The Essentials of Trust and Teamwork in Leadership | Full Conversation

Hi Simon. It's a great pleasure and it's a honor actually to us to be able to have you today at Swiss army leadership talks. Good morning. Actually, I think. What time is it on your side?

It's quarter past ten in the morning.

Okay. Good morning. I hope you had your first coffee already.

What would you tell them.

Most importantly, nobody, nobody is smart enough or strong enough to do this thing called leadership all by themselves. Leadership is just too difficult. And the great leaders I know, they know how to ask for help. They know how to lean on someone when they are struggling. They know how to say, I don't understand.

And so I think number one is there's no such thing as a great leader without a team of great people around them.

Leadership is a team sport.

And thinking you have to do everything alone, you're going to burn yourself out and you're going to break yourself and ultimately you'll hurt the organization.

So ask for help when you need it. Admit you don't know things when you don't know them. And you find you're surrounded by people who want to help you.

And that leads to another question actually. Are great leaders, are they born or are they being made? Or can they learn it themselves?

Yeah, so it's, it's, it's an age old question with a simple answer which is leaders are made.

There's no, there's no leadership gene.

And if you look at all of the people that we would consider great leaders, you can see that they had a journey. You know, they all had journeys. Gandhi started off as a, as a, a lawyer who, who failed the bar in the, in the UK and moved to South Africa where he was more likely to pass the bar. I mean, and then he saw the injustice in South Africa. What if he passed the bar in the uk, There'd be no Gandhi. They all went on journeys and they all had trials and tribulations that taught them the skill of leadership. Leadership is a learnable, practicable skill. And like any skill, like riding a bicycle, if you do it a lot, you get good at it. And if you don't do it a lot, your muscles will atrophy. There's no such thing as an expert in leadership. Every great leader I've ever met considers themselves a student of leadership. They're constantly reading books about it, watching talks about it, having conversations about it, regardless of how much they've accomplished in their careers. So every great leader that any of us have ever known or followed or admired, I can guarantee you they went on their own journey so, yeah, leadership is a learnable, practical skill.

So you said that you learn leadership out of actually of experience. Experience you make. But is it, like, is it necessary to have a coach or a mentor to learn leadership, to give, like, feedback and guide you to become a better leader?

I think that's a leading question. The answer is, of course, I mean, you can't be a great athlete without a coach. You know, you don't have the same objectivity and perspective on yourself as someone looking from the outside in. So I absolutely do believe in mentors and coaches. The most important thing that I have found in a mentor relationship is that there's a difference between a mentor and a champion. And sometimes I think we get those things confused. A champion is someone who can help your career. Put in a good word for you, where a mentor usually is outside of your chain of command, a good mentor, they have no ability to help advance your career. The only thing they can do is, is be 100% objective and tell you what they think based on how you're acting or what you're doing.

And I think those relationships are immensely valuable because we can't say to them, put in a good word for me. They have no ability, nor do they feel that responsibility, quite frankly. So they have the ability to be totally, totally objective. They're outside the chain. Now, you can have a good mentor inside the chain of command, but the problem is it's complicated by the chain of command. So I think good mentors outside, and sometimes even outside the industry, outside of your unit, you know, outside of your, your, your, your mos, whatever it is.

Because then they don't really know your job. They only know you.

But as a leader, I don't want to create followers. I want to create other leaders. So that means that I'm always, always.

That she's honorable, he's honorable. But in the military, that word still has meaning. And you describe someone as, I don't like him, but he's absolutely honorable.

And that is the basis for camaraderie. I don't think you can have true camaraderie unless you have the belief that someone is watching your back.

Camaraderie actually is another term that is only used in military environments. So in civilian life, we don't use that very often. I think that story was very impressive about trust. And leadership has a lot to do with trust. So here, right now in Bern, we have many leaders. We have leaders out of police, armed forces, but also the economy. So how do you think army, like military leadership can be Translated into like civilian leadership. Do you see there a bridge or something in common?

Absolutely. For one, I think that the military is very good at understanding the difference between the battle and the war.

