or survival.  Army researchers have systematically studied leaders in dangerous contexts, and have developed some principles that describe how leadership in dangerous settings differs from day to day leadership.

In extremis leadership is part of the job. It’s very important at the outset to recognize that leading in extremis (where followers believe that their physical well-being is on the line) is not something unanticipated that we hope will never occur.  To quote former Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan, “Hope is not a method.  Maydays are a rendezvous with destiny; your time will come.  Think ahead.  Be ready.”

Competence becomes the primary basis for trust. Business leaders can build levels of trust in their organizations through social interaction like golf and team dinners.  In contrast, among firefighters, soldiers, and other public servants who operate in dangerous contexts, competence is the primary basis for trust.  In Iraq during research in combat operations, competence was measured as the number one characteristic leading to trust in the leader.   Once a Mayday is called, no one cares if the leader is sociable or friendly—it’s all about ability.  Leaders need to develop competence, and reinforce perceptions and recognition of their competence, long before a firefighter’s life depends on it.

There is such a thing as too much motivation. In training and routine contexts, good leaders develop habits that motivate their people.  When crisis occurs, the situation itself becomes inherently motivating.  Therefore, leaders should calm down, not spin up, during a Mayday.  Focus energy, don’t create it.  Quiet, steady competence is what people need from leaders during crisis, and the worse the crisis becomes, the more important self-control becomes.  The Hollywood characterization of “drill sergeant types” who scream into microphones and bombastically express anger and frustration is a terrible example for real leaders who manage real crises.  Mayday leaders control arousal, excitement and fear, both their own and among the people around them.

Focus outward.  At any given point in time, leaders can be introspective, focusing internally, or focus outward on the environment.  Crisis is no time for balance.  The leader’s focus needs to be outward, on the environment and the problem at hand.  Such outward focus can be practiced and developed with experience, and is important because it enables the leader to accomplish three specific tasks:

1. Make sense of the (always) ambiguous environment that’s causing the mayday, or other crisis;
2. Control emotions, since sufficient outward focus makes it very difficult to experience emotions; and
3. Orient on learning from the event, so that the lessons of experience are capture and paid forward.

Be there. Sharing risk and experiencing the misery of the elements right there with firefighters is an inspirational necessity, and sends the unmistakable message to the rank and file—“I feel your pain and I’m with you.”  Lead and manage as close to the action as you possibly can.

Global Economic Crisis

Our current global economic crisis has leaders at all levels—from heads of firms to heads of families—asking what they should do to lead in these difficult times.   We can learn from people for whom crisis conditions and dangerous contexts are a characteristic of their employment.   Lessons from professional in extremis leaders transfer nicely to leading to the bottom of the economy, and beyond.

1. Competence is the basis for trust and loyalty in crisis.  In serious economic crisis, expect that trust and loyalty based on pleasant social interaction takes a back seat to raw competence and capability.  Now is the time to use all your ability—don’t ask people to trust you because you’ve been loyal in the past, or because you’re a nice person.  Tell them to trust you because you know what you’re doing.  When you trust yourself, it’s called confidence, and it makes people trust you even more.
2. Danger is inherently motivating.  People who are fearful about their futures are already motivated by conditions; they need quiet competence, not a cheerleader or an angry boss.   People who are afraid usually prefer clear direction and an unemotional delivery.  Never arouse their fears in hopes of increasing motivation—fear mongering as a form of influence is the height of irresponsibility in a crisis.  If you need to plan through worst case scenarios, keep that among your closest advisors.  The leader’s job in crisis is to portray believable light at the end of an uncertain tunnel.
3. Focus outward, and learn.   Focus on the environment that threatens, and learn about your situation.  Watch enough news to be informed, and stop watching when it inevitably becomes repetitive.  Resist the temptation to focus inward on yourself (leading to emotionality) or to drill into the organization (leading to collective insecurity and panic).  Never finger-point or assign blame during a crisis—it can be viewed as an abdication of personal responsibility, and part of the crisis you’re trying to control.  Accountability can wait.
4. Extreme threat reveals the true character of leaders and followers.  One of the best things about a crisis is that it reveals who people can count on, and who people can’t.  Be the former.
5. Use the life altering character of your role to inspire.  Chances are that the survival of your financial position affects more than your personal well-being.  Leaders in crisis are fate makers in that their work helps determine the destiny of other people.  Inspire yourself and your organization by reminding yourself that you’re not in business solely to profit.
6. Leaders are physical beings .  Work out, drink less, and eat well.  Your physical condition is important in crisis.  Fit leaders are better able to handle stress, and a disciplined lifestyle projects control to those who are gauging the seriousness of the situation from observing your behavior.
7. Sharing risk and misery enhances credibility.   In crisis, people find it difficult to trust a leader who is working from a position of advantage relative to their own.  Highlight the common threat, and the common consequences of failure.
8. The best leaders WANT to be leaders, with passion.  Today a senior employee in an international investment firm called to talk about leadership in the volatile global markets.  Early in the conversation he admitted that, as bad as circumstances were, he was excited to be leading in such turbulent times.  His spirit was infectious.  Little wonder that his organization is among the best of its kind.  One reason you accepted your role as a leader is because you wanted responsibility.  You not only have permission to enjoy the ride—it’s really an obligation.

