528: Real Rank and Real Authority is Earned.

This is Jocko Podcast number 528 with Echo Charles and me, Jocko Willink. Good evening, Echo. Good evening. So there are problems in leadership, as we know, and believe it or not, the problems repeat themselves over and over again because human beings, as different as we are, we are the same. We all have the egos, the emotions, the idiosyncrasies, the agendas, the self-interest. It's all there. It's kind of like a snowflake. You can definitely identify a snowflake when you see one, right? Yeah. but every snowflake is different. It's a very similar thing. All snowflakes will melt when it gets warm out, right? There's a whole bunch of commonalities. Well, it's the same thing with human beings. And I found a manual from the U.S. Army, from their human research unit in Fort Benning, Georgia, written in 1965. So it's got kind of the culmination of lessons from World War I, World War II, Korea, and then, you know, 1965, they're just getting into Vietnam. and interestingly the manual is called Basic Problems in Small Unit Leadership right? Basic Problems in Small Unit Leadership some really good insight some interesting takes on leadership and definitely some lessons for us to learn and confirm so that's what we're doing let's go to the book once again Basic Problems in Small Unit Leadership getting into it at the most fundamental level A leader is a person with influence over other people. This influence may be the result of appointment to a formal position of leadership or of acceptance by a group of persons who then become followers. So this is an interesting just bifurcation out of the gate that this book does. In both cases, the leader's success is ultimately determined by the performance of those who lead. So look, if you're a leader, success is based on how well the team does. This performance depends on the quality and nature of his leadership actions as he interacts with his followers. A leader's interactions with his men can inspire their trust, respect, and devotion, their cordial dislike, or any intermediate feeling between those two extremes. So however you treat your people is they're going to love you or hate you is what they're getting at there. Skilled combat leadership is obviously the final test of a military leader's training. However, the principles of effective leadership are as applicable to combat leadership as to peacetime leadership. In most respects, a given leadership act should be effective in both combat and peacetime operations. So, kind of surprising. People thought it was different in combat. No, actually it's not. The primary characteristic of an effective combat unit is its willingness to commit itself to combat and its desire to meet and defeat the enemy. so that's what that's an effective combat unit are you willing to commit to combat and do you desire to meet and defeat the enemy that's how we're judging it this in turn is a function of A the confidence the members of the unit have in the ability of their leader and the loyalty they feel for him and B their confidence in their own ability their own abilities and the loyalty or group ties they feel for one another there you go how confident they are in the leader and how confident are they in themselves and each other. The first of these, the confidence the men have in their leader and the loyalty they feel for him must develop over a period of time. It cannot develop suddenly, except in those rare cases in which a leader assumes command of a unit during a crisis period, such as combat, and successfully leads his men to victory. So you're lucky if you get rolled into that situation. when this happens the leader and his men are welded tightly into a tight knit unit almost within minutes did you uh i was on sean ryan's podcast yeah hell yeah and uh i told the story about when i took over this platoon where the platoon commander had been fired and like the first training mission we did a boat like flipped inside and guys were kind of like hey we need to call the admin and get a vehicle down here to pick it up i'm like no we're taking this thing back out to sea we're completing this mission and they kind of looked at me i was a little bit crazy and then I'd done this before. This wasn't like a miracle. I'm not some tactical genius, but I had done a lot of over-the-beach operations because I had done two at that point. No, I had done three shipboard deployments at that point. So I had done so many over-the-beach operations. And these guys were kind of relatively new, some of them. global war on terror time frame, a lot less focus on the water. We'd stop doing amphibious ready group shipboard deployments years before that. So these guys just didn't know what they were doing. And they looked at me like that was kind of crazy. But made it happen. And that was sort of an instant okay, this guy knows what he's doing and we trust him. Continue on. However, it is a difficult task for the leader. It is better that he have established at the minimum a firm foundation for the loyalty and respect of his men prior to the time his unit is committed to combat. The purpose of this task, text, and the course of which is a part is to provide the leader with a basis for learning how to do this. Confidence and loyalty are developed by the members of the unit as they observe their leader encountering leadership problems and solving them effectively. Isn't that interesting that you need some kind of challenges in order to shine? It's kind of like when you hear a fighter at the end of their career, you hear Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. They talk about each other. Like, you made, you push me, right? You need somebody that's going to be your rival, that's going to get you going. Well, if you're going to gain confidence of your troops, you need to go through some challenges. As they observe their leader to be effective in problem situations currently faced, they come to expect that he will be effective in meeting future situations. and just imagine when you overreact, freak out, don't solve the problem. Guess what they expect in the future? The same damn thing. And I love that they use the word observe over and over again. They're observing their leader over and over again. They're observing. They consequently will depend more and more on him for guidance and direction, expecting that it will enable them to act successfully. This is the meaning of confidence. It is a basic ingredient of loyalty. it will go far toward carrying an unseasoned unit through its first engagement. And another way I like to describe this is winning. Like people like to be on the winning team. When you win, you get loyalty. Simply stated, the problem of any leader is to inspire his followers to achieve maximum results with minimum friction within the group. That's pretty obvious. The ability to motivate men stems largely from the ability to understand them. That is, the leader must understand the personal values, aspirations, goals, and beliefs of his subordinates before he can understand how to best interact with them in order to motivate them to an outstanding performance. This does not mean he must agree with these values and beliefs, but only that he must understand them. Understanding enables him to predict how his men will react to his leadership actions. So something I've been talking about a little more lately is we always talk about with decentralized command, people got to understand why they're doing what they're doing. And I say, you as a leader, you just don't need to make sure they understand your why. You need to understand their why. Why are they here? Because if Echo's just here to get paid and he's got a family and he wants to go to wrestling tournaments on the weekend, like I'm not going to be mad when you say, oh, I can't work this weekend. But if Echo is at a point in his life, his family's already, you don't have a family yet or whatever, you're like, oh, I'm here to make money. I'm here to get after it. I'm here to get promoted. Okay, cool. I know your why. So you have to understand why people are doing what they're doing in order to properly motivate them. And this is a different form of motivation. This is like the self-motivation. And this is how do you get people to move in the right direction. And, yeah, we'll get into that. Move in the right direction voluntarily. Fast forward here. Effective unit performance in combat depends on many things. Among the most important are the confidence the men have in one another and in their weapons, on the one hand. and their confidence, respect, and trust in their leader on the other hand. That's what it is, already been mentioned. In units lacking these critical elements of confidence, performance in combat is likely unreliable. The men are likely to be subject to exaggerated fears, both real and imagined dangers, and to be overly concerned for their own personal welfare. Further, they will be less capable of withstanding the stresses of combat. The man who feels psychologically alone on the battlefield because he has not learned to trust his fellow soldiers and his leader is likely to feel overwhelmed by the dangers he faces. That is, if he does not feel himself to be a member of a real team in which each man can count on the support of others in the time of need, he is much more likely to feel that the danger and threat of the forces opposing him are more than he can handle. From such feelings spring despair and psychological defeat. It has been observed that in many of the great historical battles The defeated army actually broke before physical contact was made and suffered the majority of its casualties in the pursuit that follows. So that's why we strive to unify teams and bring them together, build those bonds, because that's the most powerful thing in that team. Confidence in each other. We're going to get the job done. But occasionally people will quit, let's say, SEAL training, pretty deep in the process. They've been through a majority of the process, and they quit. And people are, oh, do they talk to them? Do they give them another chance? And it's like, no, no. Because that person has broken the bond. Like, we can't count on you. It was cold. It was wet. It was miserable. You were scared. Whatever the thing was, you quit. And now, if you're with me, I don't trust you. That's a problem. The question then is, how does the small unit leader build psychological steel into the spines of his men? How can he produce the inflexible will that leads to domination and subsequent destruction of the enemy? These are probably two of the best questions I've read in quite some time. Psychological steel into the spines of his men, and how can he produce the inflexible will that leads to domination, subsequent destruction of the enemy? Napoleon, after Waterloo, was observed to have said that he lost primarily because his men had not eaten bread together often enough prior to the battle. Said another way, they had not learned to trust and depend on one another. They had not yet become effective units. They had not yet become willing to suffer injury or death rather than see their units beaten. They did not have the psychological steel of will that sustains men in combat. This kind of stamina is no less important today than it was in Napoleon's day, nor is it any easier to develop. Now, what's interesting about that was it says we didn't spend enough time eating bread together. That's wrong. You don't develop those kind of bonds of steel by going out to dinner with people. You have to go through something harder than that. That can be a little frosting on the top of a cake. It's probably not even the frosting. It's like sprinkles. It's like coconut flakes. It's a tiny little bit. Oh, we ate dinner together. I can go eat dinner with someone. I have no bond with them whatsoever. You know what I mean? Yeah. It's just how. Do you think, because I'm kind of looking at this whole thing comprehensively, where eating dinner together, eating bread, whatever, it's kind of like the downtime, right? Yes. And so if you look at it as a whole, it's kind of like, wait a minute, it might be just as important, but you can't, it's not important without the other. Yes. You know, like, then it becomes kind of a nothing thing. So, like. Are you about to talk about working out? Yeah. Okay, cool. Cool, yeah. So, it's the same thing, right? Where it's like, no, no, no. Like, your muscles built when you work hard and, you know, mechanical tension, all this stuff. It's like, no, not really. That is an important part of it. But the recovery is part of it as well. The recovery and, you know, and the nutrition, whatever. So, it's kind of the same thing. Where they, if there's, if overall. And, you know, meat, I don't know. I wasn't, you know. But maybe, though, because I kind of could feel this kind of stuff. You went through football practice, right? Exactly, right. And we all ate together, too. So what you do is comprehensively you have this big system, right? And the system is meant for development, right? Development and then for a certain task to be overcome, whatever. Through that development, which is kind of what I said, I forget if it was on air or off air, but I was like, I kind of started to think where, yeah, you can go through hard stuff together, But the real important part is the hard stuff has to be part of a process of development. That's why you make friends in school because you're growing up together, you know. So it's like, okay, military is a big, perfect example of that, right? So you're going through this developmental process that's hard and all this stuff, right? And then in combat, same thing, right? You're trying to