Leadership has to be one of the most hotly-debated and written-about topics in the world. Well, perhaps alongside strategy in the business arena. It is a rare privilege to chat with an expert in leadership who has had such a varied and interesting leadership journey. Peter Docker is a former Royal Air Force (RAF) leader, a teacher on leadership at the UK’s Defence Academy, co-author with Simon Sinek and David Mead on his groundbreaking “Find Your Why” bestseller and a sought-after leadership coach and speaker. What’s not covered by that impressive set of credentials is how genuine, sincere and lovely he is in person. Over two fantastic calls (truthfully, I’d have preferred a corner table in the local pub), Peter spoke to me about how his experiences in the RAF and afterward have honed his thinking on leadership and how, in his opinion, the new era of leadership needs to be more about followership than being the person always out front.
HB: Peter so delighted we could finally schedule this chat. You’re such a prolific writer on leadership and purpose I can’t wait to get into your perspective on those topics. For the benefit of our readers can you share a little about your background and how that’s moulded your thinking on leadership?
PD: My first reflection whenever I’m asked that question is how fortunate I’ve been. My career, for all its ups and downs and surprising turns, has been tremendously fun. It really started with an early decision to leave college and join the RAF which set in motion a number of events and, importantly, solidified a number of ideas I had about the world and my purpose in it.
Leaving college was prompted by the Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982. I was so incensed by this action of one group of people inflicting themselves on another group against their will, that I joined up. It wasn’t some grand political statement but reflected a core personal belief about mutual respect. Looking back, this belief, this purpose, around mutual respect has been a fundamental driver for me ever since.
My RAF career spanned many experiences which I often can’t believe I was lucky enough have. While I was never sharp enough to become a fighter pilot, I went the route of big aircraft which meant flying enormous VC10’s around the world. I was then selected to be one of the pilots responsible for flying the prime minister, who at the time was Margaret Thatcher, and other ministers around. I learned to fly the air-to-air refueling tankers and, subsequently, what became the leadership highlight of my career, was commanding elements of three squadrons during the 2003 Iraq War. I’ve also taught at the defence leadership college, been part of NATO delegations to Russia after the Wall fell and had the opportunity to run a $20billion procurement program for the RAF. A wonderfully varied and exciting career indeed.
After I left the RAF, I joined a leadership consultancy dealing in high-risk areas like oil and gas, mining and construction. Around that time, I was introduced to Simon Sinek and later became one of his co-authors on the book “Find Your Why”, the sequel to Simon’s “Start With Why” book. After a few years working with Simon, in what seems like a recurring pattern, I felt like I needed a new challenge and set out to develop my own work.
That has culminated in the release of my own leadership book – “Leading from the Jumpseat” – which is the synthesis of my leadership lessons and learning and my contribution to building the types of leaders I believe we desperately need in the world.
HB: Brilliant synopsis Peter, thank you. Wow, you’ve certainly seen a lot. Directly on “Leading from the Jumpseat”, I believe you recently found out that it’s a finalist for Business Book Awards 2022 for Leadership. That’s phenomenal!! A question that always plagues me is why, when there are about 100 billion books, courses, and lessons on leadership, why do we always seem to bemoan the dearth of leadership? In our businesses, in our politics, in our institutions. How do you look at leadership based on all your experiences?
PD: <Laughs> Thank you for that. I’m really delighted to be a finalist in the Leadership category. That means a lot. On to your leadership question, you’re right Hilton, you’d think we’d have cracked the code by now. I think there’s a few basic perspectives I have about this much debated and discussed term leadership.
One, I think leadership is Complex, not Complicated. Complicated is building a watch mechanism to tell the time in three time zones simultaneously or writing a line of code in some Enterprise software. That’s complicated but once you’ve worked it out, you’re done, the problem’s solved. Leadership isn’t that. There is no magic solution because it involves humans, who we know seldom act in the ways you’d expect or hope, and context which is always shifting and evolving. That means that an action you take today may have an entirely different outcome tomorrow. So, at best, we can tell leadership stories and share best practices but there are no guarantees.