Which is you can you fight to win battles, but you can lose battles and still win the war.

And I think military understands the short game and the long game a lot better, which is when you go into action, you play to win, but when you're not in action, you play to improve. And so the military is in a constant state of constant improvement. How do we make our systems better, how do we make our training better, how do we make our leaders better, how do we make everything's constant improvement? Fight to win, then go back to constant improvement. And I think in the civilian world everybody's just trying to win all the time and they forget, they forget the long game. And the problem is when we only play the short game, when we only play to win or advance our careers or look like heroes, we actually do long term damage to an organization. That's the opposite of constant improvement. And so I think the ability to understand when you're playing a finite game and when you're playing an infinite game, the military is much better at that. I think in the civilian world especially, it's a lot of putting out fires without consideration of, of the greater picture.

Now we speak a lot actually about leadership and we learn about leadership and we all read your books. But what I hear very often from actually from young leaders, they have high pressure on them because they want to be great leaders. And as they see that cannot fulfill themselves, this pressure or the pressure they're under, or their own impression of how they should be as leaders, they actually break under that pressure. What would you tell them?

Most importantly, nobody, nobody is smart enough or strong enough to do this thing called leadership all by themselves. Leadership is just too difficult. And the great leaders I know, they know how to ask for help. They know how to lean on someone when they are struggling. They know how to say, I don't understand.

And so I think number one is there's no such thing as a great leader without a team of great people around them.

Leadership is a team sport.

And thinking you have to do everything alone, you're going to burn yourself out and you're going to break yourself and ultimately you'll hurt the organization.

So ask for help when you need it. Admit you don't know things when you don't know them. And you find you're surrounded by people who want to help you.

And that leads to another question. Actually are great leaders, Are they born or are they being made or can they learn it themselves?

Yeah. So it's an age old question with a simple answer which is leaders are made.

There's no leadership gene.

And if you look at all of the people that we would consider great leaders, you can see that they had a journey.

They all had journeys. Gandhi started off as a lawyer who failed the bar in the UK and move to South Africa where he was more likely to pass the bar. I mean, and then he saw the injustice in South Africa. What if he passed the bar in the uk, there'd be no Gandhi. They all went on journeys and they all had trials and tribulations that taught them the skill of leadership. Leadership is a learnable, practiceable skill. And like any skill, like riding a bicycle, if you do it a lot, you get good at it. And if you don't do it a lot, your muscles will atrophy. There's no such thing as an expert in leadership. Every great leader I've ever met considers themselves a student of leadership. They're constantly reading books about it, watching talks about it, having conversations about it, regardless of how much they've accomplished in their careers. So every great leader that any of us have ever known or followed or admired, I can guarantee you they went on their own journey. So yeah, leadership is a learnable, practical skill.

So you said that you learn leadership out of actually of experience. Experience you make. But is it like, is it necessary to have a coach or a mentor to learn leadership, to give like feedback and guide you to become a better leader?

I think that's a leading question. The answer is, of course, I mean, you can't be a great athlete without a coach. You know, you don't have the same objectivity and perspective on yourself as someone looking from the outside in. So I absolutely do believe in mentors and coaches. The most important thing that I have found in a mentor relationship is that there's a difference between a mentor and a champion. And sometimes I think we get those things confused. A champion is someone who can help your career, put in a good word for you, where a mentor usually is outside of your chain of command, a good mentor, they have no ability to help advance your career. The only thing they can do is, is be 100% objective and tell you what they think based on how you're acting or what you're doing.

And I think those relationships are immensely valuable because we can't say to them, put in a good word for me. They have no ability, nor do they feel that responsibility, quite frankly. So they have the ability to be totally, totally objective. They're outside the chain. Now, you can have a good mentor inside the chain of command, but the problem is it's complicated by the chain of command. So I think good mentors are outside and sometimes even outside the industry, Outside of your unit, you know, outside of your, your, your, your mos, whatever it is.

Because then they don't really know your job. They only know you.