achieve this goal. You're going through this hard, but then the recovery part of it as well, where you guys can like debrief and, you know, rest together. And like, you know, so it's like you guys are going through this process on all sides, you know, not just the hard part. And then you guys retreat and then, you know, debrief with your family who wasn't there, by the way, kind of a thing. It's like, you know. Yeah, it definitely is a part. It's probably not quite as a mirror of working out because let's face it, if you worked out with no rest, you would just die. Yes. And I guess similarly, if you just get put through the crucible over and over without any recovery, you would die as well. But it's not quite a one-to-one. But you're certainly right. But here's the thing, and I say this all the time when I talk about people, build relationships with your people because that's what this is talking about. Build relationships with people and be like, oh, I'll ask them out for lunch or we'll go get a cup of coffee. That's not how you build relationships. You need to do something with them. And you need to overcome things. You need to face challenges. And those challenges allow you to trust, listen, respect, influence, and care. They allow you to show people you care about them. They allow people to put trust in each other. It's those things that you're going to go through, like in combat. Like, oh, you were next to me in the foxhole in combat, and you stayed with me? Now we have trust. I was about to go do something, and you were like, don't go yet, and I listened to you? Now we're listening to each other. So it's all these things that they have an opportunity to manifest when you're going through something hard. And then once you go through something hard, yeah, taking a little bit of time to break bread or whatever. But if, hey, we're getting ready for war and what we did was go out for dinner every night. Yeah, that's like, oh, I'm going to get big and strong, but you don't lift. You just eat the right things and sleep. You would gain weight, but it wouldn't be effective. Not effective. I think that I don't know I mean maybe we're saying the same thing but I don't know I feel like they might be equal only in this case and maybe maybe not equal but I don't want to understate it only because like when you think of like even a relationship with a friend or your wife or anything like this it's kind of like oh yeah we've been through hard times together right and it's like oh that's very compelling but bro if you went through equal good times together bro that's going to be double compelling what if you only went through hard times together and just like let's say you went 80 percent 80 20 80 hard 20 good i don't know bro that's kind of flimsy a little bit yeah well it's the same thing as like only going through good times together which you can like do something really fun with someone yeah and then it's not quite as good it's not quite as tight of a bond as you did something hard oh yeah and then yeah and then if you do something hard together it's like kind of flimsy kind of you know unstable or something like this yeah it makes sense so yeah maybe like i said i I think, I don't know, I'm starting to think like it's a 50-50. Yeah, that's cool. I'm not going to sit here and argue percentages with you, but it is not worth it. The main thing is, is that there's components of it, and they're both important, as you like to say. Going back to the book here. Similarly, the ability as a leader to develop individual soldiers rugged enough to withstand combat and to weld them into effective units is not easily gained. Such an ability perhaps can be compared to, with that of a rare mechanic who can tune a Grand Prix racing car to the point that it yields extra power to produce a winner. Such a man is highly sensitive to the state of the machinery with which he works. When he listens, he hears sounds that others do not hear because they have not learned to hear them and distinguishes those sounds that are meaningful from the background din of sounds that mean nothing. In the same way, when the leader tunes his unit for outstanding combat performance, He must watch and listen for all those things that are meaningful, disregarding those things that mean nothing. Analysis of the leadership abilities of successful leaders leads to the conclusion that they have learned what to listen for and the actions to take for each meaningful sound. Unsuccessful leaders, for one reason or another, have not. Pretty cool analogy there. And there's a lot of sound coming out of a sail platoon. You know, a lot of things are getting said and which ones are important, which ones are not. And recognizing how do you, oh, that sounds important. What do I do to deal with that sound? Oh, there's another loud noise, but it doesn't even matter. I don't have to do anything. A vital next question is how the leader gets this ability. Are some men born with it or can all men learn it given the opportunity? Unfortunately, no one can answer these questions without with any absolute degree of certainty. The outstandingly effective leader may well have been born with a particular combination of physical characteristics that enable him as he grows older to learn to lead others as he does. On the other hand, this may not be true. Careful analysis of the characteristics of great leaders has failed to identify consistent, dramatic characteristics that are typical of all great leaders and not typical of all other persons. So you can study all these people. They're all different. Each had his own particular brand of greatness, which was composed of a unique balance of personal characteristics. On the other hand, there is little question that each of these men was able to rise to the demands of the crisis situations, both to solve the technical problems of confronting them and to inspire their subordinates to work together to achieve the necessary objectives. Fortunately, these are skills that can be learned by most, if not all, who aspire to become effective leaders. That kind of reminds me of, you know, like in jujitsu where someone that's super flexible develops a whole game around being flexible. Someone that's super strong develops a whole – someone that's super big develops a game around that. And even, you know, this is a little bit more narrow, but like pitching a baseball and some people – like you ever seen a sidearm pitcher? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, like they – that's not the technical way to do it, but it's however their body works and so they make it work. And so that's the same thing with leadership. You've got to figure out how it's going to be and how you're going to use these moves. Some of them aren't going to be effective. Some of them are. Of these two skills, the ability to solve technical problems and to inspire subordinates to achieve objectives, the second will be the primary concern of this text. It perhaps is the more difficult to learn. Yeah, that makes sense. The basis for this skill is the ability to understand motivations, beliefs, desires, and even fears of one's subordinates. The leader must know the reasons for the actions his men take, why they behave as they do. He must understand why some of his men readily develop a wide circle of friends and others do not. Why some of his men seem willing to try anything while others fear to try the easy. Why some of his men will do a good job with anything they try and why others will be satisfied with the least effort they are allowed to get by with. These are human beings. In short, a basic understanding of human behavior and motivation factors is essential to one who aspires to be a successful leader. You know, I hear that sometimes. Well, you know, you were in the SEAL team, so everyone, it's just an easy, it's totally different than the civilian sector. I mean, I've debunked that theory a thousand times at this point. But, yeah, if you think in a SEAL platoon, there's not some guy that's just trying to get by with a bare minimum. And some guy that's actually trying to, never mind the bare minimum, there's a guy that's trying to straight up avoid work. Straight up. That's in a damn SEAL platoon. And there's some overachiever that wants all the credit that's trying to get promoted. Yep, they're all in there. And they're everywhere. And there's some guys, oh, in a SEAL platoon, those guys have overcome fear. No. No, not true. Guys are going to be afraid. Some guys won't be. How well do you understand human behavior so you can make all this, mix all these ingredients together and get a high-performing team? There are laws that govern the behavior of men when they interact. One squad member does not start from scratch when he begins to interact with another squad member on the day he joins the squad, nor does he start from scratch when he first reports to his platoon leader. Though much learning will happen from this first day on, the learning that occurs will be built on the foundation of prior experience. For example, the child has learned much from his parent and other adults, both in home and at school, about how he can and should react to those who have authority over him. He has developed attitudes towards authority figures as well as toward persons he regards as his equal. These attitudes will determine in large part how he behaves towards such persons. if the small unit leader recognizes and understands these and other kinds of attitudes, he will be able to much better tune his subordinates to work effectively as a member of the team. So there you go. You're going to have a bunch of different people. How are you going to tune them? In addition to understanding of the attitudes, beliefs, and values of his subordinates, the effective leader must also understand his role within the unit. He must understand what his men expect of him as a leader and why. This implies more than simply understanding one's subordinates. Units have leaders for important reasons. That is, leaders serve important functions for the units they lead. Understanding and acceptance of these functions or responsibilities are essential to success as a leader. You've got to know what your job is as a leader. Fast forward here. Prediction of behavior. It is reasonable to wonder why the ability to predict the behavior of others is either useful or essential to a leader. In the typical small military unit, it would seem on the surface that the leader merely needs to analyze the military situation he faces, determine the best solution, and tell his men what to do, right? Hey, I'm a military leader. I see the situation. Here's what we're going to do. However, things are rarely quite this simple. Individual morale and unit esprit de corps play an important role in determining how well and how reliably assigned duties are accomplished. accomplished. Morale and esprit de corps in turn are affected in a major way by the manner in which the leader interacts with his unit. Thus, the leader must always keep two things in mind. One is giving orders, guidance, and instructions in a manner that members of his unit clearly know what is desired and how to do it. This is the technical part of his job. The second is making his actions positively affect the morale of his men and their motivation to accomplish assigned duties. so the whole thing that's all this is about everything that you and I have talked about in this podcast for 10 years is guess what it ain't simple it's not hey we gotta ambush these people go set up the ambush like this nope there's all kinds of things going on because that point man I don't really think we should put the ambush over there and your second in command is like we shouldn't be doing an operations night we're tired from last night and we can just go on and on and on from there, bro. The value of high morale cannot be overemphasized. Though it is influential in determining the extent to which men will do a good job in any assigned mission, its importance as a factor in unit performance increases under stressful conditions. It also affects a spree and the degree to which the leader can rely on his men to continue working toward accomplishment of the mission if something happens to prevent him from further supervising the unit's work. So you got to get that team moving. And regardless of what happens to you, they got to keep moving. And experienced leaders, as experienced leaders know well, in some units, the loss of the leader sometimes results in a complete loss of direction and effort. In other units, loss of the leader has much less effect on the desire of the unit to achieve its objective. While morale and esprit de corps are not the only differences between such units, they are major factors. This, in turn, is largely a result of how the leader typically has interacted with his men in the past. There's a lot riding on that leader, man. Building that esprit de corps. Keeping that morale high. Most of the leader's interactions with his men concern their performance on previously assigned duties and the duties they must perform in the future. And that's, you know, if every action interaction I have, the majority, if you work with me, the majority of interactions we have are probably going to be around what we're doing, our job. That is, most of the time he's talking to the subordinates, he will be talking about matters relating to assigned duties. That is about things they must do, are doing, or have done. The way he interacts with his men on such matters and, of course, their reactions to his manner will have a substantial effect on the extent to which he can rely on them to do good work without close supervision. So what is all that saying? What