Two, as a former officer in the RAF, is the theme of Authority versus Leadership. Authority is the ability to use my rank, my seniority, my title, the bars on my shoulders to demand something get done. Leadership is the ability to get the same outcome without any of those things. Leadership encompasses many things, like having mission clarity, like acting consistently, like being willing set others up to lead and being great at followership. We’ve all seen or read remarkable stories of surprising or unlikely leaders I think those are people who had some, or all, of those elements.
Three, and this might be controversial, is knowing the difference between Authenticity and Integrity. Seth Godin wrote something that always tickled me. He said a four-year-old having a tantrum is authentically hungry, but we give up the right to be tantrum-throwers when we’re seven or eight because, by then, it’s not only about you. Too often we excuse people who say they’re being authentic when all they’re doing is manifesting their ego and having a tantrum to get what they want. Leaders know how to filter that and, for me, that filter is integrity. That means integrity in the role and responsibility you hold but also integrity in terms of knowing what your people need from you to be successful.
A personal example. Before the 2003 Iraq invasion there was tremendous debate, and worldwide protests if you remember, about the legality of the invasion and whether Saddam actually had WMD’s. The earlier Gulf War had none of that debate, it was simply about removing Saddam from Kuwait. At the time I was teaching at the Defence College so these debates about the legality of war and putting troops in harms way for something illegal was very real for me. If I’d acted “Authentically” I’d have shared my concerns, my misgivings, my fears with my team – and where would that have gotten them? What they needed from me, particularly as they were entering a theatre of war, was focus, was clarity, was separating all that noise from their lives and giving them direction. That, in leadership terms is how I draw a line between this idea of Authenticity and the idea of Integrity.
HB: That’s a perfect segue into your book “Leading from the Jumpseat”. Can you tell me more about the leadership lessons and leadership ethos you cover in the book?
PD: Absolutely. “Leading from the Jumpseat” very much encapsulates the leadership lessons I’ve learned personally over my career but, importantly, it draws on lessons from being a parent – which is a form of leadership – from being a young RAF pilot and the leadership successes, and failures, I experienced and the numerous conversations I’ve been fortunate to have with leaders across the world. There are several consistent, almost universal, themes which I’ve tried to capture in the book.
Foremost is this notion that handing over leadership to someone else is inevitable. That will happen when they retire from the business, or in those rare cases where the founder never retires, they die. That’s just an inevitability. That’s true if you run a Fortune 100 or, as we both know, if you’re a parent – our children will grow up, leave home and begin to lead their own lives. How smooth or how messy that handover is, often becomes someone’s legacy.
That got me thinking. What if we started from a place where leaders acknowledged that inevitability and deliberately started leading from that place? How might you behave, invest and lead if you were actively priming your people to step up and step in after you have left or retired? Particularly, how would you train or groom your people if they were taking over something that had real purpose and impact in the world, something that you wanted to endure?
In my mind, the act of leadership isn’t about always being out in front, in control of everything, its about followership too. Explicitly exposing and coaching others to take over, giving them the confidence and courage to lead. We do that with our children as we prepare them for the world – or at least I believe that’s what good parenting is. Shielding them from decision-making, and the inevitable consequences, is an act of selfishness, not love. Why wouldn’t we attempt to do the same in leading our businesses?
Would we create stronger, more sustainable, organizations if our leaders weren’t so focused on purely leading from the front but saw equal merit in followership too?
Essentially, actively and purposefully building leadership muscle with those poised to take over the reins.
That’s what I explore in “Leading from the Jumpseat”
HB: Isn’t that the same as showing vulnerability? That’s a word that’s become almost a cliché in leadership circles and discussions.
PD: Perhaps but I see it as more a tension between ego and what I call humble confidence. Ego is often the reaction to uncertainty and fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of what will happen to our reputation if we make a poor choice. The reaction, and this is so damaging when we lead others, is we then tend to see the world in binary terms, winners and losers, scarcity not possibility. Because their ego is at play, leaders become compelled to make all the decisions instead of being open to other inputs. They, ironically, starve the organization of alternatives just at the time the organization most needs those alternative ideas.
