Insubordination and followership

Browsing Bloomberg the other day I found Rosabeth Moss Kanter's review of Obama's firing of General McChrystal from a management and leadership perspective.  It was a reprint from a Harvard Business Review blog.  HBR has a couple of other posts around the firing that might be interesting, including this one and this one.


The genesis of the firestorm was an article in Rolling Stone magazine entitled "The Runaway General," with this teaser at the top:  "Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy:  The wimps in the White House."  Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone contributor, was embedded (interesting how popular that term has become since the Iraq conflicts began, isn't it?) with General McChrystal and his team of ten.Hastings penned an interesting view of the general and his team.  Much of the material was not from McChrystal, but instead from his aides and team around him.  The overall sense from the article was that this team believed it was constrained by the leadership in Washington, D.C., and that the civilian leadership was inept, unconcerned with the people doing the work, and focused on political points instead of the welfare of the nation.  There is much more to the article to be sure, including his presentation of the machismo of the team, how they focus on the work - but the parts that caught his boss' attention were sentences that began like these:

• "The most striking example of McChrystal's usurpation of diplomatic policy...."


• "McChystal thought Obama looked 'uncomfortable and intimidated' by the roomful of military brass."


• "Still, the session represents the most forceful commitment that Obama has made to McChrystal's strategy in months."

It's not clear that most of the media reporting on this story actually read the entire thing.  There is a huge swath of information that has nothing to do with insubordination or biting comments, but instead focuses on the challenge the U.S. is facing in Afghanistan.  However, the parts that have titillated the world are around the relationship between General McChrystal and President Obama's administration.Let's look at this from a leadership perspective, starting with Obama.  Regardless of the politics involved, our Constitution states, right there in Article II Section 2:  "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...."  To be concise, Obama was McChrystal's boss - he is the stated (formal) leader.  To have a subordinate even perceived as usurping diplomatic policy, or commenting on the vice president's ineptness (another section in the article), could be seen as a challenge to Obama's leadership and control of the military.  In order to preserve the relevance of rank, Obama may have felt there was no other option but to remove McChrystal from his post.

In a very straightforward sense, McChrystal was demonstrating his leadership of those in his command while not recognizing his role as follower as one of many in the president's command.  While requiring subordination of those in his charge, he was not subordinate to the commander-in-chief.  Group behavior studies have shown that when an individual's behavior moves too far from the norm, they are either removed from the group or remove themselves.From McChrystal's perspective as a leader, he was responsible for the actions of those in his charge.  In this instance, that responsibility covered the team around him and their comments recorded by Hastings.  While this type of leadership is easy to preach, it's one of the most difficult skills for a leader to master.  He accepted responsibility not only for his own words, but also for those around him.  Hence, McChrystal announced his retirement from military service on June 28th.

Warren Bennis writes in the January 2010 edition of Leadership Excellence:  "

The tools of great followership are similar to those of leadership.  In fact, since followers lack the power to order and insist, they are wise to acquire a quiver of diplomatic tools, including mastery of such persuasive arts as rhetoric and acting.  In many ways, great followership is harder than leadership.  it has more dangers and fewer rewards, and must be exercised more subtly."

We all struggle with being a strong follower, especially when the group or organization is headed in the wrong direction.  One more snippet from Bennis' article in Leadership Excellence:  "Like good leaders, good followers see the importance of speaking out - and they do it.  Yet, even in democracies where the only gulag is the threat of a pink slip, it is hard to disagree with the person in charge.  When the president comes up with foolish ideas, most aides admit to doing nothing.  Quietism, or the sin of silence, often costs leaders dearly."  The difference in this approach and the approach McChrystal's team chose to follow is the audience.  Bennis suggests speaking up - to the leader.  McChrystal mea culpa was not for disagreeing with the president, but instead for disparaging him and his administration to those outside of the leader's immediate counsel.

A study of Obama's leadership style and qualities will be interesting, but the story is for another day.  That chapter is still being written:  usually after a first term, those leaving the administration have a window of opportunity/celebrity in which to sell memoirs and provide an inside look at the administration.  Also, the impact of sweeping legislation and executive orders will only be understood in the hindsight of history.

-Bryan