kind of relationship you got with your troops? That's what it's saying. What kind of relationship have you got with your troops? Because if you don't have a good relationship, they're not going to do what you want them to do. And they're definitely not going to do it if you're not there. Fast forward a little bit. Few leaders can say there has never been a time that they wish they could unsay something they just said. in the heat of an argument in the midst of a crisis situation or when smarting from a stinging rebuke from one own senior it is the rare leader who never says something that insults offends or downgrades his own subordinates It's kind of a bummer. Again, it is reasonable to ask just how important this is in a military unit. What difference does it make that his men are insulted, offended, or downgraded? Can't he just order them to do a good job anyway on the next assignment? There you go. That's what people think of the military. It's like, oh, you're all mad and frustrated. It doesn't matter. You're a subordinate to me, so I order you to do something. You just do it. It don't work that way. The answer to this is pretty clear. Even if given a direct order, how much a man actually wants to do a good job is going to have a lot to do with how well the job is done. Since the leader's behavior toward his men has a lot to do with their motivation, it will also have a lot to do with how hard they try to do well on assigned duties. Thus, the leader must be concerned with how his actions affect his men and their motivation to do good work. That's why I say every time I interact with someone on my team, I'm trying to build the relationship every single time. Is that leadership capital? Yes, it is leadership capital all day. I'm trying to put deposits into the leadership capital bank account. And yet we have a little warning. One caution here, though, is that this does not mean that he should try and be popular with his men. Nothing could be worse. This should illustrate in part why the ability of a leader to predict the behaviors of his men accurately is an important asset. One of the main things he will be predicting is their reaction to his leadership. If he can predict accurately, and if the prediction for a given situation is that they will react in an undesirable manner, he can change his plan. So if I know that walking into you and yelling at you about something is just going to make you resentful and mad, I can change my plan. Maybe I shouldn't be yelling at you. Sometimes, of course, there's no easy way out of a situation. If so, a leader has no choice but to put a mission first and take the result as best he can. However, most of the time, if he can think ahead and predict accurately, he will be much better able to control the reactions of his men by controlling his own behavior and the situation. Own. Ownership. Like, how you behave as a leader has such a huge impact on what's going to happen with the troops. However, this is interesting, predicting the reactions of his men is only part of the problem, though it is a major part. The second part is predicting his own reactions, both to his situations and to subordinates. A third part is predicting their reactions to other members of the unit and to problem situations they encounter. I really like the idea of are you able to predict your own reactions? And this is, you know, are you going to lose your temper? Do you know that you tend to overreact on things? Do you know that you tend to overplan? Do you know that you get hyper-focused? Do you know that you get target fixation? Do you know that you talk down to people? Like all these things. Knowing how you are going to react is, in my mind, it's actually more important than knowing how they're going to react. But they're all, I'm not going to have a percentage battle with you, but they're all important. Yeah, it does make sense. So like even like being forgetful, for example. I mean, I'm thinking of all this stuff in terms of non-military applications, we'll say. But yeah, if I'm like, oh yeah, if I come up with some plan, then I don't know. I'm going to teach my son how to do X, Y, Z. And I'm like, okay, I know. It's going to be up to me, you know, because he's not, it's pretty rare. He's just going to be fired up long term for something. But that guy doesn't know, you know, what he's even going to do tomorrow. So he doesn't know. So it's up to me. but that if I'm like, hey, I know I kind of forget about this stuff. You know how the day will just go by, then another day, and it's like, Brian, we didn't go wherever to go train for this thing in days. And if you know you're like that, I feel like you can take some measures. Yo, definitely you can take measures. That's what this is saying. You have to take measures. Yeah, yeah, yeah. In many of these cases, thinking about the situation and his own personality characteristics might have enabled him to predict accurately what his own behavior would likely have been. I forget things a lot. I need to put an alarm on my iPhone so I remember that today is the day we're going to go through mount escapes, whatever the case may be. if done far enough ahead such thinking might enable him to avoid the situation or change it before it developed to the critical point of saying or doing the wrong thing the third point the third of the points above predicting reactions of subordinates to other members of the unit and the situations will receive a good deal of treatment this is among other things the ability to anticipate the actions of his men in difficult situations or orders that they might received the advantage of being able to predict such actions is that the leader can often take action to better control his men at such times to help keep them out of trouble and even to change their reactions to orders and situations they would likewise dislike very much. So there you go. Knowing your people, knowing yourself. That's what this is. And then knowing like the team, right? Because the individuals might, one individual might react one way, another individual might react another way. But how's the whole group? How's the group as a whole going to react? It should be clear that a central theme in this discussion is the ability to predict enables the leader to remove the element of surprise from leadership problem situations. Surprise is no less important in these situations than in tactical situations when confronting an enemy force. Tactically, the offense carries the initiative because if executed properly, it carries the element of surprise. The unexpected is effective not only because it masses the attacking force while the defender must distribute his forces by guess, but it also carries an unnerving quality that limits the ability of the defender to reply effectively with the force he has. In contrast, if the attacker's intentions are known ahead of time, thus depraving him of the element of surprise, the defensive force often will gain the upper hand by a decisive margin. That's why the element of surprise is so important. That's why it's really crazy when Hicks and Gracie tells five different black belts, I'm going to arm lock your left arm because it is really hard when you tell somebody what you're going to do to them and then you try and do it. Those are some skills right there. Similarly, the ability to anticipate and predict accurately the behavior of others will enable the leader to remove the element of surprise from their reactions to him and to leadership situations of which they are part. By being prepared for their reactions, the leader not only can control his own behavior better but also can better control the behavior of his men as he interacts with them. This is why role play is a good thing. Going through some role play. And also, I think this is, a lot of this stuff people are probably doing somewhat intuitively. We're somewhat going to intuitively like, oh, when I tell my kids that we've got to do yard work today, I know they're not going to be happy. It's a Saturday, whatever. We kind of are intuitively doing this stuff. But when you are intuitively doing something and then you identify it and now you can be more intentional about doing it. As the previous chapter indicates, an essential element that precedes the ability to predict the actions of others is understanding their beliefs, attitudes, motives, and so on. Said another way, this is the ability of the leader to put himself in the place of his subordinate and then accurately estimate how his subordinate is reacting. It is the ability to see the situation as his subordinate does. Given this, he can make some pretty good guesses as to what his subordinate thinks about the situation and how it will react. This is perspective. This is one of those things. It's in the extreme ownership leadership loop. One of the steps is perspective, understanding as many people's perspective as you can on this decision that you have to make. How is this going to affect the frontline troops? How is this going to affect the mid-level managers? How is it going to affect the people on this other team? How is it going to affect my boss? What is he going to think of this? So you need to understand other people's perspective. Yeah. Sometimes I feel like I'm speaking from my own experience back in the day where I'd be like, hey, I think of someone else's perspective, but it's still from my perspective, just from their position. You know, so, you know, like, for example, I mean, there's a small example, but it's real where it's like, OK, I'm going to get my brother a gift for Christmas. and I get them something. Actually, I did this to my current wife, which was my girlfriend back in the day. So I got her a surround sound system. She wasn't like all that fired up about it. In her mind, she's like, I don't care about surround sound, but guess who does? Guess who was the best gift ever. Yeah, yeah. It was for her house. You see what I'm saying? But yeah, yeah. So it's like, that's me looking at things from her position, not her perspective. You know? Yep. It's still your perspective. At least you didn't get her a vacuum. It's way different. But valid, valid for sure. Many inexperienced leaders make the mistake of trying to be popular. One of the most used ways of attempting to be popular is to, quote, go easy on enforcing proper standards of excellence for the performance of the unit. The inevitable outcome is the leader's own senior eventually will note the lowered unit performance with the result that the unit will lose privileges or worse and the leader will be reprimanded or worse. Thus, a leader's easygoing treatment of his men will backfire and hurt both. When his men get hurt, they will blame him for the hurt and distrust his leadership. The result will be that not only will he not be popular, but also he will have lost the respect of his men. So you've got to be careful of that one. Group influences on leadership behavior. The various kinds of groups that have leaders can be categorized into two types. And this is what I talked about earlier. There's a bifurcation, two types of leaders. on the basis of how the leader comes to have leadership status within the group. In one type, the leader emerges from within the group. In another type, he is appointed by someone outside the group. It is important to distinguish between these two types of groups because the leader actions that are effective in one type may not be and often are not the kind of leader action that is effective in the other. Now, here's where... Well, I'm going to make a statement here in a second. So the source of the leader's authority. In the emergent leader group, the leader at one time was one of the group. At some subsequent time during the life of the group, he then emerged as an accepted source of influence within the group. That is, over a period of time, sometimes a short time, he became more and more influential with the group until he finally was either one of the most important group members or the most influential group member. By influential is meant that if he suggests or asks or tells another group member to do something, it will be done. If he proposes a course of action to the group, it will be approved by the group. If a group member is at loss on how to proceed, he will usually ask the leader, though he may ask sometimes someone else. Thus, the leader is the one group member who is the most able to influence others. and then the key underlying variable in this description of emergent leadership that's what they call this emergent leadership is the fact that the leader remains the leader only as long as he has influence over the majority of the group he can be superseded at any time that another group member accumulates a greater base of influence and support within the group thus the leader in an emergent situation must continually seek to retain his base of support and acceptance within the group. This, interestingly, gives group members a substantial degree of influence over the leader. The situation in which the leader is appointed, in contrast, is quite different. In most appointed leadership positions, the group is part of a hierarchical organization, i.e. an organization that has many different levels within itself. The leader of such a group is always chosen to be the leader by someone or some group of persons who are higher in the organization than the group concerned. In most cases, this person or these persons then are the source of authority to which the leader is responsible. The leader may or may not have been a group member of the group before he was chosen to lead it. In either case, the group members will probably have had little to say about his being chosen as