Humble confidence comes from a place of love – in service of others and the possibility we see in the world – not from a place of fear which is where ego lives. The trick is the balance between humble, or humility, and confidence. Having the humility to accept you don’t have all the answers, to be focused instead on asking the important questions and listening to the answers, is critical. But we also must be confident in our strengths, resolute on where we’re heading, and ready to take the decisions when they need to be made. Confidence is the critical counterbalance. Confidence to say we’ve debated enough, considered enough alternatives, we now need to act. That’s why we need both humility and we need confidence.
HB: Those are great characteristics of leaders, but doesn’t context play a significant role? Not to rehash the point about the dearth of political leadership we’ve seen recently but, case in point, Winston Churchill was considered a brilliant wartime leader but a terrible peacetime one.
PD: Context, or environment, is a critical piece for sure. Drawing on my RAF leadership experience we’re taught something called the OODA Loop very early. It stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act and was born out of classic dogfighting training – not the Tom Cruise “Top Gun” stuff <Laughs>. At its core it trains pilots how to observe the situation facing them, interpret or orientate themselves to it, make a decision and take action, before re-entering that cycle again. The quicker you’re able to go around this ‘loop’, the more likely it is you will outmaneuver your opponents and win. It’s equally applicable in business too but it requires a few things from business leaders.
One, how clear are you on your personal, or business, purpose? Going deeper, are you clear on those things that are deeply important to you – your enduring non-negotiables? The clearer you are on these, the faster and tighter your OODA loop will be.
Two, how well can you separate signal from noise – and the noise is often deafening – to extract the information and intelligence from what’s happening around you? Again, are you clear on what are the signals that are critical to monitor for your business right now, and equally, what are the weak signals you need to identify because they’ll be important real soon.
One advantage we had in the military was having real clarity on our mission. During the 2003 Iraq War if my squadrons were unable to refuel the aircraft providing air support to the coalition troops, soldiers would die. That’s mission clarity. And it very quickly focuses you on what’s critical, what’s necessary and what’s irrelevant.
Leaders, particularly founders, would do well to have real clarity on their non-negotiables.
Businesses would benefit from being equally decisive on what they need to focus on.
That tightens your OODA Loop, increases your responsiveness, and helps you move forward even during times of uncertainty.
HB: Adore that sentiment, or grounding, around clarity of mission. Being crystal clear about what’s at stake and what your leadership ethos is. Switching gears slightly but an age-old leadership question keeps bubbling up in my conversations around Remote Working and The Future of Work which is empowerment, agency, and accountability. How do you build that muscle memory in your people and your leaders? And, perhaps inter-related, do you believe everyone can and should be a leader?
PD: <Laughs> Thanks for giving me the simple questions to answer Hilton. Let me tackle your second question first.
In truth I was fortunate to grow up within a system (The Royal Air Force) where there were different paths to advance your career, and both were considered of equal merit. In the RAF the system was called Specialist Aircrew where people had an explicit choice to remain as aircrew (pilots, navigators, air engineers), or they could go down the promotion and senior leadership route like I did. Choosing to become Specialist Aircrew meant you would remain in the same rank, but could dedicate yourself – become a specialist – in your flying role, and would be rewarded financially. If instead you were selected for – and accepted – the promotion route you would receive leadership training as you advanced up the ranks; you would also fly less the more senior in rank you became.
Sadly, the business world has historically retained a singular path to advancement which often results in taking people excellent at a task and promoting them to run a group of people doing their former task. In one move you lose that functional expertise and often create unhappiness in people who don’t want to manage other people being accountable for just that.
Organizations would do well to realize people have very different abilities and different aspirations. That means finding a way to create multiple different paths to advance their people. Paths that are seen as equally credible but equally important.
One size fits all advancement tracks lead, inevitably, to some very unhappy people and some terrible, ill-suited leaders.
I refer to empowerment often in my book and it is a core part of the “Leading from the Jumpseat” ethos. I think the critical piece lost when talking about empowerment is that it should never be a carte-blanche, knee-jerk response. In fact, it should be deeply considered, and you should be deliberately training and growing people so they are equipped to take on that responsibility.