But as a leader, I don't want to create followers. I want to create other leaders. So that means that I'm always also a coach or a mentor as a leader. But then what makes a good mentor then or a coach? What do I have to do? Become a better coach?

So I think coaching is not about telling people what to do. It's about helping them see things that they may not see. But ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions. And I've learned in my own journey, when I've offered coaching to people, that when I give them an observation or maybe offer some points of view, if they fight with me or get defensive.

I would fight back and say, no, you're wrong. You're missing it. And it became about me being accountable. And so if they don't understand something, that's different. But when they're defensive now, if they push back, I go, I'm just telling you what I think. You can absolutely ignore me. You can throw it out. I'm just here to help, but I'm not here to tell you what to do. I'm not right. I don't have answers. It's just a point of view. It's just an observation. This is your career. This is your leadership. You do what you think is right. And the minute you push the accountability on the person that they're responsible for their own actions, all of a sudden they're much more open to coaching. And I like to remind coaches that if you go watch football, for example, the coach is not allowed to run onto the field to play.

Even if the coach knows what to do, Even if the coach knows how to do it better, the coach is not allowed to play in the game. And it's the same for coaching and leadership, which is the coach is not allowed to make the decision. The coach is not allowed to rush in to lead the group. The coach can only stand on the sidelines and offer what they think is help to the players. But ultimately the players responsible for their own behavior and their own decisions.

Interesting question about the responsibility of a leader, and I very much agree. Sometimes Leaders think it's them to make all the decisions, define all the plans. And I agree, it's not. It's definitely not. Simon, I know that you dream of a world where everyone actually a working world where everyone is very enthusiastic, very much motivated, and I would say I share that dream. But. And also, what do we have to do in Swiss Armed Forces that everyone is every day motivated and enthusiastic? How do we create such an environment?

Well, I don't think that's true.

I don't think we can create an organization where everyone, every day, is motivated and enthusiastic. That's like, we love our children every day, but we don't like our children every day. You know, it's like we can love our work every day. We don't have to like it every day. We can be inspired at work every day. We don't have to be motivated at work every day. You know, there are other things that are factors in our lives. And so I think the most important thing is that it is a team, because no team is operating with every player at the highest level. Every moment of every day, it sort of goes like this. You know, it's like any kind of relationship where we. When if one person is struggling for whatever reason, that the other players can come in to hold them up and help compensate for any work that needs to get done. And you lean on each other, and that's what makes it flawless. It's the fluidity of being able to lean on each other. And the relationships are so good, and we start to understand each other, that we know when I can stand. And we also know each other's strengths and weaknesses, so we know who to plug in, because somebody's better at this. This has happened to me where even just as a leader, my personality, I'm not getting through to somebody on my team. They're just not listening to me. But it's my personality. And so instead of me just doing the same thing over and over again, I'll ask somebody else to fill in, because their personality might work a lot better, and it works a lot of the times. So I think it's that ability to understand that this is a team, this is a team, this is a team at all times. It is a team that keeps the inspiration and the desire to come to work really high.

And I said in the beginning, we understand it's one of your dreams, but then tell us the truth. How many companies have you seen, including Armed Forces, that really fulfilled already that dream?

Well, it's an ideal, right? I imagine a world in which the vast majority of people wake up inspired, feel safe wherever they are and end the day fulfilled by the work that they do. It is an ideal. I know that we will never get there, but we will die trying. That's the point. And so I have met many units within the military and many units that have failed.

Where they are more advanced towards that vision than others. The same in the corporate world. There are some companies that are way, way more advanced in that vision than others. And I think what's most important is the constant striving. We talked before about understanding the infinite game by understanding the idea of constant improvement and the ones that are making the greatest headways. It's not that they get everything right and make every right decision. They absolutely do not. It's how they deal with when they make bad decisions or how they deal with it when they get pushed back on their heels. And the idea of constantly improving and accepting that this is a moment in time. Now let's move forward. Those are the ones that I admire.

I like very much a concept of constant improving. This, as you have said before, it's also in the armed forces, we are very much used to that. So we do what is called an after action review. But that should be also on the personal level then. Not just on the action itself, on the mission, but also on the personal level.