the group leader, and they will have little power to replace him if they do not like him. Thus, in such groups, the leader owes his position of influence to someone or some group higher in the organization. If one speaks of the leader's source of authority, it is clear that this source for the appointed leader is someone who is his boss and indeed the organization itself. This is a sharp contrast to the source of authority in emergent groups, which is the group itself. Thus, if the problem of retaining the position of leadership is posed as who the leader must please, it is clear that the emergent leader must please the group itself. This he does by behaving in accordance with the expectations of a majority of the members of the group who then support his leadership. In sharp contrast, the appointed leader must please the organization for this is his source of continued authority. This he does by discharging the responsibilities given him by the organization as the formal leader of the group. The appointed leader is the personal representative in the group of higher levels within the organization. His purpose is to ensure that the group fulfills its part of the overall objective of the organization by giving technical information and guidance where necessary to influence the ability of a subordinates and by using the rewards and punishments placed at his disposal by the organization to influence motivation. Okay, so that's a massive chunk. and here's where I am going to go with this and this is something at the council Echelon Front Council I spent a big chunk of time this past year talking about what I didn't I didn't use this term emergent leader I used the term primal primordial leader or primal leader and what I meant by that was you like when you're on a football team and there's the team captain, right? And he's appointed by the coach. And if he's appointed by the coach, but he's kind of like weak or soft or a jerk, he won't have the emergent leader following. And what my, even though this document bifurcates these things, I believe as much as you possibly can as a leader, you want to unify these things. And you want to unify these things because if you just get appointed to be put in charge of people and you don't have the respect of the team, it's not going to be effective leadership. And so, now listen, are there times at the phrase of, you know, where sometimes, like a rare occasion, you know, the appointed leader has to say, listen, I know that this is going to hurt, but we got to do it because that's what the goals of the organization are. Yep, that does happen. And are there times where, hey, we're going to take care of the team and like I'm going to have to tell the boss like, hey, we didn't make that happen because it was going to hurt the team too much? Yes. So I don't see this as a full bifurcation at all. I think it's like just a balance that you're constantly trying to maintain. And if you don't try and maintain it, you're just like, oh, well, corporate wants us to do this, so that's what we're doing. And that's your attitude because you were appointed and you're the personal representative of the leadership above you. And the organization itself, that's going to be problematic. So really think about that. How did you end up here? And one of the things that I pointed out with these primal leaders is it's based on the values of the group, right? So, for instance, and they can be wildly different. So, for instance, if you and I were members of a biker gang and I've been to prison because someone in the biker gang got in trouble and I didn't rat them out, so I went to prison, does the group value and respect for me go up or down? Up. Right. Now, if you and I were bankers and I had gone to prison because someone did something fraudulent and I covered up for him and you and you were working with me, would you respect me to go up or down? You see what I'm saying? So you have to understand what these dynamics are. And there are some you almost completely universal things that are respect. One of them is, for instance, being unselfish. Selflessness is kind of a universal thing that everyone goes, oh, yeah, that person is not going to screw you over. He's going to take care of the team. Competency in your job. Competency in your job will get you some cred. And there's a whole list of things that you could think about that give you rank and leadership capital inside of a group. And it's based on what the values of the group are. Jiu-Jitsu. Like someone could be a black belt. There could be a person that's a brown belt. And the brown belt could actually be the more solid emergent leader because he's a better coach. He's a better instructor. He could be better at jiu-jitsu, in fact. And he could be teaching people more and investing more in them. And meanwhile, the black belt is just he might have the rank, but he doesn't show up and all that other stuff. so my my advice in this scenario would be as often as you can you want to merge these two things you want to merge them and you want to utilize as rarely as possible do you want to utilize your authority you want to utilize your influence as a emergent leader the vast majority of the time all the time if you can so that's what I got there it is interesting know that what you just said about you got to know the dynamics and the values of the group. For sure. So like you know this idea in the military it's like different but not that much different. So like this idea of quote unquote being a hard worker. You know? But sometimes if you're not in touch with a group you can kind of demonstrate to be too hard of a worker. For sure. See what I'm saying? But on the surface or on paper you might be like oh I don't know. Basically the harder worker the better. Really? When it comes out. But if you don't know, you can work yourself right out of the group. Freaking society. You can outshine everyone. And they're like, dude, what are you doing? We just had an Echelon Front meeting today. And we're recording this, you and I, right now. It's Friday. The Friday of a three-day weekend. And we had a little Echelon Front cadre meeting. We're going through some stuff. And they're like, hey, Jocko, you got anything? I'm like, hey, we've been on here for a half an hour. It's Friday. I'm not going to be the guy that says, hey, teacher, do we have any homework this week? weekend, right? And everyone laughed and I said, hey, if you don't have anything to do, don't do it here. You know what I'm saying? So I could have been like, hey, you know, I actually use some detailed information I want to put out to all you guys. It's Friday, bro. And by the way, some people on the East Coast, it's afternoon, like they're ready to roll. So what am I doing? Got to remember where that emergent group leadership plays in. Where that primal leadership. You know, and I talked about this too, like the primal leadership. Like there's things, like when you're in a sail platoon being strong is good i mean obviously being able to fight is good there is a pecking order it's a real thing and listen going back to like the the jordan peterson you know thing where hey if i'm the biggest chimpanzee and i just like beat all the other chimpanzees into submission that's not leadership right in fact some of those smaller chimps will gang up on me and beat me and one of them will take leadership role. So I'm not saying that, but it's a component. It's a component that's real. And so that's like job, and sort of in the SEAL teams, that's kind of job competency, right? Because you're essentially supposed to be able to like fight other dudes. Like that's part of what your job is. So if you can't really fight other dudes, you know, it's a little, now listen, it doesn't mean you need to be the biggest, strongest guy, but you can't just be like a pushover. Right, right. You don't want that. It's very granular, we'll say, for lack of a better term. Yeah, you want to be good at fighting, we'll say. And down to fight, too. Because that's another additional thing with capability. But you don't want to be over-demonstrating that all the time. See what I'm saying? So it's like you've got to have this power. So it's like the difference between power and control. kind of a thing. Yeah, and so it starts to become like a different thing though, because it's like performative, demonstrative, you know, like the idea of I want to be able to, let's say you have a friend, right, and you guys go everywhere, go places together. You want him to know how to fight, but you don't want him to be fighting everybody all the time. You see what I'm saying? So it's like this weird dichotomy in that way. Yeah. Yeah, if you go too far with anything and like you can't take this guy anywhere that's a problem yeah it's almost like a catch-22 so like it's not even a catch just a balance of the economy of leadership like if you if i go with you and i know that if something happens to me i get jumped you're gonna have my back you're gonna help me win a fight because you know how to fight that's cool if everywhere i take you you're taking a swing at the bouncers and running your mouth and getting problems all the time that's gonna suck yeah but it's like but also if you're like a person that like oh i get jumped and you're gonna run away that's not good either we want to be balanced That's the dichotomy of leadership. Yeah, that's bad. Yeah, no, I guess I'm looking at it kind of on the surface where it's like, yeah, you want your friends to be down to fight, but not all the time. And in fact, the more they're down to fight in a practical sense where it's like the more they actually do get into fights, which proves you're down to fight, by the way, the worse it is. Yeah, at a certain point. Yeah. So, balance those two things. This emergent leader, this primal leader with this appointed leader. That's the way it is. And you know another thing that happens? Is people get jealous. Appointed leaders get jealous of emergent leaders. And they start to try and smash them down. And why not just make that person your ally? Bring them on board. Bring them on board. the role of the leader back to the book the role of the leader in these two different kinds of groups is determined by group goals group member goals and his own source of authority and influence within the group the emergent leader owes his authority and influence to a majority of the members in the group he is responsible to them and must please them in order to retain his influence and I will tell you you should keep that in mind even as an appointed leader The key variable in pleasing group members typically is his ability to manage the resources of the group in order to further the individual goals of the group members. The appointed leader, on the other hand, owes his authority to the organization. However, the source of his ability to influence the group members is somewhat more complex than is the case for the emergent leaders. Influence does not follow simply because the organization appoints him to a position of leadership, though this has a lot to do with his having influence. And I've always tell people, like leadership capital, you barely get any points for your rank. Barely. Like you get some, but you don't get a lot. And that's kind of what they're saying here. They say the opposite a little bit, though this does have a lot to do with his having influence. It doesn't have as much as they're saying. It has some. The actual source of his influence stems from his success in mediating between the organization and members of the group. This is what I agree with. This is very important. On the one hand, he must manage the resources of the group to accomplish in the most efficient manner possible the mission or goal assigned to the group. And on the other hand, he must obtain for individuals within the group rewards from the organization that are commensurate with their contribution to achievement of group goals. So that is true. You as a leader are going to be constantly trying to balance what you're taking away from the team in order to accomplish the mission. And then what do you give them back? And, you know, it can be something very simple like, oh, if we do this right now, we're going to get some rest. That's a reward. It could be as simple as that. But then it could be as big as, oh, we're going to get bonuses if we close this deal. Like all those things. The two general functions of the military leader. The leader's actions thus must accomplish two general functions. One, and this must be the first priority, is to ensure that his unit achieves objectives set for it by his senior officers. If these objectives are not attained, his unit may be or become a weak link that jeopardizes Army attainment of overall goals. Of next importance, he must ensure that the needs of his men are met. If they are not met, the Army will cease to be attractive as a career, and the resulting loss of potential career personnel will decrease operating efficiency and combat readiness. the leader of course has many other functions but these must be considered the two primary responsibilities of the military leader and I really put these things like almost on par if not on par because if you just accomplish a mission but you burn out your people you're not you might accomplish the tactical mission but not the strategic one so that why as a matter of fact I say it I think these two things are on par However what I will say is there are moments in time when one supersedes the other and there are other times when the other supersedes the first. So there are times when I'm going to focus on and prioritize taking care of the guys, and there are times when I will prioritize and