By Jeff Bell
Must leadership be driven by one person?
A common model is the charismatic who can identify a cause, articulate the path and, through influence or mandated power, take people along the journey. A key attribute in this popular model is to make decisions—hopefully the best decisions.
But can we see something different or even better than this model?
It may seem counterintuitive to rely on the whole team to work together for the best possible outcome—that is with an appointed leader acting not like the above, but by asking “Can I have your ideas please?” And this is no abrogation of responsibility, rather a different interpretation of leadership that draws commitment and ultimately builds a sense of belonging among the group members.
It is described in The Culture Code by Daniel Coyle and among similar examples, he describes the US Navy Seals induction training.
After graduating from the US Naval Academy in 1933, Draper Kauffman had an unremarkable history, with no promotion prospects and eventually entered World War II as an ambulance driver when Adolf Hitler was preparing to invade France. Inspired by a group of elite volunteers, the Corps Franc, Kauffman later trained as a bomb disposal specialist in the UK, returning to the US Naval Reserve as a lieutenant to recruit and train underwater demolition teams.
Here he created a lookalike Corps Franc with rigorous physical challenges and a telephone pole stacking exercise from the British commandos. The recruits were grouped into units of 6 and had to make their way through trials by making their own decisions, without central command. Everyone did the same training, with rank treated as irrelevant—it was picked up in the 1960s and to the present day, this “unconscious genius” SEAL training prevails, relying on team work and managing vulnerability to create abiding trust. And belonging.
In 1993, the training program had evolved into their peak performers, Team Six. Among their trainers, Dave Cooper was perhaps the most admired. A veteran of operations in Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, Cooper was renowned for creating great teams—credited with challenging the authority bias of the military (“obey the officer without question”). Instead: How do you develop a hive mind, develop ways to challenge each other, ask the right questions and never defer to authority?
The groups learned to build on interdependence and cooperation–experiencing hardship, conducting after-action reviews, with no rank and no agenda, making it safe to admit mistakes. They also built a shared mental model where all team members could see what everyone else was doing or had done. Their culture was centred humility, on the courage to seek and speak the truth—no matter how uncomfortable.
From 1925 to the 1970s, the Bell Labs of New Jersey developed a reputation for world-leading innovation and invention in national communications, based on their “group genius”. They perceived and created the transistor, data networking, solar cells, lasers, communication satellites, binary computing and cellular communication—the basis for the phenomenal advances of subsequent decades.
For much of this time, they were led by Claude Shannon and inspired by unassuming and insightful engineer Harry Nyquist. The Swede possessed a knack for making people feel cared for, and he had relentless curiosity—combining deep and broad knowledge with a desire to seek connections. He was able to question researchers that led them to deeper understandings and a sense of openness and cooperation.
Coyle writes:
“If we think of successful cultures as engines of human cooperation, then the Nyquists are the spark plugs.”
Coyle also goes on to describe another leader in a similar mould: Roshi Givechi of IDEO, an international design studio HQ-ed in California. Givechi, he says, had a “contented stillness” as she convened regular team meetings to discuss issues, barriers, points of friction and awareness which encouraged connection, sharing, discovery, toughness and persistence without confrontation.
Throughout the book Coyle cites short term projects, team formation and decision making as well as long-term culture development to build belonging. The group leadership he describes requires openness, vulnerability, safety and cooperation—underscored by intense listening by the leader.
Could the hive be the model to build belonging?