You're It Read online

  Leadership Is Personal

  Boston Emergency Medical Services (EMS) director Jimmy Hooley was in the city-block-long Alpha medical tent just beyond the Marathon finish line. “I heard the first explosion, and I thought it was a propane tank from one of the street vendors, or maybe a car backfiring. Then I heard the second explosion and I knew right away it was an attack,” he told us.

  Shortly before the Marathon bombings, Jim Hooley and Lenny Marcus had one of their periodic conversations about Jim’s leadership. He had moved up the ranks of Boston EMS from paramedic to chief. A quiet, hardworking guy, Jim leads more by example than by charisma. During that conversation, Jim shared that being a leader is work for him. “Sometimes, if I am at a mass casualty event, I have to remind myself to assume that leadership position. My instinct tells me to get on the ground and treat people. That’s what I do and what I am good at. Leading for me takes effort.”

  Leading EMS is a complex endeavor. Some ambulances are part of the city fleet, while others belong to a variety of private companies, all using a central 911 dispatch center. Having learned from bombings elsewhere in the world, Hooley knew that it was critical to distribute the injured across the multiple trauma centers in the city lest any single hospital become overwhelmed. He also knew that those with minor injuries were likely to get themselves to hospitals—and in advance of the ambulances with more serious cases. Coordination was required with police and fire officials. He also knew that the confused and panicked crowds would present a constant risk of distraction.

  Fortunately, Hooley and other leaders had thought through the decisions they would need to make. Plans were in place and they had rehearsed their actions, so they all understood what was expected of them and what they could expect from others. They had built trust-based relationships with each other. On that April day, all that planning, practice and persistence paid off.

  Eleven days after the bombings, Jim and Lenny met up again. That prior conversation was still fresh. After exchanging greetings, Lenny merely asked, “So…?” “I was the leader,” Jim replied. “It was tough, but I realized we had to get this right. One of the people was dying, and I had this urge to get on the ground and work on her. But I didn’t. Somebody had to keep the eye on the big picture and that was me, the leader. We had to get those people out of there and in the right order, and I was on top of that. I was also thinking, What if there is another bomb? I had to figure out what we would do next. Yeah, I stayed the leader.” This was Jim Hooley’s “you’re it” moment. He grasped the responsibility. He led intentionally.

  Boston Strong

  Our research on the leadership response to the bombings exposed stirring examples of heroism, goodwill, discipline, humility, and trust. People were purposeful. Themes of collaboration, big-picture understanding, and personal grit emerged as we reviewed what happened and sought to understand why. Our goal was to learn about those leaders and their meta-leadership. We sought principles that could be applied more broadly in other leadership settings.

  A bond was created among these agency and political leaders. The power of “Boston Strong” arose from the shared and united purpose that radiated from these leaders to the community and back. Yes, there were rivalries that could have created distractions and led to miscalculations. Boston relishes competition: between law enforcement agencies, across academic medical centers, and among federal, state, and local authorities. This is not to say that there was not some of that. However, competition did not define those 102 hours. These leaders transcended their differences, intuitively recognizing that they would be stronger and more effective if they worked together—and that they and the city would be weaker if they worked independently or at cross-purposes. They set a tone early on and sustained it throughout that week. In simple yet profound terms, the terrorists—the bad guys—were “them.” Everyone else was “us.” The response drew its strength from that embracing sense of interpersonal connection, assistance, and reassurance.

  Within minutes of the explosions, a makeshift emergency operations center was set up at the nearby Westin Hotel. Hundreds of emergency responders gathered. Governor Deval Patrick and key senior leaders convened in a smaller conference room. There were important decisions to be made, among them: who leads the investigation? The governor later explained to us, “I come from a prosecutorial background. I knew there needed to be someone in charge of the investigation. And everyone needed to be behind that person.”

  There were potentially sensitive city-state-federal jurisdictional frictions in play. Governor Patrick therefore wanted to get the leaders on board together. He first informally polled those gathered around the table. There was consensus that the investigation should be led by the FBI special agent in charge, Rick DesLauriers. Then, like a flight attendant addressing passengers seated in the exit row of a plane, the governor looked each leader in the eye and asked, “Are you okay with Rick DesLauriers leading the investigation?” He waited for a verbal yes and then moved to the next person. Everyone said yes. DesLauriers was in charge of the investigation.

  We later interviewed DesLauriers about his experience that week. As we systematically progressed through the sequence of activities, we came to the key decision to keep the public transit system open that Monday, just after the bombings. “Where were you?” we asked.

  “I wasn’t there,” he replied.

  “But the governor said you were in charge,” we observed.

  “I was in charge of the investigation, not the overall operation.”

  “Then who was in charge of the operation?” He pondered the question for a moment and then answered—himself somewhat puzzled—“Well, I guess no one.”