One of the things that I think works very well in the military that I think the private sector could learn from is the military does the after action review. And, and nobody's. Sometimes the feedback is harsh.

You know, it's very honest. Somebody screwed up, you're going to get told that you screwed up. But even if your ego is a little damaged, the reason it works is because everybody understands that we're doing this so that we can be better, so that the organization can be better, so that we're more likely to succeed in the future. Whereas I think in the private sector we're so worried about someone's ego or hurting someone's feelings. And by the way, I do not believe that honesty has to be brutal. We talk about brutal honesty. Honesty does not have to be brutal, it just has to be honest. You don't have to say you screwed up, but I know that you can do better than you did today. That's an honest assessment without being brutal.

But the point is, I think that in the private sector we can do a lot better at that. I'll tell you a funny story. So when I go to a military briefing versus when I go to a corporate presentation at the End of a military briefing, very often the briefer will say, spears. Spears. In other words, right at the end of the briefing, tell me what's wrong. Tell me where I screwed up. Tell me what can be better. Where are the holes in my logic? Tell me where I can improve. We're in the private sector, we give a presentation and we go, pretty good, pretty good, right? Tell me the places that were good. Tell me the places that you really like.

Right?

And we get defensive when people poke holes. And again, I think the military better understands the idea of constant improvement, which means having thick skin and being open to criticism. And I've learned that. I've learned that in my own work. I crave the criticism now. People are like, oh, that was good, that was great. Blah, blah, blah, no, no, no, tell me what can be better. I've learned to really enjoy.

That negative feedback because it means I can be better. And it's delivered from people who aren't trying to hurt me. It's delivered from people who are trying to help me make my work better.

So I think that private sector can really learn that from the military.

And now let's turn it around. So what can the military learn about from the private sector then?

So one of the advantages that private sector has is they have a less strict.

Formal hierarchy. So in the military, you know, you have to work x many years to make each rank. And you know, it's relatively organized by age. If you're older, you're probably more senior. If you're younger, you're probably more junior. And that's pretty much how it is. Whereas in the private sector, if you're truly a talent and truly a go getter, you can sometimes lead people who are older than you, you can sometimes lead people who have been in the organization or in the industry longer than you.

And that's a huge advantage. And I think we're not asking the military to upset the traditional hierarchy. I understand why it works, but I think inviting the smart people to sit at the table makes. It makes a. Makes a big difference. I'll give you a real life example. It just happens to be another Marine example. I was visiting Camp Pendleton and there was a young Marine captain, a Raider, Special Forces.

Who was in charge of looking after me. And he was a history major in university. And we just got to talking while we were in the car, and he told me about an experience he had in Iraq where he was tasked with training and equipping a group of Iraqi soldiers, which is really exciting for a young. For a young Officer. And so first, let's get everybody a rifle. Great, done. Everybody's got a rifle. He says, okay, now let's get everybody a rucksack. And his Iraqi counterpart said, sorry, there's no rucksacks on base. And the Marine said, no problem. Whoever does your procurement, your requisitions, get some rucks. And the Iraqi counterpart said, no, no, you don't understand. There's no rucksacks in Iraq, anywhere in the country. And so this young officer said, well, where do you put your water then? And the guy said, you put it in your pockets or on the back of the truck. He goes, okay, let's say the truck's disabled and you run out of water in your pockets, then what happens? And the guy says, you die. And then this young captain remembered his history, that in the west, the way we fight our militaries are largely based on Roman theories of fighting, which is long supply lines to supply the forward operating forces. Whereas the Arabs are raiders. They don't have supply lines. They leave in the morning with a day's worth of.

Material and you fight. And if you win, then you eat the other guy's stuff and drink his water, or if you lose, you come home. And so here we are in the west trying to undo thousands of years of raider history and turn them into Roman legions. Of course it wasn't working. And that's because the planners who weren't at the front lines had no idea that this was even happening. And so my question is, I'm not saying make this young captain a colonel, but maybe invite the young captain to sit at the table to advise the colonels. And I think the military can do a better job if you go to your company grade commanders or above and say, who are your smartest people? They know who they are. Snag those people and let them sit in meetings and advise, because I think that they would offer a point of view that is otherwise missing.