Leading as Commander in Chief

Originally posted on Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership Forum

Our next President’s role as Commander in Chief will entail at least four unique leadership contexts and responsibilities.

Balanced application of the elements of national power. All Presidents balance the elements of national power to execute strategy in an international context. Among the government agencies that represent elements of power, the military is among the most responsive and broadly capable. Yet such responsiveness and capability makes the military tempting to employ in place of other governmental agencies whose role is required, but whose capability may fall short. An example of this is the current situation in Iraq, where the development of economic, political, and social stability is being aggressively pursued by military forces in addition to their traditional security mission. There are tough questions to be answered about how the next President will reform the ability of the United States to apply multiple elements of power to avoid open ended military engagement.

Leadership of defense principals. The President of the United States bets the future of our Nation on the competence and candor of senior defense officials and flag officers. Although four star decision makers are top tier leaders in their own right, only the President can develop and maintain the climate that ensures honest and forthright assessments about defense strategy and capability. In such a leadership climate, no general or admiral should fear that an honest professional assessment will be interpreted as disloyalty by the President or senior defense officials. Likewise, the President must not tolerate those whose military assessments are based on popularity, partisanship, hope, false assumptions, servility, or other inappropriate foundations.

Leadership in contexts where lives will be lost. Our military is uniquely responsible for operating in settings where the loss of life is not only imminent, but virtually guaranteed. The ability to lead in such contexts moves beyond international relations and defense management into authentic leadership that spans social and political boundaries. Presidents must be able to confidently task the Joint Chiefs to commit forces on the same day that he/she grieves one-on-one with bereaved families. Questions about such capacity are very challenging to answer. Candidates must somehow demonstrate their capability to make life or death decisions, and must be careful not to be caught in embellishments because of the dishonor that accompanies public perceptions of false valor. In the context of the 2004 Presidential election, an editorial in the February 15th 2004 New York Times cited the need for candidates to demonstrate the capacity to operate in extremis: “People need to feel that the President is not going to be fazed by life-and-death situations. And the only way you can demonstrate that is by showing that you’ve made some.” Such capacity is even more important in 2008 than it was four years ago.

Stewardship of our capacity for national defense. Ongoing operations have extended our ground forces well beyond a sustainable pace. Even if every Soldier and Marine returned from the Middle East today, it would be a long, expensive, and arduous task to restore our volunteer military to its former capability. Casualties and departures due to the stress of repeated deployments have created a context where the next President will be the principal steward of restoring our force. The task will require a long term vision because of the extended time it takes to develop excellence in human capital. A jet fighter or a ship can be replaced in a day—as soon as the equipment can be produced, the replacement is made. In contrast, it takes 22 years to build a Colonel-level commander, assuming that the right person is retained as they progress up the ranks. Military human capital has to be recruited, developed, educated, inspired, and retained over time. The President has to be able to lead the American people to the commitment to rebuild a tired military in its most valuable (and expensive) commodity—the human dimension.

Thomas A. Kolditz, PhD
Colonel, U.S. Army

The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the position of the US Military Academy, the Department of the Army, or the Department of Defense