I full-heartedly believe in the concept of the gardener. As a fellow horticulturist, I know that a great garden does not happen overnight. It does not happen in just one year. It requires time and effort to make a garden function and flourish and give great fruit and vegetables.
As a leader, you cannot expect to jump right into the leadership role and think things will be as you envision them right away. Rather, with time, effort and continuously expressing what your message is will you slowly start to get your ecosystem/command philosophy come to fruition. Being realistic, having simple honesty and above all putting in the hard work will get you where you need to be as a good gardener and a good leader.
I agree with the concept of the gardener leader. This leadership role allows room for growth through example, being goal oriented, not micromanaging, and creating an environment conducive to teamwork. This type of leader intrinsically motivates.
Similar the manager vs. leader concept, the "heroic leader" tends to be hyper-focused on each individual and manage them as opposed to leading them. This will often lead to missing out on the bigger picture and crushing any potential development. Also, depending on the personality of the "heroic leader," people may resent this type of leader and produce the bare minimum to get by.
I agree with the concept of leading like a gardener. It's simple, but true. Too often, as leaders, we try to control. We end up micro-managing. The best leaders I've observed take a step back, lead with their behavior, but ultimately give max-autonomy down to subordinates, as only they can do the growing.
I really appreciate the candor of GEN McChrystal (ret) in opening up about how it feels to be at the very top and the details he provides on his thought process in shaping his "team of teams". I loved hearing about some of his techniques to exude trust, enable confidence, and express his interest. The cheat-sheet of first names was simple, but has an incredible impact on the individual briefing.
I absolutely agree with leading like a gardener. I'm not terribly experienced, but I have had excellent leaders, and terrible, even toxic ones. I've found that the best leaders are ones who make their intent clear, yet allow leaders further down the chain, and Soldiers to act autonomously based on that intent, using their expertise. This ties directly into Unified Land Operations and the shift away from the Command and Control model. There are simply too many large Operational Environments to accommodate micromanagement, and ultimately a leader who is not in that OE cannot see what a Soldier on the ground can. Trusting in the expertise of those on the firing line not only leads to a more comprehensive, fluid, and well-paced operation; it empowers Soldiers and leaders, ultimately improving morale and the organization as a whole. I love the humanizing aspect of this philosophy. First, I agree that a leader's actions matter. Any sign of discomfort or anger can be interpreted, which impacts Soldiers on a large scale. Yet, it is also important to show that one is human as a leader; it is a delicate balance. Remaining with one's Soldiers and being approachable, or part of the team, will help them respect you and feel more at ease around you. Yet, a leader must know the relevance of time and place. Second, I love that leaders and Soldiers are treated like human beings, with unique psychologies, strengths and weaknesses. I like that the O&I briefings were not an opportunity to "eat the young" of military leadership, but were respectful opportunities for development. In particular, the act of taking the time out to call a leader by first name shows that they are seen as human beings; it is an empathetic, human approach. It is one that, even now, I've seen my peers (young leaders) often mistake as weak. Finally, I agree with the art of asking questions; it allows for a hypothetical, creative atmosphere, in which Soldiers and leaders are encouraged to brainstorm and question their environments, actions, and decisions. I think the Army could use a little more of this.
"But the choice had been made for me. I had to adapt to the new reality and reshape myself as conditions were reshaping our force."
Throughout his special operations career, GEN McChrystal adamantly supported developing new methods for countering modern and irregular threats. The doctrine and tactics which McChrystal had learned as a West Point graduate and conventional infantry officer did not guarantee success against modern threats. The important thing to understand about “leading like a gardener” is that it is not simply an alternative leadership style. Rather, it was born out of necessity when the existing structure continually resulted in failure. The Command and Control doctrine that our military had prospered from in the 20th Century was no longer a viable option against an organization like Al Qaeda or the Islamic State in the 21st Century which was one reason for the shift from Command and Control to Mission Command in the early 2000’s. While the Army has supported the new Mission Command doctrine, it still fails to wholeheartedly embrace it since it requires accepting risk.