Great story, I like that one. But then also coming back to you mentioned the ranks we have in armed forces, like you mentioned colonels or captains or soldiers or NCOs. And then what I experience very often is soldier levels are scared to give feedback to, like senior, like majors or colonels. How, how did you experience? How can it be overcome? So to, to, for soldiers to, to have the courage to give feedback also to more senior levels, because also they're like, their promotion might depend on the relationship they have. And that might also be the same, might be true also for the economy. So giving feedback always Might give me a bad situation to get promoted later.

So that goes to the quality of the leader, quite frankly, which is a leader who recognizes and rewards feedback is going to encourage more feedback. So if I ask for feedback and say I'm open to it and then somebody gives it to me and I either defend myself, criticize them, or reject it, then I'm creating an environment in which no one's going to give me feedback, or at least they won't give me honest feedback. They're just going to tell me how great I am. Whereas if somebody gives me negative feedback, I don't have to listen to it, I don't have to agree with it. But if I can encourage it, I go. Thank you. Tell me more. Go on. Yes, thank you. Oh, this is really helpful. Thank you. So the leader will create the conditions. And if people can see that happen, if they see a young officer. And by the way, there's a difference between respectful and disrespectful feedback. And to maintain esprit de corps and maintain the rank structure, it can be done respectfully. Sir, can I give you some feedback? Yes, you can. Or can we do it later? Or let's do it in my office. Right. As opposed to, hey, let me tell you what I think. That's disrespectful because you're not evaluating the situation that, that maybe that officer that's more senior officer or NCO has in mind. So may I give you some feedback? Asking permission is how it starts. May I give you some feedback? And if they say no? Okay, then I know my place.

Right.

But a good, A good leader, a good NCO or a good officer, or even a good, A good.

Soldier. Because. Because feedback can go this way as well.

Will. Will. Will want to receive it and create conditions in which it's. In which it's welcomed and that then it'll get encouraged. And then what you're doing is you're creating a culture of feedback in which it can go up and down very, very easily. You can also create some formalized systems where it happens. But, but the informal ones work as well.

I like the second part of your answer, actually, also, for like every soldier or every employee has the possibility to ask to provide some feedback.

Sure.

That's a, that's a good one.

And ask for it. Like I said before, you know, can you give me some feedback of how I can improve? Oh, you're great. Well, that's not true. There's always room for improvement. Can you please tell me that? I want that and Again, if the leader asks for it instead of just waiting to be, to be given, if the leader says, I like some feedback, how I can do better, you know, and you create a form for it. In this meeting we're going to talk about what we as an organization can do better or how I can do better as a leader. So I want all of your answers. And I've done this with my organization where when you have those sessions, even if you agree or disagree, even if the leaders are triggered, you basically, you're in receiving mode. Go on, tell me more. And if you don't understand, you can ask follow up questions, but please tell me more. Go on. Yes, and it's, it's just taking it all in, right? Then the next day when people have emptied their buckets, then you can say, okay, yesterday we talked about what we can do better and what I can do better. Now I want to talk about where we can do better and what you think you can do that we can improve this. And now it's all positivity and moving forward because I've had the opportunity in the forum to get all the junk out ready, so to separate those two, I think it's very important to separate the emptying of the bucket and the, and the looking forwards because you can't do it in the same meeting. It's too, there's too much emotion.

But a leader that welcomes it and asks for it and creates form for it, it creates an environment for it.

Going back to one of your books, always start with why. So in armed forces, we used to give orders to each other. So how can the why be transported in an order? So how can they give orders that include the why? The purpose of the mission, so why.

Is very simply context. And I think when we give people context, they better understand the orders they're being given, right? So for example.

Move this wall, move this fence from here to there.

