Because my wife and I are both busy people, we eat out a lot. I got to thinking about it, and some restaurants we return to again and again, while others we go to once, maybe give it a second try a couple months later, and then that’s it. We never go back. Why is this? Yes, sometimes the food is just bad and that’s all there is to it. However, more frequently its something else. It may be that the service is slow, that the glasses or silverware weren’t absolutely clean, that the waiter or waitress weren’t as pleasant or efficient as they could have been, or something else detracted and made this restaurant not such a good value. Sometimes, not only the restaurant, but the entire chain is good or bad. Fortunes have been made or lost because of this.
One restaurant chain in my area was once great. The entrepreneur who founded the chain took meticulous care to make certain that every customer was happy and got great value in every one of his eleven restaurants. Then he retired and sold the chain. It still exists and is moderately successful, but it is no longer what it once was.
The Cheesecake Factory restaurant is a great value no matter where you go. There are long lines every time they open a new restaurant. Before I had ever eaten at one of their restaurants, I thought this was some kind of marketing gimmick. I don’t like waiting in line, but curiosity finally got the better of me. The long lines were not a marketing stunt. The food, service, everything was a great value. The staff was friendly — always. The food was well worth standing in line for.
Years ago I did some leadership research into what really caused folks to follow some leaders no matter what. One of the basic principles I found was simple. It could be stated in a single sentence: take care of your people. Now “your people” are really in two distinct groups, and we need to take care of both. The first group consist of our customers. Our customers are clear in business, but in fact, they exist in all organizations.
A very successful Air Force commander during World War II was Lieutenant General Pete Quesada. Quesada commanded the tactical air force that supported General Patton in his drive across Europe. Patton told another four-star army commander that Quesada was the best tactical air force commander he had had. “He always delivers on time and to the maximum of his capabilities,” said Patton. I could easily say that about The Cheesecake Factory, and it would be true, too. Quesada clearly recognized that above all else, Patton and his army was Quesada’s customer.
But we need to take care of the second group, too. These are the folks who help us take care of our customers, those who support us in fulfilling or responsibilities, whatever they are. As good leaders we must definitely take care of this group of “our people.”
How Far Should You Go in Taking Care of Your People?
There are many instances in battle where a leader has sacrificed his own life so that those he led might live. Fortunately, a civilian career does not normally require a leader to lay down his physical life for others in order to take care of them. But, make no mistake. You must be willing to go to enormous lengths in taking care of your people if you really expect them to follow you to the same extent as a successful battle leader.
They say that Thomas Watson, who founded IBM and later instituted extensive programs in education, health care, and recreation for IBM employees continually visited his factories and spent hours talking to his employees. On one occasion, he told an employee, “If you have any problem at all, let me know.”
Later, the employee came to New York and asked to see Watson. On being ushered in to Watson’s office, he told Watson that his younger brother had an incurable disease and he had been told he would not live long. Remembering Watson’s promise, he asked whether anything could be done that was beyond the medical resources of his small community. Watson put the brother in a top hospital under the care of a famous specialist.
After this act, the employee began to feel a little guilty that perhaps he had overstepped Watson’s invitation. He called to apologize to Watson. But, Watson interrupted him. “When I said bring your problems to me, I meant exactly that,” he said. 1
If You Want to Take Care of Your People, Do These Things :
- Be the Leader When Things Go Wrong
- Give Their Needs Priority
- Really Care
- Take Personal Responsibility
Be the Leader When Things Go Wrong
When the chips are down and times are difficult is when those who follow really watch to see what you do. Do you really take care of your people, or is it all for show, all just talk?
This principle of leadership is made more difficult in that it can conflict with other laws. For example, the leader must always use his judgment to determine the difference between compromising his integrity and taking care of his people. So the leader is always walking the knife’s edge balancing a readiness to sacrifice himself for his people with doing what is right. And as we will soon see, sometimes the call is a close one.
