As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2001 to 2005, Gen. Richard Myers was the highest-ranking military officer in the nation and principal military adviser to the president of the United States. From that vantage point, Myers saw that leadership was more than just taking charge, making decisions and issuing commands.
“Successful leaders genuinely care about their people — the people they work with and the people who work for them,” says Myers, now retired. “After all, that’s how we get things done, with people. And people figure out pretty quickly when their leader doesn’t care.”
During a more than 30-year Air Force career that included stints as commander-in-chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Space Command, Myers built a deep knowledge base of global security and leadership issues. Today, he serves on the boards of three U.S. companies, including Aon Corp. where he advises on global security and risk management issues.
Myers was in Cleveland in July to address a group of regional executives at a global security breakfast hosted by Aon Risk Services Northeast Inc. After learning how the American national security apparatus works, Smart Business sat down with the retired four-star general and discussed how risk-taking, decision-making and communication are critical components for any strong leadership team.
Q. During your career you spent a lot of time identifying people who had the capacity to be leaders. What methods did you find most effective?
You’ve got to test people and see how they react to the responsibility you give them and how they handle adversity. There is no other way to gauge leadership. You learn more about people from when they have some difficulties than when things are going swimmingly. It’s also getting to know people personally, so you can understand the underlying values that drive them in their life. You have to put all that into the equation when you’re determining who is ready for more responsibility. But you have to make sure you don’t get myopic. They may be responsive to you, but they’re maybe not responsive to their people.
You also need to take input from lots of different sources when you’re trying to figure out who ought to be promoted or given more responsibility. Peer reviews are important as well as what other people think. You have to cast the net wide.
Q. There are different schools of thought on decision-making. Some people say it’s better to be quick and decisive. Others say it’s better to be thoughtful and evaluate everything. Is one type better than the other?
In any organization, you’re going to have both types — some that are more cautious and some that are more aggressive. I think you need both.
What you certainly don’t want is somebody who is so cautious that they’re afraid to make a decision so that everybody under them is just totally frustrated and stewing (in) their own juices because the boss won’t get off his duff and make a decision. And you don’t want somebody who is so quick on the trigger that after a series of decisions it’s pretty obvious that they have not considered everything. Some nice balance is needed.
Q. You serve on the board of Aon and advise the company on risk-related issues. How important is risk-taking in the leadership equation?
You want people who are aggressive, that are going to take risks. Anything we do in today’s complex situations requires that you can’t wait until all the facts are in because that will take too much time. And you will probably never get all the facts and be able to easily say, ‘OK, this is the answer.’ If it were, [the issue] would have been dealt with at a lower level. Dealing with ambiguity and complexity is an important part of whomever you are looking at to give more responsibility. You want to see how they handle that.
Q. So it’s really a healthy balance?
Yes. You need input from both sides when you’re sitting around a table. For example, when I was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you hoped that around that table discussing an issue you’d have some people that would be more likely to take risk and those that are a little more cautious. That allows you to hear the arguments on both sides and then come out with a way forward that considers everything.
For any important decision, you need as much of a 360-degree perspective around the problem as you can get. And it’s not always easy. If everybody was a ‘yes’ person, that wouldn’t be helpful. If everybody was aggressive and disregarded the risk part of the equation, that wouldn’t be good either. You want people who look at it from all different angles. When you do that, you can usually come to a good conclusion.