focus resources on getting the mission accomplished. those are two things that are going to sometimes be a priority but if you just all the time prioritize the mission you're going to burn your crew out I mean not to mention just taking casualties getting people killed but whatever in the workforce it might be just getting people to leave the company because you're freaking stressing them out so bad but you have to balance those two those two are equal and you have to know when to press the gas on one and the brakes on the other when to put the brakes on that one and put the gas on the other very important thing to think about there is a clear cut distinction between the emergent leader who owes his position of influence to the group he leads and the appointed leader who is placed in a position of responsibility and authority by the organization of which the group is part and again it's just so important to remember that if you're in a leadership position mentally you need to frame it that you work for the troops that you work for the troops and that they own you. You work for them. You hear people say that. It's like servant leadership, right? The appointed leader owes his authority to those superior to himself in authority and is responsible to them for the efficient management of resources placed at his disposal to accomplish the assigned missions. His primary responsibility thus is to obtain effective group performance in his accomplishment of such missions. A second responsibility is to obtain for the members of his group the rewards they have earned for effective performance. Both functions must be done well if his leadership is successful. Yeah. And again, I think that you as a human, as a leader, need to be both these things. And the men and the mission are both equally important. And you need to figure out when you lean into one and when you lean into the other. importance of accurate and clear guidance when the platoon leader is the main link between the company commander and the platoon the accuracy and clarity with which he provides guidance for the platoon is critically important especially in the army which has the authority to punish poor performance if this is necessary in order to achieve stated goals satisfactory work performance is a very important goal for the men. If their work meets required standards, they get rewards offered for this good work. If, on the other hand, their performance is poor, some or many of these rewards will be denied. In addition, the men may run the risk of being disciplined for not meeting the standards. Pretty straightforward. Making group operation automatic. The platoon leader will generally have another important goal in view as he guides platoon activities. The leader of any work group, platoons included, should always attempt to make the operation of his group more and more automatic. That is, he should attempt to train the group so that it can function as well without him as with him. Makes sense. That's decentralized command. As the appointed head of his unit, the platoon leader is the trustee of the efforts of his men. He's responsible for guiding their efforts so that they will meet the performance expectations of his own seniors. This requires that he, A, fully understands these expectations, B, translates them into clear and accurate guidance his men can understand, and C, evaluate both ongoing and completed work in terms of established performance standards so that errors or omissions can be corrected before final evaluations are made. That's what a leader is doing. And I really like the idea of the translation. You've got to understand it, and then you've got to translate it so they understand it. That's what a leader is doing. And now we get into motivation and personal need of all the areas of leader actions to be covered in this text. That of motivating performance is perhaps more important than any other. Men can be motivated to do good work in any number of different ways, some good and some bad. Depending on which method he uses, the leader can build a unit that prides itself in the quality of its work and will work equally well with or without his immediate supervision. Or he can build a unit that does not value good work except insofar as it promises some immediate gain. So clearly, what do we want? We want a team that has intrinsic motivation. not just discipline. Hey, if you don't do this, Echo, I'm going to punish you. No, Echo's going to do it because he knows that that's the right thing to do. He knows the value of it. He knows the rewards that he's going to get. This is kind of the opposite of me saying for all these years, don't worry about motivation. It's about discipline. That's self-discipline and self-motivation. This is the flip that over. Hey, I actually don't want you doing something because of discipline. I want you doing something because you are intrinsically motivated to make it happen. Using force as a motivator. How can a man be motivated to do good work if he does not value the available benefits? This is a problem military leaders have faced for centuries, probably from the date the first civilian was conscripted for military duty. The general solution to this problem has been a system of disciplinary actions that the army can legally take to force the civilian soldiers to do its will. Thus, if he does not obey orders and does not carry out assignments, the civilian soldier legally can be deprived of his remaining freedoms and in some cases even his life. We will kill you. Threats of such losses are powerful motivators and generally are sufficient to get compliance with orders that is necessary to carry out assigned missions. While it is unfortunate that this is the case, nevertheless, it is true that such a system of disciplinary acts must exist in order to ensure that orders are obeyed and that assignments are completed. So, there you go. However, the existence of such a system of authority is by no means an indication that its use constitutes the proper way to motivate one's men. Thank you. On the contrary, it is a makeshift way to elicit good performance and should be saved as a last resort for those who cannot otherwise be induced to do good work. The reason is rather simple. When threats of punishment for poor performance are the leader's primary means for securing good performance, the men learn rather quickly that the objective is not really to do good work, but rather to avoid getting caught doing good work. further they learn rather quickly those things for which they are likely to get caught the end result is a unit that requires extremely close supervision for effective performance and that's terrible indeed this is very likely the origin of the old military maxim close and continuous supervision is an absolute necessity that's terrible simply stated in a unit motivated primarily by fear and punishment for poor work, performance decrements are likely to occur in the leader's absence if there are ways of covering them up. And because the leader cannot be everywhere at once, there's a strong likelihood that his unit eventually will become well-versed in looking good as opposed to being good. They go into a section here where they break down three general categories of recruits. And what do they end up with? Career-minded volunteers. This is a small group for two reasons. Very low percentage of 18- and 19-year-old males in our society have made stable career decisions. The second is that an enlisted career, unfortunately, is not considered an attractive one among many levels in this society. Again, this is written in 1965. I don't agree with that. I'm all about it. Draftees or unwilling volunteers. The members of this category have fairly well-formulated career plans relating to the civilian economy or have decided for other reasons that the Army is not for them as a career. This group constitutes a staggeringly large percentage of all recruits. And then finally, misfits. These persons may be either draftees or volunteers. In either case, they can be recognized by the fact that they probably have not made satisfactory adjustments in their home, school, lives, or civilian economy prior to reception into the Army. They are wanderers. fleeing from one unsuccessful adjustment attempt to the next. The odds are very low that they will adjust in the Army any better than the civilian economy. And then it goes on to say, Career-minded volunteers are positively motivated from the start and value the good things the Army has to offer. They are already motivated. The leader's problem mainly is to ensure their enthusiasm for the service is not destroyed by unskilled subordinate leaders. It's funny how that happens in civilian companies as well. Like you get some young person that's all fired up to do something and then they end up working for a jackass or a terrible leader and they don't want to do that anymore. Turned off. Especially in this day and age. There's so many opportunities people can, you know, you can send out your resume on whatever. There's so many ways to review or view other job opportunities and people just bounce, you know. In the old days, like if you got a job at some place, you were locked in. You're going to stay there for 38 years. You get a watch or whatever when you left. Sure. Most draftees also present no motivational problems for the effective leader, though for a different reason than given for the potential career soldier. Even though draftees might want very much to get out of the Army, these persons generally have sufficient emotional maturity to realize that they are now in the Army. They're required to do their bit to serve their country, and there's nothing they can do to change the situation. Once accepted, this realization enables the emotionally mature individual to make the best of his current situation, regardless of what that is. So there you go. That's like, you know, you're basic too. And of course, we don't have draftees anymore. And then finally, the misfit. Misfits are difficult to handle because they fundamentally motivationally are fundamentally motivational failures. In the process of growing into adolescence, the child generally finds that his parents and other adults exert pressures on him to behave in certain ways. This process is called socialization. Through it, the child learns to behave in ways considered adaptive in the adult world. The difficulty is that this process is not foolproof. If, in his early home environment, a child finds few constructive ways of reacting adaptively and of winning parental approval, he's likely to try to find other sources of approval. This most often is a group of children approximately his own age. Finding such approval and acceptance fills a need that seems highly important to the individual. However, there are difficulties here also. First, approval from outside the family strongly tends to reduce the need for parental approval. Thus, the child finds it less necessary to do things that win parental approval, and the socialization process is curtailed. Second, approval from other children tends to be based on actions that are antagonistic to adult values and the desires of the parents. This further curtails the socialization process. In some individuals, this results in a set of personal values antagonistic to the general values of society and the adult world. for present purposes the critical element of deviancy is that these individuals have not learned that they can earn the things they want by conforming to the accepted function of the social system. So they're breaking it down to the damn childhood. Yeah, man. Which the crazy thing is, is like, there's so many kids that grew up in really terrible situations with no parents, you know, single parents, parents that were, you know, single parent but working all the time. Basically, kids grow up without much of parents, and they grow up freaking awesome. So it's kind of an interesting take. Yeah, I still maintain that that's the vast minority of troubled kids. I think there's exceptions for sure. But I think most people who grow up jammed up become jammed up. I feel like that's a normal pipeline. Yeah, and that being said, some people that grew up in nice homes get jammed up. Yeah. So there's probably like some fundamental or a handful of fundamental factors that if they exist, even semi-consistently, you can be fine in one way or another. That's what it feels like. Whatever that handful of things are, it's not money. It's not, you know, it's not these superficial things. It's something in there that's consistent, I feel like. Well, it goes on here to say, ordinary motivational methods may not work with these individuals, particularly over short periods of time. Their general attitudes will illustrate the difficulties involved. Who wants a lousy promotion? Ha, I really don't want to pass anyways. What do you care whether I think, whether you, what do I care whether you think I did a good job? Who are you anyways? What do I care if you yell at me? That's nothing new. Proper handling of these. Isn't that crazy how you can just remove the punishment if you just say you don't care about it? Yeah. You know? Becomes ineffective. I remember when my son was literally got in trouble, and I went super hardcore in the paint on him and put him on a very strict regimen, and he was really young. This was a lot. But then I started giving him some of his privileges back, and then he did something else that was a little bit. I mean, he was like six years old, maybe. He did something that was kind of out of line. And I was like, hey, you know, if this kind of thing happens, I'm going to have to get strict with you again. And he looked at me and he said, maybe that