When Things Went Wrong, This Leader Went All the Way
For many reasons reasons, restrictions on what kind of targets and under what circumstances these targets can be attacked are usually controlled very closely. This is so now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was never more so as during the Vietnam War. Even many targets that would normally be attacked during a war could not be attacked for political reasons. In our armed forces, the rules of any given fight are called “The Rules of Engagement” or ROE. They are our rules, but those who violate these rules, even accidentally, are held accountable. They can be disciplined and sometimes court-martialed. Violators of the Rules of Engagement face punishment that may include a dishonorable discharge, and even prison.
One June 2, 1967, two American F-105 pilots on a mission over Hanoi came under attack by guns protecting a ship unloading its military cargo in Haiphong Harbor. This was in an area in which Secretary of Defense McNamara had declared a sanctuary for the enemy for political reasons. The ship, and the area surrounding it could not be attacked under the ROE. However, to save themselves, the two pilots instinctively fired back. They didn’t identify the ship, they simply opened fire to get away. The whole incident took less than five seconds. But the consequences could not have been severe. It turned out later that the ship unloading munitions for North Vietnam and that had taken them under fire was an armed Russian freighter.
The commander responsible for these pilots was a colonel by the name of Jack Broughton. Broughton was on the fast track to make general. He was a graduate of one of the most prestigious senior service schools in the armed forces, the National War College. He was smart, aggressive, and an outstanding leader. While many senior officers flew an occasional mission and spent most of their time behind a desk, Broughton scheduled himself to fly the tough ones. If there was a difficult combat mission over North Vietnam, you could bet Broughton was on it.
When the strike force returned from the mission, the flight leader asked to see Broughton in private and told him what had happened. As Broughton commented, “That made his problem, my problem.”
Complicating the matter was the fact that due to bad weather, the two pilots had landed first at another American base. Still somewhat punchy from combat and frightened by the potential consequences of the unauthorized attack they had made, one of the pilots made a statement that he had not fired his guns at all. Both Broughton and his pilots knew that this report constituted a false official statement. Under military law, it in itself could lead to a dishonorable discharge even if made under the pressures of the moment and without time to reflect.
As Broughton said later, “This was not an easy decision nor was it made lightly.”2 The only evidence against the two pilots were their own gun camera film. Broughton took the film and exposed it to a truck’s headlights. Then, he burned it. Then he called his commander and told him that he had intentionally destroyed the evidence of their breach of the ROR. Broughton was not in favor of violating orders, and certainly not in making false statements. However, he believed that while what these pilots did was wrong, it was understandable and forgivable. Moreover, he knew that combat or not, in this war, such accidental mistakes were not forgiven. Pilots violating the ROE in the past had been punished severely for far lesser mistakes. He was raised in an environment that said that you take care of your people. He made the personal decision that he would take the punishment, and not the two pilots. He knew this would end his career, and at best he would escape prison.
As a result of Broughton’s actions, military authorities could not prove which pilots were involved in this incident. Broughton was court-martialed. He freely admitted burning the film. He was found guilty. He was sentenced to discharge and imprisonment. On appeal, a board of high-ranking civilians from the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force set these findings aside and Broughton was forced to retire from the Air Force in the last grade of rank he had served satisfactorily, that of Lieutenant Colonel. Obviously he was never promoted to general. On Broughton’s last combat mission over North Vietnam, one of the pilots he protected on the ground saved his life in the air. As Jack Broughton said later today, “That’s a type of poetic justice and in a real sense made it all seem worthwhile.”3
Were his actions in destroying the gun camera film right or wrong? I don’t know. You have to make your own call on this one. The point I want to make is just how far this leader went in being willing to take care of his people. He was willing to sacrifice his career, even go to jail, if necessary, to protect them from what he felt would be unduly harsh and unjust punishment for an accident while under fire from a ship which was actually supplying the enemy.
How puny this makes other leaders look! Is it any wonder that many of their followers are unenthusiastic about working for them? Some of these so-called leaders go as far as to try and avoid responsibility when things go wrong by blaming subordinates. Others think nothing about inconveniencing those they lead, or are untroubled by their workers’ working conditions or whether their work schedules are causing family hardships or in firing them to cut costs and bolster the bottom line a little. So far as they are concerned, their people are so much fodder for the system, and if a subordinate doesn’t like it, he or she can go elsewhere! Is it any wonder that these corporate executives are not considered leaders by those they lead?