Empowering people who are not ready or who lack the tools to succeed isn’t a case of leadership maturity, it’s a case of leadership recklessness.
Case in point, when the RAF initially hired me as a pilot, I knew absolutely nothing about how to fly a plane. Over the course of the next few years they relentlessly pushed, probed, prodded me and my other inductees to see if we had the right attributes to be successful in the environment of the RAF. That was deliberate and arduous because they were building the foundation on which they could ultimately empower us to do the tasks we were initially hired for. Would we act – and lead – in a manner that would let the RAF succeed in its mission, be that the Iraq War, supporting troops in Afghanistan, peacekeeping operations or ferrying dignitaries around the world. This level of preparation and investment in training is something that is often lacking in a business environment.
In a business context the discussion shouldn’t be around the singular act of empowerment.
It should be about have we hired well, have we trained properly, have we nurtured our people effectively and have we been explicitly clear about our mission and clarity around that.
If you’ve done those pieces purposefully and diligently, empowering them becomes the easy part.
HB: That’s an excellent framing. Empowering is the culmination of purposeful leadership. I always close by asking my guests what advice they’re giving their peers and colleagues right now. What lessons do you wish more leaders were taking to heart at this time?
PD: We’ve touched on many of them already but if I synthesize them down into two key aspects, I’d say those are Caring and nurturing a sense of Belonging or Connection. Those aren’t particularly novel concepts in the leadership space, but they are critically missing from much of what I see going on around me in organizations and institutions globally.
Much of the undercurrent of the Great Resignation topic, which I’m sure you’re following, is that people are leaving their jobs because they feel no attachment to the organization and, specifically, to their leaders or the mission. They have no sense of belonging. That has profound implications because, from my experience, when there is an attachment to the mission or purpose, then employees step up and take accountability for delivering their work, building great products, or delivering great service.
Lose that sense of belonging, let apathy set in and, as a leader, I believe you’re on a slippery slope downwards.
Fiercely connected to the Belonging or Connection piece is Caring as a leadership behaviour.
It used to be easy when we were in the same physical space, you could ask someone at the coffee machine how they were or pop by their office to check in on them, but its even more critical now that we’re physically remote and separate. I worry that we over-complicate this part when, sometimes, being spontaneous can have as many positive repercussions as diligently scheduling 30 min check-ins every week with your people. Recently I was thinking about a colleague who I’d not spoken to in ages. I popped open my phone, made a quick video message and sent it to him spontaneously. A small gesture, completed in under 5 minutes but the impact – and the sincerity – was enormous.
I recognize that leaders get busy, they’ve a million things vying for their attention daily, but if you’re not deliberately and consciously showing your people that you care deeply about them – particularly right now – you’re failing at one of the most basic requirements of leadership.
HB: We’re having this conversation at one of the darkest and scariest times in modern history. I’m talking specifically about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The images we’re seeing are truly heartbreaking but, in many cases, inspirational and rousing. Like many I watch Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in complete awe. As a combat veteran and leadership expert, what are your observations as you watch this unfold?
PD: Absolutely. It is heartbreaking to watch. There has been so much commentary comparing the two leaders it seems inappropriate for me to opine at length. Particularly right now. What I will say is, the current crisis in Ukraine is a very clear example of the drivers of Fear and Love in action.
One side is led by a person who is driven by Fear – a view of the world driven by ego and a sense of scarcity. The other side is led by someone who is driven by Love – a view of the world driven by humble confidence and a sense of opportunity. Courage can only be sustained by love. It may take time, but a group of people bonded together through love for their country, culture and what they stand for, will always prevail over a group of people driven by fear.
HB: Powerful stuff mate. It really is a privilege chatting with you on this topic. My very best for the continued success of your book and, I hope we get that long walk scheduled next time I’m in the UK. Be well my friend.
PD: Thanks for the chat, Hilton. Like the idea of a long walk, and maybe a pint, when you’re next over. I hope the current Ukrainian crisis is over by then. Take care of yourself.