would be best for me. And I was like, oh, dude, come on. Make me tough. Yeah. I was like, damn, dude. I don't want to do that. Yeah. I was talking to Anthony, the unchained fit. You know, he went to prison and stuff. And then, so you know how like you get, this is just a real general concept. You know how you get people who they're like, what do you call it, repeat offenders. And some people, they know they're going to go to jail if they do X, Y, Z. They know probability is pretty high, but they care a lot less. Let's say they're like me. I don't want to go to jail. That's kind of the last place. But if you want to be done 12 years and you don't really have much on the outside, you're like, hey. That second part right there, and this is what we were talking about, where if you don't have that much on the outside, on the inside, because you get stuff on the inside. like you get you become an emergent leader what do you mean meaning like you get the system you start to understand it you understand how it works you have clout because you did a certain thing like exactly right and this like imposition of like now you're in jail versus outside that you know like i'm imagining because i've never been to jail or prison i'm imagining hey i'm free one moment and then the next moment i'm not free like that's an imposition on my whole thing right that goes away after a while it's like oh yeah I've been here like three times already before this is like routine some of these guys even know hey I know this guy you see what I'm saying so it's almost like they have something in jail and he was saying some people they actually have a lot they have more in jail than they do out of jail and we don't think about that like really everyday but think about it what if most of your friends are like in jail or what if people like kind of he said because some people are more influential in jail so like people listen to For sure. Bro, imagine that where you go outside and no one's listening to you. You're kind of like, bro, I kind of would rather be in jail. Remember the Shawshank Redemption? Yeah, yeah, institutional. It's like, I just want to go back in there. Yeah, bro. Let me back. Yeah, and I understood what they meant in the movie, but I was like, bro, this is just a movie. You see what I'm saying? But when you kind of think about it and talking to Anthony about it, I was like, bro, that makes so much sense. It's just so different because I'm not used to that kind of stuff. Yeah, this can be hard when your biggest threat is like, you're going to go to jail. You're like, okay, whatever. ineffective deterrent. Yeah, exactly. Thus, the leader's dilemma is that when he confronted on the one hand with a few individuals who will not work for positive incentives and on the other hand with the realization that he must in some manner make them work, unfortunately, if good work is to be had from these persons, it often must be obtained at least initially through the use of negative incentives. That's kind of a bummer. And again, I think if you build relationships with people and you start giving them letting because one thing that he mentioned is like you can earn like you can earn respect in other ways and showing people how they can become an emergent leader putting them in charge of things understanding that they have value because they don't know that that happens to a lot of people myself included like when you join the military and it's like hey if you just do these basic things over here if you make if you set your locker up correctly you'll be rewarded you're like oh because in the civilian world it's like i don't know like what are you supposed to go to college You got to get these grades. There's like a test. Like there's all these things. It doesn't make no sense. Yeah. You know, so you're like, whatever, dude. And then you get in the military. It's like, no, just put your locker like this and you'll be rewarded. And you're like, okay, I can do that. Yeah. So how can you teach someone for the first time? Like, oh, here's what hard work will give you. Here's how it's not. Hey, Echo, if you don't do what I told you to do, you're not going to be able to leave base this weekend. Instead of being like, hey, dude, if you do what I told you to do, once you get done with that we're gonna have the opportunity to do this do what oh well you'll get this oh why oh because that's the way it works oh i didn't understand that so as much as you possibly can use that honey instead of uh what is it shit i think the honey shit one the carrot and stick i think it was more use more carrot if you can yeah use of negative incentives even with misfits negative incentives must be used the carrot says the same thing it is important to remember that the objective is never to create excessively strong fear. This would work to the detriment of the soldier's ability to do good work by making him worry too much about the possible consequences of failure. The more he worries, the less time he has available to think about what he's doing, the more likely it is to fail. If negative incentives are to be used as they must sometimes, the objective should be used the smallest force that will ensure the desired outcome. Minimal force required. I've been saying that for a long time. One of the best illustrations of proper limits is the constructive use of punishment that appears in parent-child relationships. As the child develops from babyhood, he must be socialized. That is, he must be taught the do's and the do nots. If he can be taught these through the use of positive incentives alone, this is by far the best way. However, positive incentives alone will almost never be enough. Before the child learns to talk well, he can not be reasoned with. He must be discouraged from the do nots, either with a roar of disapproval sufficient to discourage him or the SWAT on the backside. And I've never spanked my kids, and so I don't recommend that. And they've proven that. It doesn't really help. After the child learns to talk, he needs another period of time to learn that there are desirable things he can do to earn parental approval and that not all such approval implies. during this period of learning, he still must be discouraged from the do-nots by force if necessary. And by that means, like, if your kid is going to go near the light sockets, right, or your kid's going to do something dangerous, hazardous, going in the street, that kind of stuff, you might have to tighten them up. Yeah, that swat to the backside or the stick, as it were, that can come in a lot of many, many forms. so I would argue that some of the forms of the stick that you told me about that you used are worse than spanking my kids have told me they're worse than spanking yeah even me imagining it is worse than spanking just getting shunned that's like too much right yeah I look back I'm like yeah the shunning was a lot you know that's a lot for adults like even like you know if you have like friends or something I don't know whatever you know and you're mad at someone it's like psychological like a form of torture in a way. So like if you're, let's say if you're mad at me, and even you, I mean, you're a little bit different, but in this sense, not really, because even if I have like a normal friend, we'll just say, and I think, oh shoot, is he mad at me? And he's just not addressing it. He's just sort of a little bit more quiet. It torments me. I just want him to, hey, if you're mad at me, just yell at me. See what I'm saying? It's like that kind of stuff. Or like, okay, this is what my dad would do. He spanked us, but it was very predictable. He's very disciplined with his spanking. It's like you get three spanks, you know, there's a procedure. He's like, hey, you go pee, wait in your room. Now, I didn't realize this until later, but that process, you know, the procedures, go pee and then go wait in the room. So, waiting. So, psychological warfare. Yeah. That's what made it ten times worse. I mean, really, let's face it. I mean, I remember getting spanked. I mean, yeah, it hurt, but it was more scary. You see what I'm saying? Like this big freaking adult coming to freaking beat me, and I got to wait for that thing? Like, bro. So, like I said, the spankings, okay, it is what it is. See what I'm saying? Like, you get over the spanking. You're not injured, nothing like that. But waiting for that psychological, those things are worse. And I'm sure there's a lot of those. Definitely. Yeah. I don't even know if I'd recommend a lot of these. Because psychologically, I feel like that can scar you. In fact, that's the part that scars you, right? Because let's face it. I spanked my son once for hurting his sister out of anger. Oh, yes. I don't deserve one. But he was like three or four or something. And then I felt so bad. I was like, what is this? I'm a grown man, and I'm not weak either. I'm like, what am I doing? There has to be a better way is what I thought. There is definitely a better way. But, bro, I beat that little kid up all the time. But it's all with fun. You know, like in Jiu-Jitsu, bro, one time he tried to, like, toughen up in Jiu-Jitsu in a good way, by the way. So I was like, okay, good. And I made him earn it. Bro, I beat him down, like, bad. Oh, he was laughing. He was, like, positive. Because psychologically, it was, like, constructive. See what I'm saying? I could have done way less. If I ignored him all day, like, it would probably scar him for, like, years if I just ignored him. See what I'm saying? Sean. Bro, it's psychological. Yeah, I think the best thing to do is if you can detach and have good conversations with your kids, that's the protocol, man. Just like, hey, here's what's going on. Let them understand the why. Explain things to them. That is certainly the best way to handle things. And if things escalate, sometimes kids just go sideways, you know? And you might have to escalate your punishments and stuff like that. And that's when I start talking about privileges. Like everything that your kid has is a privilege, right? So what can you remove? How can you get them to earn it back? But, you know, all these things you have to be very careful. Just like I said earlier, if what you're doing is damaging your relationship, it's not good. Your relationship should be improving when you interact with your kids. So it's a challenge. The closeness of this analogy to the use of rewards and punishments in the platoon is so great that it will not be amplified further. It's like basically like these are your kids. The important elements are making clear what is expected, making clear the system of rewards and punishments, emphasizing the use of positive incentives whenever possible, and applying the system impartially, fairly, and consistently. Just as parents socialize children, the leader who does these things not only will maintain enthusiastic motivation among his well-adjusted men, but also will be able to reclaim a surprising number of misfits. Once they are socialized, they will soldier as well as the next man. We can get a motivational factors, as might be deduced from the material presented. A soldier's motivation to do good work is dependent on four factors. The soldier's feeling he can succeed if he tries. His feeling that his leader will recognize his good work, either tangibly or intangibly. The value he places on that recognition. His estimate of the probability that he will be punished if he does not try. Now, the one thing that is not on here, and it does get to it, but I can't believe it's not in these factors, is not wanting to let your team down. Because that's, to me, that's number one. The number one thing for me is like, oh, Echo expects me to do this. I do not want to let you down. That's the number one. I don't want to let my group down. But they do get to it. while an individual is said to work primarily for tangible benefits in the sense that he must have these to live, one of his chief goals in actual practice is to feel that he is important and worth something to someone else. One important source of this feeling is the belief that work is important to others. This is kind of what I was just talking about. The leader can create this by praising men for work well done. So they get to it, but it's definitely not as strong as I would think it would be. And even, you know, you hear this all the time about military. Like, you don't do it for the flag. You don't do it for the country. You do it for the guy to your left and your right. That's what this is talking about. And then it goes further here. Group support beyond the material things. An additional important category of positive incentives is available to the leader. Almost all well-adjusted adolescents and adults in this culture have learned the value of group support and value the esteem of their peers very highly as an indication that they are supported. So that's what I was talking about. Then they give an example here. A company commander was concerned with the lagging manner in which his company responded to the turnout whistle for Reveille. First call was 10 minutes prior to the second call, and the men often barely made the assembly. One morning, he told his men that he was surprised the last man to make formation each morning was so modest at all other times. Like, hey, man, I'm surprised that, you know, you're usually so modest. He went on to explain this remark by saying that the last man obviously considered himself so important that he could keep the rest of the company standing waiting for him in the cold first light of the morning. He further pointed out that the last man was not carrying his fair share of the total company load. This was not said threateningly