Leading like a gardener is important when understanding the context of what GEN McChrystal was facing. As the commander of a JSOC Task Force in Iraq, he commanded all friendly, allied, and host-nation special operations personnel across the entire theater. No human being has the digital or mental bandwidth to lead an entity of such size individually. In order to be successful, GEN McChrystal sought to empower and develop subordinate leaders so that he could trust them to make decisions that didn’t require his immediate attention. Furthermore, it allowed subordinate leaders to make decisions without feeling they needed the authority to do so.
It is incumbent for any leader to empower and develop their subordinate leaders, but anytime that decisions are made at a subordinate level, risk must be accepted and recognized. Outside of direct combat roles, it is important for decisions to be made quickly but there is less necessity to accept risk. The key things to take away from McChrystal’s style is that he builds teams by having a clearly defined mission statement with a definition for success. He develops subordinates in his method of leadership by building mutual trust amongst his team which allows him entrust them with decision-making authority. Most importantly, GEN McChrystal regularly maintained these relationships and fostered them by making his Soldiers realize their full potential.
I agree with the idea of leading like a gardener, as well as the whole concept of intent based leadership. The contemporary battle space is too wide-ranging and changes too quickly for any one person to develop effective tactics and strategy, and expertly marshal troops like the Alexander the Greats and Napoleons throughout history. As stated in the article, an individual leader only has so many strengths and mental capacity for oversight. Similar to General McChrystal’s thoughts on cultivating an environment in which everyone within an organizational hierarchy has the autonomy to creatively solve problems, retired Naval submarine commander David Marquet developed a similar model for success by devolving decision making to those with the best sources of information and who are subject matter experts. Cumulatively, leading like a gardener sets the parameters for limitless organizational potential, rather than restricting capabilities by way of a single individual.
I agree with the concept of leading like a gardener. However, gardening in reality can be very difficult without the right tools and knowledge and I would say the same is true for leading like a gardener. Planting the right crop at the right time of year, providing the right type of environment, protecting when necessary from unexpected climate changes, fertilizing, pruning, weeding, etc... All of these things are necessary when gardening, and I would say you can correlate each of these actual gardening activities into leadership activities, but equally important is knowing how and when to apply these activities. Again the same is true in leadership. The hardest part in both gardening and leadership is executing all of these activities correctly. Tending is no easy task. Too much or not enough of this or that will kill your plant. You gotta find that happy medium for the play to flourish. As gardeners, in a controlled environment, tending is easy and in today's world can probably be automated in a lot of ways. In leadership, none of it can be automated, and controls are difficult to put in place. And this is why finding good leadership and especially being a good leader is so difficult both in and out of the military.
I like the analogy of gardening. It emphasizes that leaders cannot change the intrinsic qualities of their Soldiers. In other words, no matter how much you want apples, you are not getting them out of a cherry tree. What a good leader/gardener can do is create the best possible environment to get the best fruits possible.
I disagree with the gardening metaphor. Gardening usually only has one person. Even in Gen McChrystal's example from his own life his mother was the gardener and he said his contributions were "spotty and occasional." I do agree with Gen McChrystal and Sun Tzu that battles and gardens are won before they are fought. We must prepare our soldiers and gardens long before we plant the first seed or fight the first battle, but how gardeners tend their garden and how great leaders lead are far from congruent. It would be a much better analogy to lead as a farmer with children than a single gardener. A leader/farmer must train their subordinates then give them responsibility and hold them accountable. If the subordinates/children of the farmer wish to execute their responsibilities differently than how the farmer/leader would, that is fine, but they are also given praise and correction as needed. Leaders and farmers need to teach their vision of the farm, then set the example of fulfilling that vision with and for their subordinates. Gardeners and on the other hand generally work on their own and micromanage their plants to success. They personally take daily care for each plant. They weed, water, fertilize, protect, graft (if need be), prune, and shape each plant. If leaders micromanaged their subordinates the way successful gardeners do their plants for maximum harvest it would be a disaster.
In today's world leading like a gardener over leading like a chess master is very necessary with the flood of information and disinformation immediately available at our fingertips. With our instant communications, the battlefield can change in an instant, often unpredictably. GEN McChrystal's ability to recognize this, and more importantly, do what was necessary to adjust to this shifting new world, demonstrates his superb leadership skills and his wisdom. His empowering of junior enlisted and young officers scattered throughout the world coupled with his desire for frank honesty truly helped him receive the intelligence he needed to know the big picture and minor details as completely and accurately as possible. It will be interesting to see how leading like a gardener works in a DATE environment over a COIN environment. I suspect that with the right leaders, it will still be a great advantage.