And then they'll do it. I mean, they understand how the rank structure works, but they may not be inspired and motivated. They may not feel like they're contributing to anything. And so simply offering context, right, simply is by saying we understand that by having this fence here, we actually limit the distance that we can for our, our, our trucks to get through. It's making it more difficult for them and we can only get one at a time. So what I want you guys to do is move it over there because we need room to get more, more things through simultaneously so we can move quicker. So move this from here to there and so you're still giving the same order, but by providing the context, you're allowing for them to now be innovative. Because if all they were told was move here from there, then what happens if there's a big boulder.

They don't know the reason they were moving it. Well, here you ask them to solve problems, which includes moving the fence. And so you'll find much more ingenuity if they're in the loop. Basically, they understand the context. So I think that's essential when giving orders. And look, you know better than I do that, and I think this is very important that the private sector does not understand. But it's very, very important to understand. The private sector thinks military is all command and control. Right? Do this. Do as I tell you, Take an order. And so they think that being a strong leader because they've seen too many movies is barking orders and telling people what to do. Now, you know as well as I do that that, that that is a part of leadership where you. I'm going to tell you a task without any context, and you're going to do it. But that is reserved for moments of chaos. And when there isn't chaos, you're spending time building trust, you're spending time offering context. You're spending time building the sprita core so that when you are in a chaotic situation, you absolutely can bark orders and scream and yell, because I don't have time for feedback and I don't have time to give you context. And they will follow the orders with high motivation because they trust. They trust that you would not give them an order that would needlessly put them at danger, even though they understand that you'll sometimes make mistakes. And so I think in business, in private sector, we need to learn to adjust as well, which is command and control works fine in short periods of time in moments of chaos, but it cannot be. Nobody has the energy to endure that on a daily basis.

I see. And what you're saying is actually you have to establish the relationship first. And if there is a relationship of trust, the trust relationship, you can also barcodes or give orders. And sometimes this is necessary, like in, in armed forces, but also in aviation or in other environments. Sometimes, yeah, might be necessary.

But it's, It's. It's earned. It's earned.

Okay.

I, I experienced it during. I experienced it during COVID When Covid hit and we went into lockdown, my company was going to go bankrupt. I mean, all of our income came from, in person things. We weren't going to survive. And I remember I Had a meeting with my team and we're a very sort of lovey, lovey kumbaya, you know? And I said, I care about your feelings. If I say something that upsets you, I want to know, but I don't want to know now. Tell me in two weeks, I said, because right now we're in survival mode and I don't have time or energy to deal with all the frilly stuff. I care, but we're going to do it later. And it worked fine. And I went into command and control because we had to. It was a time of extreme stress, and it worked just fine because we'd spent years building the trust.

So, Simon, we have like 300 young leaders, NCOs, young business leaders in this room. Now. What kind of advice would you give them for young leaders to become, like, more senior and grow as leaders? Like a final message to our audience here.

I think it goes back to what I said before, which is the most important lesson I learned as a young leader was I don't have to know all the answers, and I don't have to pretend that I do. And the biggest, biggest skill that I learned that profoundly changed the course of my career as I learned to ask for help. And it is amazing that when you learn to ask for help with confidence, not, I can't do this and can you help me? But I'm like, hey, I have no clue what I'm doing. Can somebody please help me what I'm doing here? Do you know how to do this? Because I'm an idiot. If you can learn to ask for help with confidence, it will have more impact on your growth as a leader and your growth in your career than almost anything else. Being the smartest in the room is not important. Being the one who's willing to ask for help is the most important.

That was a great final statement, Simon.

So.

So thank you very much. It was a real honor. It was a real pleasure talking to you. I think that's just amazing and there's a lot of admiration for you. Also in Switzerland, as in many of our participants, audience here read all your books, and if not, they would actually start to, I'm quite sure. So thank you very much for spending time with us. Thank you very much for accepting the invitation. It was just great. Thank you very much, Simon.

Thanks so much for helping me. Thanks so much for inviting me. I really appreciate it. Take care of yourself and take care of each other.

Thank you. And you, too. Bye. Bye.