A dynamic team cannot rely solely on orders; they must be able to read each others' every move so they can act as parts of a coordinated whole.
It's difficult to feel as though you are truly being effective at work. Many of us feel trapped in endless meetings, with barely any time to grab lunch, let alone do any work. Overarching strategies and key priorities seem completely divorced from the day-to-day tactics.
Before you can trust your team to make decisions better than you would have, you need to build their capability to connect the dots.
As a leader, you sit at a different level of perspective from your team, either with line of sight higher and across the organization structure or connected at more senior levels with your clients and partners.
By providing clear objectives for your team, and setting guardrails for how they get there, you will set them on the path to success.
Most teams are naturally flat; they have fewer members than a large enterprise, which allows for intimacy and trust to form. This makes collaborative problem solving in individual teams more straightforward.
Leaders in an interconnected organization must be comfortable sitting in the middle of a network, not at the top of an org-chart.
In the military, and in business, the most elite and effective teams I've seen or been part of are filled with individuals who take responsibility for their choices. Life is a series of decisions that you make and actions you take, not a series of things that happen to you.
In 2010, I was an executive officer in the Navy, splitting my time between U.S. headquarters and being deployed to an international location.
As I found while leading special operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, if the problem is interconnected, your organization must be, as well.
The truth is that key influencers exist in all effective organizations, but a solid-line org chart won't tell you where they are.
How often are you really realigning yourselves on strategy? And does it need to be faster, based on how quickly your market actually changes? The answer is usually yes.
The reality, as the battlefield taught us, is that a 20th-century organizational system is simply insufficient for the speed of the information age.
As you move up a traditional, sort of bureaucratic structure, there's a certain point at which you realize, 'Well, I'm not really on the implementation or execution side - I'm not on the battlefield. I'm an operations person who's overseeing multiple units that are out on the ground doing the job.'
When we first met, I was probably six layers down in the military structure, but General McChrystal at that time was a soldier's leader, and he was part of the task force. So everyone developed close relationships.
As the insurgency in Iraq started to grow, we realized this is a connected network of individual actors that can move at light speed.
The 20th century was all about hierarchies: if you want to create something, if you want to start a country, create a product, whatever it is. Your goal is to create a highly efficient hierarchical model, scale it, because that's what the competition's doing.
The 21st century is dominated by networks because the introduction of the information age, we can suddenly create, free flow these globally distributed, organic, shaped networks of individuals.
On any high-performing team I've been a part of, putting mission first, and team before self, was always key to collective success.
If you're trying to stay productive, stop and think, 'Are my meetings actually productive, or are we merely having meetings for meetings' sake?'