I do not agree with everything that was stated regarding “leading like a gardener”. Through reading how “leading like a gardener” was implemented, there are a few points that I disagree with. The first point is how there were daily mandatory Operational & Intelligence Video conferences that were an hour and a half long. I believe the intention was to make himself appear more available and approachable, as well as transparent in his leadership. In reality, I believe that tactic is overbearing and time consuming. I also believe that at such a senior level, you are taking away some of that leadership responsibility from your subordinate leadership. I believe in the concept that the gardener cannot force the garden to grow, but must foster the right environment for the garden to grow. As a gardener prunes the plants to stay in the garden box and fertilizes the soil to help the roots grow strong, a leader gives their subordinates their left and right limits, as well as encourages innovation and ownership. The article also talked about how the general would receive briefs from lower ranks, for what purpose seemed to be only for the superficial acknowledgement, personal care of, and appreciation of the Soldiers efforts. I believe that type of acknowledgement and appreciation would be ten hold it’s worth if it came from that Soldiers direct leadership. I do agree that we must foster an environment for our Soldiers to grow and develop. I am a true believer in Intent-based Leadership, where the leader relays their intent with clarity and trust. Too often are leaders giving the fine details of how to execute a task, or worse, a leader doesn’t know what he/she wants and rejects the products and efforts of a Soldier who is also trying to figure out what their leader expects. I believe that when leaders give a clear and concise intent, as well as relaying that intent to the lowest level, it will give all levels of leadership and expertise the ownership to accomplish a task without being asked to do so. Having mandatory daily meetings, I believe, diminishes the innovation and ownership that Soldiers and subordinate leaders need to proactively fulfill the commanders intent.
As I read the article, I went through a bit of what you call a paradigm shift. I never considered leadership as a nurturing characteristic. Yes, I understand the principle of counseling and mentoring, but the idea of "leading as a gardener" was more profound than I had previously considered.
Of course there are times that perhaps we need to rush the process along such as in combat where room for error costs lives and resources and time. But since 99% of the time in the Army is spent training and waiting; for now, there is sufficient season to a garden. While it's convenient to think of planting a field of corn and all the seeds growing at the same speed and producing at the same quantity, this isn't always the case with Soldiers. Each Soldier, each squad, each company is a unique plant. Each coming with their own life experiences and knowledge. It's essential as leaders we provide a nurturing environment that challenges them. They may not all be Audie Murphey's but there were 12 million young men and women behind the most decorate Soldier of WWII that contributed to the success of the war.
Maybe I digress, but since our leaders have shifted our focus from terrorism to a peer-on-peer fight, we (I) need to make sure that while we have the luxury of peace, we are learning the art and science of MOS skills, language skills and small unit tactics. We won't be all sitting on FOBs, in a chow hall with bottled water and slow internet and AFN commercials.
The philosophy of gardening is the easy part, now it's trying to tie the unit METL and training plan into producing the right environment of "water, light and soil" to create Soldiers ready to lead and understand the Commander's intent two levels up.
Leading like a gardener is a crux in the "teams of teams" concept - there is absolutely value in the concepts: collaborative environment, rapid resource acquisition, rapid low-level decision making, free flowing conversation, and so forth - however, there are draw backs. Micro decision are easily made - consider the SoF or start-up organization structure, lean and agile. But when it comes to decision making which requires weight and carries consequences, the teams of teams concept does not lend well.
As such, leading like a gardener is a strategy that works in limited situations and but isn't a one-size-fits all. It may be novel but has it's trades. It's up to leaders and key decision makers to find the right leadership strategy, gardener, top-down, etc which fits the situation.
I full-heartedly believe in the concept of the gardener. As a fellow horticulturist, I know that a great garden does not happen overnight. It does not happen in just one year. It requires time and effort to make a garden function and flourish and give great fruit and vegetables.
ReplyDeleteAs a leader, you cannot expect to jump right into the leadership role and think things will be as you envision them right away. Rather, with time, effort and continuously expressing what your message is will you slowly start to get your ecosystem/command philosophy come to fruition. Being realistic, having simple honesty and above all putting in the hard work will get you where you need to be as a good gardener and a good leader.