either. Rather, he discussed the matter half seriously and half in jest. But this company commander was respected for his technical competence in running the company and for his fair treatment of the men What he said started them talking about the last man being the last man and taking a free ride on his buddy shoulders Soon there developed a noticeable reluctance to be the last man to make formation in the morning to the extent that two or more men would often attempt to leave the barracks at the same time. But more important, the men became so proficient at accomplishing their morning chores and so well motivated to do them rapidly and well that the company eventually made formation each morning in less than three minutes. And he goes on just to say, this technique is dangerous to some extent because it encourages competitiveness within the unit and may invite the scorn of the unit for the last man. Skill is required to keep the competitiveness from becoming dangerous. It might eventually become disruptive if it reached a point of throat cutting and to protect the last man from scorn if he is giving his best. This particular commander had these skills. Good example. I can see it. Distinction between motivation and ability. Work performance is, in general, the product of these two overall factors, ability and motivation. While those are not completely independent, it is convenient at times to consider them so. Thus, if ability is high but motivation is low, performance will be low. Performance will also be low if ability is low, even though motivation is high. One of the leader's greatest problems is reacting appropriately to poor performance, primarily because it is often questionable to which of these two factors, low ability or low motivation, the poor quality of the performance should be attributed. So you're either doing this, you don't have the ability to do it, and that's why you're failing or you're not motivated to do it, right? And that's why it goes on to say ability failures should not be punished. Of these two types of errors, the first is far more serious. There are at least three reasons for this. First, if a man gives his best, fails, then is punished, one can be quite sure he'll never try that hard again. If he's going to be punished for failing, he might as well be punished for not trying as well. Second, if he fails because of a lack of ability, his failure is not entirely his responsibility. Rather, it is mainly the responsibility of the leader who assigned him a task beyond the limits of his abilities. Thus, if a man gives his best and is still punished for failing, his motivation to try next time will be sharply reduced and he further will be resentful that he's punished for something that's not his fault. Those are really key points. Yeah. Yeah, I remember like on Karate Kid. You've watched Karate Kid? Yeah, but it's been a long time. That was what separated the bad instructor, where he punished Johnny for losing. He was doing his best, too. Punished him. Beat him up in front of everybody. but yeah that's how right like I mean they say that I think I don't think that's I mean I hear that all the time where it's like hey you do your best that's really what what counts or whatever but I think and I'm sure it's like harder what do you call it easier said than done kind of a thing because you're like I wanted you to succeed or whatever so it might come down to like an emotional thing but it does seem when you think about especially when it's like laid out like that's like bro it does seem real damaging real not good because it's true and I told you this too I was talking to Jason Gardner about this where I think I ran into that in my own head when I was young where when I saw people trying their best and still like losing and this was more like in sports or PE or recess or whatever you know they're trying so hard and they're still like losing but it looked real bad so it's like man if you can try your best and still lose you better not display that you're working so hard because you can lose and look double bad. See what I'm saying? And then I kind of worked out in my idiot brain where I'm like, hey, if I pretend that I'm not working hard and I win, I look double good. See what I'm saying? And I think kind of when you pull the thread, I think that's why I kind of have this persona of laziness because it's like a lot of his performative laziness. Yeah, yeah. I've seen you do it. I've seen you do it, bro. But I didn't even realize I was doing it until like kind of well into adulthood. And I remember thinking like, yeah, because that's why. Because like, you know, when you're like struggling and you're such a hard worker, but you're still losing, it's like, what the hell's the matter with you? Like, what's wrong with you that no matter how hard you try, you keep losing? It was like that kind of mentality. People get caught in that trap too, where they like try and then they lose and they look even worse. They're just like, I'm not going to try anymore. But then, you know, you at least be pretending to not try, but actually trying. Some people just give up. Yeah. Yeah. And we've talked about that before. It's like easier just to flip the chessboard over, right? Like, oh, you know what? This is a stupid game. Yep. And reject sports or reject the whole, yeah. Well, what I did, obviously I'm not going to like self-analyze my whole thing, but I do know this, that I did get the taste of like winning. I guess maybe being a little bit more inclined athletically or whatever. What I ended up doing, a big part of it, is I would prepare and work hard in private. Yeah. When no one was like looking. You had to do push-ups when no one could see, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah, it was funny because my brother would always tease me if he'd see me doing push-ups. Oh, he's going to do some push-ups, right? So I'm like, okay. So I'd go in the bathroom somewhere else. I'd lock the door and I'd do push-ups in there so no one could tease me. And then when we grew up and started lifting weights, oddly, and I was smaller than him. I was born smaller than him. I was just smaller than him the whole time. Oddly, I could bench a lot more than him when we started lifting weights. See what I'm saying? Stuff paid off. Do your push-ups, people. Do your push-ups, man. Back to the book. The third reason is provided by a look at the consequences of assuming incorrectly that a given failure is the result of inadequate ability. The correct remedial step for an ability failure is generally extra training, usually given on the man's own time. In cases in which the man can try harder if he wants to, giving extra training will have a motivational effect. effect. He will try harder next time in order to avoid the loss of his free time. Extra training will thus not backfire even when the leader has incorrectly judged the reason for failure. Thus, if it seems as though a given case is sufficiently ambiguous that a clear-cut decision cannot be reached, there are very good reasons for giving a man the benefit of the doubt, reacting as though the performance failure was the result of a lack of ability to do better, and following up with extra training either during duty hours or the man's own time, it is highly important that a man never be punished for an ability failure. He should always be commended for his effort and help to do better. It's kind of like one of those situations where it doesn't really matter because the protocol is the same. Like, hey, dude, obviously you need some extra training. We can help you out. We're here. Hey, this is a tough thing to get down, so we got you. And they either go, oh, shit, I don't want to have to do that again, so they put out the next time. Or they get better because they get the extra help. Perhaps the single most important single caution is that suggestions from subordinates. And this gets into leadership. I fast forwarded a bunch here. Perhaps the most important single caution is that suggestions from subordinates should always be given courteous attention. And again, this is like a totally different topic here. Completely aside from the fact that this will probably result in better unit performance, suggestions generally are indications that the NCO, non-commissioned officer, that's the subordinate, cares enough about his unit's performance to speak up. It shows personal interest in what's going on. If the platoon leader does not give suggestions courteous treatment, whether or not they are good suggestions, he will destroy the man's interest and cut off future suggestions to the eventual detriment of the platoon. So when one of your subordinates offers you something, an idea, what do they say? Give it courteous attention. Always listen to your people. And what I say is as often as I can, I'm going to implement whatever they're trying to make happen. I'm going to figure out a way to get it in there. Obviously, if it's freaking totally tactically unsound or unsafe or immoral or unethical, we're not doing it. But the vast majority of time, we can take some recommendation from them. We can put it to work. Let me get your thoughts on this. This is just a total hypothetical, obviously. So let's say, or something along these lines, where let's say you're the leader, and your subordinate, we'll say one of your subordinates, gives a suggestion. And you're like, hey, that's a, in your mind, you're like, that's a 79% solution right there. But we're going to implement it. And we do it, and it works to a degree. You know, pretty much. It passes, we'll say. It doesn't excel, but it passes. and now they feel empowered, which is a good thing. But then now they start to be extra empowered. Is there a line there where you kind of got to be like, hey, maybe I won't accept this solution from this type of person? All you got to do is, first of all, when they do it and it works, let's be stoked. But when you do it and it works, but it's only worked at like a 79% solution, cool, we do a good debrief, ask them questions, they make a couple adjustments, we got a 90% solution. Then the next time we get a 95% solution. If the person starts to become arrogant, cool. Give them a little bit more of a challenging problem that's slightly outside their capability zone and they get to try it and it's a low-risk evolution. They bomb and we go, hey, man, maybe you don't work quite as good as you were. You don't even have to say that because they know. Yeah, I think that's what you just said. I think that's kind of what I was looking for, like the answer, where it's like when they become arrogant. Because that can happen. I can see that happen where it's like, oh, hell yeah, I'm empowered now. They don't realize it. At first it's just like, oh, yeah, I guess I kind of got this. Like freaking Jocko gave me the green light on this idea. For what other? He has no idea all these ideas I have, right? Then you start stepping up in meetings and all this stuff. And after a while you're like, bro, calm down. Like your thing was a 79% solution every single time. Meanwhile, everyone else is there in freaking 90s and 100s over here. And we're just throwing you a bone and you're over here freaking gobbling up all the bones. See what I'm saying? Yeah. Just apply a little bit more pressure. Life will humble them. Not humiliate, humble. It'll sort of sort itself out. It is important also to emphasize that suggestions from subordinates pose no real or implied threat to the platoon leader's control over the platoon. Even the newest private can recognize the existing differences in rank and legal authority and will act accordingly when the chips are down. It should be obvious that unthinking and initiative-less obedience is the thing to be feared, not disobedience. So the worst possible thing that can happen is unthinking and initiative-less obedience. We don't want that. We do not want that at all. Going forward here, handling the sharpshooter. You know what a sharpshooter is? Yes, sir. We actually escalated that to be calling him a sniper. Yeah. Another kind of problem for the experienced platoon leader is the sharpshooter who gets a perverse pleasure from demonstrating to all his platoon leader, to all, that his platoon leader is inept. This man can be recognized by the fact that his suggestions will almost always be given publicly so others can hear and in a manner calculated to embarrass the platoon leader. He rarely will make suggestions in private. This poses a problem, particularly if the public suggestions are constructive and good. The decision that a man is sharpshooting must be made with a great deal of care. If the embarrassing comments rarely contain any constructive content, the decision is much easier. That is, there's less doubt that the man's purpose. However, if the comments, as suggested above, are constructive and good, there may be considerable doubt over a fairly long period of time. The alternative possibility always exists that the man is sincere, but either tactless or grossly unconcerned with others' feelings. inexperienced platoon meters may incorrectly judge such a man to be malicious because they tend to be defensive about their lack of experience and technical knowledge in running a platoon the result of an incorrect judgment in this case will be to eliminate a good source of good constructive suggestions when a more appropriate course would be to teach the man to behave tactfully this does sometimes a guy just has a bunch of good ideas he's chiming in and it pisses off that leader who now is going to go haywire. So that term, sharpshooter, is just for someone who behaves like this. You're not saying that the sharpshooters do that stuff. No, the sharpshooter