When we think of leadership, what comes to mind? Many envision a leader telling others what to do, directing actions with authority, and driving a team toward results through commands. But is this really leadership? Too often, leadership is reduced to this authoritarian “tell” approach, especially in environments like the military or bureaucratic sectors. It’s a mindset that says, If we just tell people what to do, and enforce it with consequences, things will get done. But this philosophy often leads to failure from the very start. Why? Because real leadership isn’t about command—it’s about action.
The Pitfalls of Authoritarian Leadership
In today’s world, too many leaders—especially those in government and the military—fall into the trap of trying to enforce compliance through rigid checklists and punitive measures. They assume that if they just push their directives harder, with sharper penalties, things will improve. Yet, this approach fails to cultivate the kind of leadership that can drive lasting success. Instead of empowering subordinates, it creates a system of dependence, where people only act when told—leaving a significant leadership deficit in its wake.
But here’s the truth: leadership is about getting people to act before you even have to ask. It’s about instilling a sense of initiative, responsibility, and ownership. The former is a quick fix, but it’s unsustainable. The latter requires building leaders, not just followers, and it demands clear communication of a vision and mission—one that people are invested in.
Mission Command and the Authoritarian Influence
The concept of mission command is an age-old military principle. It’s about giving subordinates the freedom to make decisions within the framework of the commander’s intent. Yet, in practice, the authoritarian mindset often seeps into the very heart of mission command. Instead of providing clear, concrete directives, some commanders lean too heavily on legal jargon and the power of bureaucracy. They focus on defining every term to avoid ambiguity, turning mission statements into legal contracts rather than strategic guides.
This over-regulation isn’t political correctness—it’s a symptom of a lost sense of mission within the military. The focus shifts from preparing warriors to following the letter of the law, resulting in a bloated, ineffective leadership structure.
The Dangers of Over-Defining War
When it comes to defining the purpose of war, things take a turn for the worse. The core objective of any military force is simple: defeat the enemy. Kill and destroy until the adversary surrenders. But modern-day discussions around war often get bogged down in legalities, with endless debates over targeting, ethics, and just war theory.
The reality is that if you wield existential power, it should be used sparingly—rarely, in fact. But when it is, the focus should be on mission success, not public relations. The question must be asked: Do we want to ensure the security of the nation, or are we simply trying to engage in a social experiment on the battlefield?
Leadership: The Art of Empowering Decision-Making
At its core, leadership is about empowering others to make the right decisions at the right time. It’s not about stripping away the ability to decide from your subordinates. Rather, leadership is about creating a culture where people anticipate needs, take initiative, and act without waiting for explicit instructions. How is this possible? Through vision, mission, skill development, and above all, judgment. Leadership also requires moral intelligence—something that’s often oversimplified or reduced to hollow concepts that fail under scrutiny.
We must ask ourselves: why do we shy away from addressing the deeper complexities of leadership? Why do we confine ethics and morals to rigid, often unrealistic constructs that are ill-suited to the real world?
Mistakes Are Inevitable—What Matters Is What You Do with Them
Here’s a simple truth: mistakes happen. No leader is immune to them. But it’s not the mistake that matters most—it’s what comes next. Mistakes can be the catalyst for growth, for strengthening not only the individual but the entire organization. In fact, breaking a rule could be necessary to ensure mission success. The real question is: do we value the mission enough to challenge the status quo?
And yet, the checklist-driven, compliance-focused mentality of many organizations fails to understand this. These authoritarian leaders fear the social or political consequences of mistakes, but what they fail to grasp is that mistakes, in and of themselves, are not the enemy. It’s how we handle them that defines our effectiveness as leaders. Sometimes, the “rules” are wrong—especially if they stand in the way of accomplishing what truly matters.
The Uncomfortable Truth: Leadership and the Greater Good
In the end, leadership is about taking risks, making hard decisions, and focusing on the greater good—whether it’s on the battlefield or in the boardroom. We must stop treating leadership as a social experiment and start recognizing it for what it truly is: a responsibility to guide, empower, and, yes, occasionally break the rules for the greater good. It’s not about avoiding mistakes—it’s about learning from them and ensuring they don’t derail the mission at hand.
So, as we look toward the future of leadership, whether in the military or in the corporate world, let’s focus on creating leaders who are willing to act before they’re told, who can make tough decisions with judgment and moral clarity, and who are unafraid to challenge the structures that hold us back. Because, ultimately, leadership isn’t about the power to command—it’s about the power to inspire action and drive change.
I recommend “Leadership Myth and Reality” by General Stanley McChrystal.