142 Staff
Comment from CPT Holman (S4)
DeleteI agree with the concept of the gardener leader. This leadership role allows room for growth through example, being goal oriented, not micromanaging, and creating an environment conducive to teamwork. This type of leader intrinsically motivates.
ReplyDeleteSimilar the manager vs. leader concept, the "heroic leader" tends to be hyper-focused on each individual and manage them as opposed to leading them. This will often lead to missing out on the bigger picture and crushing any potential development. Also, depending on the personality of the "heroic leader," people may resent this type of leader and produce the bare minimum to get by.
142 Staff (S-2)
Comment from 1LT Flores
DeleteI agree with the concept of leading like a gardener. It's simple, but true. Too often, as leaders, we try to control. We end up micro-managing. The best leaders I've observed take a step back, lead with their behavior, but ultimately give max-autonomy down to subordinates, as only they can do the growing.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate the candor of GEN McChrystal (ret) in opening up about how it feels to be at the very top and the details he provides on his thought process in shaping his "team of teams". I loved hearing about some of his techniques to exude trust, enable confidence, and express his interest. The cheat-sheet of first names was simple, but has an incredible impact on the individual briefing.
MAJ Roger Mulholland
XO, 142
I absolutely agree with leading like a gardener. I'm not terribly experienced, but I have had excellent leaders, and terrible, even toxic ones.
ReplyDeleteI've found that the best leaders are ones who make their intent clear, yet allow leaders further down the chain, and Soldiers to act autonomously based on that intent, using their expertise. This ties directly into Unified Land Operations and the shift away from the Command and Control model. There are simply too many large Operational Environments to accommodate micromanagement, and ultimately a leader who is not in that OE cannot see what a Soldier on the ground can. Trusting in the expertise of those on the firing line not only leads to a more comprehensive, fluid, and well-paced operation; it empowers Soldiers and leaders, ultimately improving morale and the organization as a whole.
I love the humanizing aspect of this philosophy. First, I agree that a leader's actions matter. Any sign of discomfort or anger can be interpreted, which impacts Soldiers on a large scale. Yet, it is also important to show that one is human as a leader; it is a delicate balance.
Remaining with one's Soldiers and being approachable, or part of the team, will help them respect you and feel more at ease around you. Yet, a leader must know the relevance of time and place.
Second, I love that leaders and Soldiers are treated like human beings, with unique psychologies, strengths and weaknesses. I like that the O&I briefings were not an opportunity to "eat the young" of military leadership, but were respectful opportunities for development. In particular, the act of taking the time out to call a leader by first name shows that they are seen as human beings; it is an empathetic, human approach. It is one that, even now, I've seen my peers (young leaders) often mistake as weak.
Finally, I agree with the art of asking questions; it allows for a hypothetical, creative atmosphere, in which Soldiers and leaders are encouraged to brainstorm and question their environments, actions, and decisions. I think the Army could use a little more of this.
Avenger Company
Delete"But the choice had been made for me. I had to adapt to the new reality and reshape myself as conditions were reshaping our force."
ReplyDeleteThroughout his special operations career, GEN McChrystal adamantly supported developing new methods for countering modern and irregular threats. The doctrine and tactics which McChrystal had learned as a West Point graduate and conventional infantry officer did not guarantee success against modern threats. The important thing to understand about “leading like a gardener” is that it is not simply an alternative leadership style. Rather, it was born out of necessity when the existing structure continually resulted in failure. The Command and Control doctrine that our military had prospered from in the 20th Century was no longer a viable option against an organization like Al Qaeda or the Islamic State in the 21st Century which was one reason for the shift from Command and Control to Mission Command in the early 2000’s. While the Army has supported the new Mission Command doctrine, it still fails to wholeheartedly embrace it since it requires accepting risk.
Leading like a gardener is important when understanding the context of what GEN McChrystal was facing. As the commander of a JSOC Task Force in Iraq, he commanded all friendly, allied, and host-nation special operations personnel across the entire theater. No human being has the digital or mental bandwidth to lead an entity of such size individually. In order to be successful, GEN McChrystal sought to empower and develop subordinate leaders so that he could trust them to make decisions that didn’t require his immediate attention. Furthermore, it allowed subordinate leaders to make decisions without feeling they needed the authority to do so.
