Simon Sinek uses two Air Force incidents where crews violated the same rule in opposite contexts: one punished for accidentally entering Iranian airspace, the other excused for intentionally doing so to save a fighter pilot's life. Leaders who blindly enforce rules without understanding context are lazy; real leadership means investigating why people break them and solving problems together.
Chapters
We don't trust people to follow rules. We trust people to know when to break them. Right? The rules are there for normal operation, and they're perfectly valid. Like, it's good to have sides on the sandbox, otherwise the sand just pours out, right? So the rules give guidance. There's nothing wrong with policies and rules and things like that, but they're guidance. And if something goes wrong, we have to find out why it went wrong, right? So.
I've told this story a bunch of times, so you can interrupt me if you know it. True story. Two true stories about that happened in the Air Force. The Air Force has a very, very simple rule. Do not fly into Iranian airspace. Really easy, right? So there was a KC135 tanker that was flying in circles just in a holding pattern in case someone needs gas. In case someone needs them, right? And the crew accidentally drifted into Iranian airspace.
It sets off all kinds of alarm bells, right? Not good.
Completely different incident, unrelated, different time. Another KC135 just coincidentally was doing the same thing they were. They were doing donuts in case somebody needed them. And a fighter jet called Bingo, which means they ran out of gas. They need gas. And the crew made some calculations, and they wanted to get to him as quickly as possible because he's out of gas. And the quickest way to get to him was to slice through Iranian airspace. Now, on paper, they both broke the same rule. They should both be punished equally. And they should both be.
They should both be punished, right? The reality is, only one of those crews was punished, the ones that were idiots. But the crew that made the decision to cut through the space, knowing full well that it was against the rules, knowing full well that they could get in trouble and would accept the punishment if it happened, weren't punished because context matters. So the question is, why is somebody late three times in a row?
Is it because they live far away, because they're taking care of their sick mother? And they. And they've been struggling to get the bus every day because their bus has been, you know, Is it because they're a single parent and they're struggling to get the kids out.
In the morning to school?
Or is it because they overslept because they're lazy, or because they went partying the night before and they. And they missed their job and they. And you're a pushover, so whatever, they just take advantage of you. I don't know. Could be one of oath, you know?
And the question is, we don't want them to be late, but we understand that they're struggling. So how do we find a middle ground?
You cannot be late anymore. But I understand that you're struggling because you can't get the kids out of school. Let's work together to see how we can make this work. Can we change your shift?
What works for you? Like, let's work together to make this work. You know, context matters versus.
You know. You know that this is giving you some nonsense excuses, something you're like, listen, take some accountability. And that's a different conversation, you know, But. But to immediately dismiss someone because they missed they were late three times, to me, that. That seems like lazy leisure, lazy leadership. Lazy leaders rely on the rules.