  That response perplexed us. We had conducted numerous studies of leaders in times of major national crises, and there was always an identified leader in charge of the operation. During Hurricane Katrina, it was the director of FEMA, Michael Brown. During the H1N1 crisis, it was Dr. Richard Besser, acting director of the CDC. And during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, it was Coast Guard commandant Admiral Thad Allen. We had observed and interviewed these leaders in the midst of those crises.

  As we reviewed our notes about the Boston bombing response, we realized that DesLauriers was right. There was no one identified operational leader in charge of the whole the event. Governor Patrick was a strong, respected political presence with expansive authority over some agencies, although many entities were beyond his purview. He succeeded in establishing the tone of collaboration from the get-go that became the standard for the group of leaders working together. Numerous agency leaders were responsible for the work of their individual organizations; however, there was no one leader who consistently was in charge of everything. How could that be? Without an overarching incident commander, how was the response as successful as it was?

  Swarm Leadership

  As we puzzled through our interviews and notes to find an explanation, Eric walked into Lenny’s office and simply said, “Swarm intelligence.”

  What is swarm intelligence? Briefly here (in Chapter 8 on connectivity, we go into more depth on swarm leadership), swarm intelligence describes how creatures intuitively accomplish remarkable tasks when no one of them is in charge. Operating in a defined structure, such as a colony or flock, they follow a consistent, shared set of innate rules and social cues that guide decision-making and actions. Picture birds flying in a formation. No one bird directs the flock, and yet they fly in synchrony. Fish swimming in schools are similar. Ants and termites find and build elaborate nesting sites. Each ant operates according to a uniform set of innate, hardwired behaviors. The Harvard sociobiologist E. O. Wilson has written: “If you look at all the species that have ever lived on planet Earth, the most successful were ants, termites, bees and people. Why? Because they’re the greatest cooperators.”

  Although much has been written about organizational design and other structural approaches to encouraging positive connectivity, we discovered that there has been little in
vestigation into the behavioral elements of crisis leadership. So we reviewed what we learned about leaders during the Boston bombing response, looking for patterns to explain their thinking and actions. We were able to discern pieces of a complex puzzle about order and control, following the clue that DesLauriers shared. What explained the heroic acts to save lives after the blasts? How was it that competing organizations cooperated so well? How did they come to so tenaciously trust one another given all the risks and difficult decisions of the week? Were there intuitive principles and rules that guided these leaders and followers? Might there be an innate human force that mirrors the behavior and interactions of simpler creatures?

  Then we discovered that each interviewee’s experience followed a specific sequence of events characterized by five key points. The first was a focus on saving lives, a theme that captured the unity of mission motivating the leaders we interviewed. Rescuers, civilians, and investigators were willing to risk their own lives to save others. The second was the generosity of spirit and action pervading their actions. They assisted others and others helped them. The third was how the organizations interacted by staying in their own lanes. Each set of responders knew what their own job was and what the others’ jobs were. They did not intrude upon others’ scope of responsibility or authority; rather, they helped one another succeed. Fourth, people would later describe the leaders’ respectful behavior and interactions as no ego—no blame. And finally, they relied on the strong, long-term, trust-based relationships that were already in place before the bombings.

  We combined these observations into the five principles of swarm leadership during the Boston Marathon bombings response. We then shared our observations with the leaders we interviewed. Rick DesLauriers of the FBI typified their reactions: “Yes, that describes exactly what we were doing, though I didn’t realize it at the time.”

  The Three Dimensions of Meta-Leadership

  Had any one of the leaders sought to assert control over other leaders, the process and outcome could have been very different. Yes, each leader oversaw his or her own organization and its chain of command. However, the connectivity in how they worked together created leverage that exceeded what any one leader could have accomplished alone; connectivity fostered order beyond control.

  These leaders together were able to find and achieve a complex equilibrium that extended to the broader community, emanating to those who were part of the official response system—law enforcement, health workers, and government officials—and out to volunteers, businesses, and citizens who willingly aligned with the game plan. In the face of a terrifying event, they generated a shared commitment and bountiful goodwill. Drawing on a collective impulse, leaders of the response set a tone and sustained it.

  How do the actions and outcomes of the response to the Boston Marathon bombings reflect the thinking and practices of meta-leadership?

  “Meta-” means “transforming,” “beyond,” “above,” and “at a higher level.” These leaders functioned with a wide, meta-awareness of what they were doing. Though each operated from the base of his or her organization’s authority and responsibilities, everyone’s overriding commitment was to the shared mission and the enterprise-wide collaboration that could get it done. What they did together illustrates the workings of meta-leadership.