is someone that behaves like this. You're giving a brief and someone's like, what's a good one? So, if one vehicle goes down, what are we doing with the people we're taking off target? You know, it's like, you know, like that's a legitimate question. Right. But also like the tone and the whole nine yards kind of stings, especially if you're if you're if you got a big ego as a leader. You're like, well, I'm going to, you know, you get frustrated instead of being like, hey, no, it's a good point. It's funny because I don't know that I've witnessed someone who is this. Oh, the SEAL teams has freaking sharpshooters like crazy all day. Yeah, it makes sense. I've seen it happen, but not to the extent where it's like, oh, this person always does this. But, oh, I've seen people do this all the time. And that's interesting how they just laid that out so clearly because it's absolutely true. Where if it's like if they're only sharpshooting or shooting out the problem with no solution or whatever, it's obvious. Now you're just complaining. These guys show up in jujitsu classes, by the way. Now, the people that I – The people that I, it's one of the few things that bothers me is when people that just don't, they don't know anything. Right. Because a lot of times, if someone's a sharpshooter in a jujitsu class, yeah, they can do, they definitely do this. But you, yours is unique, and I actually understand why this is irritating, because you're right, they're ignorant sharpshooters. They don't like, they don't have the knowledge, they don't even know what they don't know, so they're like, well, what if, what if they do this? Yeah, that's called a defense, and there's 94 counters to that, and there's another thing, and that's called, told another position and like, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Ah! Yeah. Right. Fast forward. However, if the platoon leader is convinced that he has run into a sharpshooter, he must act quickly to correct the situation or run into a chance of losing respect from the other NCOs. While they may personally hold the sharpshooter in contempt among themselves, they will probably view the whole thing as a contest between him and the platoon leader and will be equally contemptuous of the platoon leader if the sharpshooter wins. Now, again, my look at that is like, why am I going to, I'm not going to compete with the sharpshooter. I'm going to say, I'm not going to say, well, actually, no, if we have, if we'll call helos, you know, like China. No, I'm not going to, I'll be like, hey, that's a really good point. Let's make sure we think through the contingencies after this brief. So you didn't win. You made a good point. and I was hopeful. I was glad. The principle of that, if the platoon leader, the principle is that if the platoon leader is not clever enough to find out what is going on and to do something about it, he's not deserved their respect. Perhaps the best first, and I was kind of interested in what they were going to give for recommendations here. Perhaps the best first step to stop a sharpshooter is to tell him privately the reasons for his behavior are known, that this behavior is having a disruptive effect on platoon morale, and that future suggestions must be made more discreetly. However, the leader should avoid a display of uncontrolled emotions at all times because that would probably actually please the sharpshooter. Yeah, and you're just like, hey, man, you've got some really good suggestions, but we're trying to give a brief, and if there's other people in there, it's like we may not look prepared. So can you sit down with a brief before we get up there and go through it with me and make sure that we cover everything? Boom. Pretty easy. This talk may solve the problem because a large part of the sharpshooter's pleasure is usually derived from the thought that the platoon leader does not know what is going on. That is, he's being made a fool. Or that he's made the platoon leader lose some of his self-control. When the game gets into the open, a part of the pleasure will be gone, and only the most perverse sharpshooter will continue. Of course, if he does, further measures will be necessary. One might be to give perfunctory replies to the man's future suggestions in a manner implying little actual consideration. For example, that might be interesting. While reacting favorably to good suggestions from everyone else. However, the platoon leader should be careful not to pull rank on the man. As for example, by assigning this man to the dirty jobs in the platoon. This would be resented by the rest of the NCOs. Fortunately, this is about the only thing that would be resented. All they want is a fair fight. If the platoon leader can win the fight by skill rather than rank, which they feel he may not yet have earned, he will generally win their respect at the same time. So pretty decent ways to handle the sharpshooter. And also interesting that they refer back to, like, respect and not just using your rank and being an emergent leader. Fast forward here. Taking care of one's men. It sounds trite to say that the leader should make sure that his men get hot meals in the field whenever possible, or that they are maximally rested when operating tactically. However, trite or not, many leaders apparently are not sufficiently concerned with such matters, possibly because they are not really aware of the negative results that can follow lackadaisical discharge of these leader responsibilities. Diligent efforts to take care of one's men seem to be an integral part of the effort needed to produce a cohesive unit that will operate as a team under stressful conditions. That's no shock. Take care of your people and they'll take care of you. Another aspect of taking care of one's men is that of protecting them from excessive use on details. Details is like a working party. particularly when the men could think their use is the result of an unwillingness on their part of the leader to stick their neck out for them. And we'll close out this book with this section here. It says hardship support. However, there are many circumstances which the men must do dirty, hard, unrewarding work. This is particularly the case in close combat. When so confronted, the men will be faced with difficult decisions. Should they continue trying or should they not? Should they assault or just keep going along for the ride? Should they expose themselves in order to fire at the assaulting enemy or seek temporary security of their foxholes? Or, less dramatically, should they do a really good command maintenance management inspection or just one that they think will pass? some soldiers will react adaptively under such conditions regardless of what the leader does others will not incidents have been recorded in which men lay prone in the face of hand grenades rolling straight toward to them immobilized by fear indecision and give up itis until they are blown screaming into oblivion between these two is a large third category of men to whom the leader is very important. In difficult circumstances, they will summon the will to continue trying if they receive emotional support from their leader. This is hardship support. In many respects, it is highly similar to the emotional support a parent can give a child in a time of trial. This support is also important in non-crisis situations, which are merely unpleasant. Further, the leader's presence alone may suffice to prove the needed support, even as a parent's presence in a dark room provides the emotional support needed by a child who is afraid of the dark to react adaptively. This is even true when the work is such that the leader either can not or should not personally engage in its actual performance. the presence of the leader both commissioned and non-commissioned is a powerful source of support. And then it says even though he does not actually do any of the work himself, which I put in parentheses because I don't agree with that. Do the work. You're out there, pick up the brass, help clean the weapons, help maintain the vehicles. If you're out there, get out there, get your hands dirty with the troops. I'm not saying you have to do it all if there's other things going on and you've got to go deal with headquarters that stuff happens too but when there's something hard to do get in there and do it with the boys that's what we're doing that will avoid many of these basic problems in small unit leadership taking care of your people take care of your people your people will take care of you that's what we're doing and a lot of little nuances to this whole thing. And it just doesn't stop. That's why this is a skill set that is a perishable skill set. And if you're not paying attention, you'll fall into that trap. You ever notice you train with a certain person all the time or maybe two or three people all the time? And you get used to some little thing that you can kind of get away with with them and then you try it on somebody else and they crush you? You've got to keep that game fresh. And you can't get complacent. And it's the same thing with leadership. You can't get complacent. You've got to be thinking about it. It's got to be front of mind. And you've got to be ready for these hardships. And you know what that means. To get ready for hardships, you've got to do hard things. That's why we run. That's why we sprint. That's why we lift. That's why we train jujitsu. And because of those things, Echo Charles, we're going to need fuel. Check out jockofuel.com. We've got protein. We've got the pro line protein. We've got energy drinks. We've got hydration. We've got everything. We've got the joint supplementation. We got greens, pre-workouts. We got everything that you need. Everything that you need to fuel your body, and it's all the best possible ingredients. So if you need fuel for your hardships, which you do, check out JockoFuel.com. Also, check out whatever store that you go to. There's a ton of them, and we're in all of them. We're getting there. And if they don't have it in your store, you can ask for it. Demand it. JockoFuel.com. Check it out. And also, American-made clothing, originusa.com. This is 100% American-made clothing from materials that are sourced 100% in America. So if you need jujitsu gi, workout clothes, jeans, boots, hoodies, whatever you need, go to originusa.com and get 100% communist-free clothing. It's true. Also, you want to represent discipline equals freedom on your day-to-day, your workouts, whatever. we got some shirts for you. Discipline equals freedom. Good. We got represented in the Super Bowl by the way. I know you know that. Oh yeah. That's legit. Yeah man. But yeah like I said if you want to represent we got you. Go to jocostore.com Also on Jocostore some new stuff on there. This is like just general merch as far as representation goes. But you do get this as well. The shirt locker subscription scenario. New design. New version. Different versions of discipline equals freedom for representation. It's a good one. Subscription scenario. Every month you get a new one. It's all on Jocko Store. If you want to be updated, put your email in the bottom thing. I'll send you an email updating you on new stuff. Will you send an email every day? No. Not even every week. Probably once a month. Right now it's about once a month. There's something cool and worthy of an email to open up. That's about it. If there's more stuff coming, then you get more emails. but no, not as a brain about once a month. So it's worth it. You see what I'm saying? Because you like to play a little bit lazy, like you were saying. Performatively. Sure. Check out all these books. Put Your Legs On by Rob Jones. Need to Lead by Dave Burke. Things My Brother Used to Say by Ryan Mania. And then a bunch of books that I wrote, including Warrior Kid books. We got you covered. Also, echelonfront.com. We have a leadership consultancy. We teach these principles and bring them into your organization, check out eslamfront.com. Also, we teach these principles online. Check out extremeownership.com. And we teach these principles to you so you can be a better leader. And if you want to help service members active and retired, you want to help their families, you want to help Gold Star families, check out Mark Lee's Mom. Mom Elise has got an amazing charity organization. If you want to donate or you want to get involved, go to americasmightywarriors.org. Also, check out heroesandhorses.org. And then finally, Jimmy May's organization, BeyondTheBrotherhood.org. And for us, if you want to connect with us, you can go to Jocko.com. And then on social media, I'm at Jocko Willink. Echoes at Echo Charles. Just be careful because there is a giant demonic algorithm that will try and get you. And it won't let go. Also, thanks to our servicemen and women right now around the world, especially the small unit leaders leading from the front where the battles are won. Thank you for what you do every day to protect us and our way of life. Also, thanks to our police, law enforcement, firefighters, paramedics, EMTs, dispatchers, correctional officers, border patrol, all Secret Service, and all the other first responders out there. Thank you for what you do every day to protect us on the home front and everyone else out there. no matter what your station in life, no matter what rank you have on your sleeve or on your collar or in the wire diagram of your corporation, remember that rank and authority only goes so far and that real rank and real authority is earned every day in everything that you do. So, make sure that you earn it by getting up every day and getting after it. That's all I've got for tonight. And until next time, this is Echo and Jocko. Out.