It is incumbent for any leader to empower and develop their subordinate leaders, but anytime that decisions are made at a subordinate level, risk must be accepted and recognized. Outside of direct combat roles, it is important for decisions to be made quickly but there is less necessity to accept risk. The key things to take away from McChrystal’s style is that he builds teams by having a clearly defined mission statement with a definition for success. He develops subordinates in his method of leadership by building mutual trust amongst his team which allows him entrust them with decision-making authority. Most importantly, GEN McChrystal regularly maintained these relationships and fostered them by making his Soldiers realize their full potential.
2LT Stuart Thompson
2PLT, D Co.
I agree with the idea of leading like a gardener, as well as the whole concept of intent based leadership. The contemporary battle space is too wide-ranging and changes too quickly for any one person to develop effective tactics and strategy, and expertly marshal troops like the Alexander the Greats and Napoleons throughout history. As stated in the article, an individual leader only has so many strengths and mental capacity for oversight. Similar to General McChrystal’s thoughts on cultivating an environment in which everyone within an organizational hierarchy has the autonomy to creatively solve problems, retired Naval submarine commander David Marquet developed a similar model for success by devolving decision making to those with the best sources of information and who are subject matter experts. Cumulatively, leading like a gardener sets the parameters for limitless organizational potential, rather than restricting capabilities by way of a single individual.
ReplyDeleteBN Assistant S3
DeleteI agree with the concept of leading like a gardener. However, gardening in reality can be very difficult without the right tools and knowledge and I would say the same is true for leading like a gardener. Planting the right crop at the right time of year, providing the right type of environment, protecting when necessary from unexpected climate changes, fertilizing, pruning, weeding, etc... All of these things are necessary when gardening, and I would say you can correlate each of these actual gardening activities into leadership activities, but equally important is knowing how and when to apply these activities. Again the same is true in leadership. The hardest part in both gardening and leadership is executing all of these activities correctly. Tending is no easy task. Too much or not enough of this or that will kill your plant. You gotta find that happy medium for the play to flourish. As gardeners, in a controlled environment, tending is easy and in today's world can probably be automated in a lot of ways. In leadership, none of it can be automated, and controls are difficult to put in place. And this is why finding good leadership and especially being a good leader is so difficult both in and out of the military.
ReplyDeleteBN S6
DeleteI like the analogy of gardening. It emphasizes that leaders cannot change the intrinsic qualities of their Soldiers. In other words, no matter how much you want apples, you are not getting them out of a cherry tree. What a good leader/gardener can do is create the best possible environment to get the best fruits possible.
ReplyDeleteS1
142 Staff
CH (1LT) WOODWARD (comment not posting):
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the gardening metaphor. Gardening usually only has one person. Even in Gen McChrystal's example from his own life his mother was the gardener and he said his contributions were "spotty and occasional." I do agree with Gen McChrystal and Sun Tzu that battles and gardens are won before they are fought. We must prepare our soldiers and gardens long before we plant the first seed or fight the first battle, but how gardeners tend their garden and how great leaders lead are far from congruent. It would be a much better analogy to lead as a farmer with children than a single gardener. A leader/farmer must train their subordinates then give them responsibility and hold them accountable. If the subordinates/children of the farmer wish to execute their responsibilities differently than how the farmer/leader would, that is fine, but they are also given praise and correction as needed. Leaders and farmers need to teach their vision of the farm, then set the example of fulfilling that vision with and for their subordinates.
Gardeners and on the other hand generally work on their own and micromanage their plants to success. They personally take daily care for each plant. They weed, water, fertilize, protect, graft (if need be), prune, and shape each plant. If leaders micromanaged their subordinates the way successful gardeners do their plants for maximum harvest it would be a disaster.
CH (1LT) Woodward
142 BN Staff
ReplyDeleteOn behalf of CW3 Nelson:
In today's world leading like a gardener over leading like a chess master is very necessary with the flood of information and disinformation immediately available at our fingertips. With our instant communications, the battlefield can change in an instant, often unpredictably. GEN McChrystal's ability to recognize this, and more importantly, do what was necessary to adjust to this shifting new world, demonstrates his superb leadership skills and his wisdom. His empowering of junior enlisted and young officers scattered throughout the world coupled with his desire for frank honesty truly helped him receive the intelligence he needed to know the big picture and minor details as completely and accurately as possible. It will be interesting to see how leading like a gardener works in a DATE environment over a COIN environment. I suspect that with the right leaders, it will still be a great advantage.
