I have experienced and observed staff members who would rather sit on the fence in silence on controversial decisions than defy the “group think” of the staff. It is inevitable that there are some decisions that are in the best interests of the organization but seemingly not in the best interests of the employees, at least initially. The CEO/Commander who is accountable for the longevity of the company (and the jobs it provides) must look this bad boy in the eye, and in most instances, put the company first, especially if the decision is a strategic one. Moreover, the leader must take notice of staff members who are absent the “executive courage” to be counted as one who took the side of the company. Those who lack the courage to publicly support unpopular decisions should never be in contention for CEO or command.

I observed “group think” even down at platoon level in combat operations in South Vietnam. “Group think” seems to favor decisions that lighten the workload of the work force, in this case combat Marines (I have zero doubt that the same tendency exists in all Services). Telltale signs in the Nam was the absence of personal hygiene among the troops (shaves, bathing with a canteen of water and soap), campsite police (burying of trash and latrines), constant weapons cleaning and keeping ammunition dry especially during the monsoon season, discipline in ambush sites and along the defensive perimeter, the absolute no smoking rule on the lines, and the wearing of camouflage paint to break up the human outline at night and on multi-day combat operations, the diligent pre-brief and post patrol debrief, the repeated leader counsel on weapons safety, the universal taking of the daily malaria pill, and much more. Virtually every order we gave in the bush was unpopular, because orders most always required extra effort from the already tired and sometimes frustrated (and grieving over the wounds or loss of friends) troops. But the best leaders and their units did all these things diligently and although seemingly unhappy about what they often viewed as “chicken shit” requirements, knew deep down that together these necessities increased their chances of going home on a plane rather than in a box.

Units that displayed this kind of discipline demonstrated a sense of pride and carriage, a healthy bit of arrogance, and high morale notwithstanding their favored past-time of constant bitching. Almost magically, these same units sported enviable statistics relative to monthly kills, POWs captured, weapons seized, lower non-judicial punishments and courts martials, and awards meted out for heroism. All of this multiplied the respect and admiration of these units in the eyes of others. It took commanders with courage, force of personality and will, and personal example to create and maintain units like these. “Group think” and its desire for ease, relaxation of standards and expectations, and popularity had to be overcome day in and day out. Later as the company commander and having been the platoon commander for two of the three platoons in the company, I was ruthless with the enforcement of standards that pressed the platoon commanders to enforce the tactical and administrative tasks that were unpopular yet imperatives.

Business success is not lethal but in many ways no different. The metrics of business success will mirror the hard work, high standards, and discipline envisioned and enforced by leaders who weigh the wisdom of staff inputs but never cave to feel-good consensus and “group think.”