  As mentioned earlier, there are three dimensions of meta-leadership practice. The first is the person. In Boston, the leaders’ emotional intelligence and capacity to engage bonded their work in unity of purpose. Though “no ego—no blame” emerged late in our interviews, many commented that without it, the necessary collaboration would have collapsed. These leaders were grounded and shared an overriding commitment to the tasks at hand. They were keenly aware of their personal responsibility in the challenge that faced them.

  The second dimension of meta-leadership is the situation. These leaders faced a “VUCA” scenario: Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous. Another attack could have happened at any time. It was not clear who were the perpetrators: self-styled terrorists working alone, or members of a larger cell planning further attacks? Leaders had to be ready for what could come next with little notion of what it might be. The bombings were bad enough—what if the response didn’t measure up? Numerous agencies and organizations were involved, and the task of coordination was enormously complex. And for many major decisions, there were no obviously correct answers. Leaders did their best to anticipate how the situation would evolve and the decisions and actions that lay ahead, while also preparing themselves to pivot depending on what occurred. With the bad guys on the loose, they had to be ready for anything.

  These leaders had two crises on their hands. Both situations were dangerous and required that leaders account for numerous unknowns. On day one, the crisis was a terrorist attack on Boylston Street—a scenario they had drilled for. On day five, the crisis was a massive manhunt in Watertown—an unforeseen scenario. The word chaos was not mentioned in their accounts of day one. Most everyone spoke of “chaos” in describing the confrontation and manhunt on day five.

  The third dimension of meta-leadership is connectivity of effort. There was a brief hesitation as leaders got together on day one; everyone was first concerned with checking in with their colleagues. By day five, these leaders had learned that the better and more quickly connected they were, the better coordinated, responsive, and adaptive the operation would be, no matter what happened. As the manhunt unfolded on day five, the leaders immediately convened. Forging that connectivity enabled them to effectively lead down to their reports, lead up to their bosses, lead across to colleagues within their organization, and lead beyond to people outside their organization’s chain of command. They were together. Connectivity marked the operation.

  Despite the enormity of the extraordinary circumstances they faced, they unleashed “swarm leadership” that defined their work together. The spirit of their collaboration radiated out to the public, fortifying the resilience of a stricken city—the essence of “Boston Strong.”

  How might you incorporate these principles and practices into your own meta-leadership? That is the theme of the coming pages.

  Questions for Journaling

  Have you been involved in situations in which the principles and rules of swarm leadership emerged? It need not have been a crisis: a sports team, place of worship, work group, neighborhood, or family can all exhibit swarm qualities.

  Have you been in situations in which swarm leadership could have emerged, though it was frustrated by a violation of one of the principles—for example, “no ego—no blame”?

  Reviewing what the leaders accomplished in the response to the Boston Marathon bombings, what are your observations on the dimensions of meta-leadership in practice: the person, the situation, and connectivity of action? Have you observed a similar scenario of “order beyond control”?

  TWO

  SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY

  You’re It!

  As a kid, “you’re it” was a designation in a game of tag. You ran. You avoided getting tagged. You moved quickly. And what happened when you became “it”? In that moment, your perspective changed, your view of others shifted, and your strategy was instantly transformed. There was a physical and emotional shift. You were suddenly the center of attention.

  If you dreaded being “it,” this transition was unnerving. If you relished showing your speed and agility, however, you jumped at the opportunity. You felt a burst of adrenaline as you charged off to tag someone else.

  As a leader, “you’re it” has a differently nuanced meaning: You are responsible for more than just yourself. People are counting on you, from your subordinates to your boss, from your peers and your collaborators to your customers, your suppliers, and perhaps even the general public. You guide and inspire the action. You gather and sift complex and contradictory information. You seek clarity. You craft a vision. You make decisions.

  It’s up to you to achieve success. If things don’t go well, you fa
il. Everyone is looking to you.

  There is more than one way to become “it.” Often you are “it” by virtue of title and job responsibility. Sometimes, it is more by circumstance than by label; you might just be at the right place at the right time. When the moment comes, you seize it. There is no one else to do the job. You shirk neither the responsibility nor the opportunity. You are the leader and everyone depends on you. You truly are “it.”

  Just as in the game of tag, when you are “it,” your perspective and strategy must change. There is a task to achieve, a challenge to overcome. Your understanding of what is at your disposal and how to best leverage it needs to evolve quickly. You learn to think and see beyond the limited options on the table. You find alternatives that others haven’t. Then you figure out what has to be done and chart a path—along with others—to get there.

  If you are a true meta-leader, you don’t shy away from being “it.” If you are part of a team of people, you are all “it” together. You leverage both the singular and plural meanings of “you.” You can be many people leading together. You will be ready when a crisis inevitably arrives. And when that happens, it will be up to you to pivot and lead.