CW3 Hiram Nelson
142 HUMINT WO
I do not agree with everything that was stated regarding “leading like a gardener”. Through reading how “leading like a gardener” was implemented, there are a few points that I disagree with. The first point is how there were daily mandatory Operational & Intelligence Video conferences that were an hour and a half long. I believe the intention was to make himself appear more available and approachable, as well as transparent in his leadership. In reality, I believe that tactic is overbearing and time consuming. I also believe that at such a senior level, you are taking away some of that leadership responsibility from your subordinate leadership. I believe in the concept that the gardener cannot force the garden to grow, but must foster the right environment for the garden to grow. As a gardener prunes the plants to stay in the garden box and fertilizes the soil to help the roots grow strong, a leader gives their subordinates their left and right limits, as well as encourages innovation and ownership. The article also talked about how the general would receive briefs from lower ranks, for what purpose seemed to be only for the superficial acknowledgement, personal care of, and appreciation of the Soldiers efforts. I believe that type of acknowledgement and appreciation would be ten hold it’s worth if it came from that Soldiers direct leadership. I do agree that we must foster an environment for our Soldiers to grow and develop. I am a true believer in Intent-based Leadership, where the leader relays their intent with clarity and trust. Too often are leaders giving the fine details of how to execute a task, or worse, a leader doesn’t know what he/she wants and rejects the products and efforts of a Soldier who is also trying to figure out what their leader expects. I believe that when leaders give a clear and concise intent, as well as relaying that intent to the lowest level, it will give all levels of leadership and expertise the ownership to accomplish a task without being asked to do so. Having mandatory daily meetings, I believe, diminishes the innovation and ownership that Soldiers and subordinate leaders need to proactively fulfill the commanders intent.
ReplyDeleteLT Hill
B Co, 142nd MI BN
As I read the article, I went through a bit of what you call a paradigm shift. I never considered leadership as a nurturing characteristic. Yes, I understand the principle of counseling and mentoring, but the idea of "leading as a gardener" was more profound than I had previously considered.
ReplyDeleteOf course there are times that perhaps we need to rush the process along such as in combat where room for error costs lives and resources and time. But since 99% of the time in the Army is spent training and waiting; for now, there is sufficient season to a garden. While it's convenient to think of planting a field of corn and all the seeds growing at the same speed and producing at the same quantity, this isn't always the case with Soldiers. Each Soldier, each squad, each company is a unique plant. Each coming with their own life experiences and knowledge. It's essential as leaders we provide a nurturing environment that challenges them. They may not all be Audie Murphey's but there were 12 million young men and women behind the most decorate Soldier of WWII that contributed to the success of the war.
Maybe I digress, but since our leaders have shifted our focus from terrorism to a peer-on-peer fight, we (I) need to make sure that while we have the luxury of peace, we are learning the art and science of MOS skills, language skills and small unit tactics. We won't be all sitting on FOBs, in a chow hall with bottled water and slow internet and AFN commercials.
The philosophy of gardening is the easy part, now it's trying to tie the unit METL and training plan into producing the right environment of "water, light and soil" to create Soldiers ready to lead and understand the Commander's intent two levels up.
CW2 Gist M. Wylie, 351L
IC Det 142
Leading like a gardener is a crux in the "teams of teams" concept - there is absolutely value in the concepts: collaborative environment, rapid resource acquisition, rapid low-level decision making, free flowing conversation, and so forth - however, there are draw backs. Micro decision are easily made - consider the SoF or start-up organization structure, lean and agile. But when it comes to decision making which requires weight and carries consequences, the teams of teams concept does not lend well.
ReplyDeleteAs such, leading like a gardener is a strategy that works in limited situations and but isn't a one-size-fits all. It may be novel but has it's trades. It's up to leaders and key decision makers to find the right leadership strategy, gardener, top-down, etc which fits the situation.
Luca
Echo Company
Delete