Win Every Disagreement Using This Simple Principle | Jocko Willink | The Debrief
In this video, best-selling author and former Navy SEAL Jocko Willink and retired TOPGUN Pilot Dave Berke discuss how to use "the tent rule" to successfully navigate contrasting viewpoints.
✉️ Want Extreme Ownership wisdom delivered to your inbox weekly? Sign up for the FREE Extreme Ownership Rundown email at echelonfront.ac-page.com/rund...
🤝 Learn to take Extreme Ownership directly from Jocko Willink, Leif Babin, and other Echelon Front instructors at academy.echelonfront.com/
🔱 Get Extreme Ownership books, merch, and prints to remember these lessons at the Echelon Front Store: shop.echelonfront.com/
Follow Us On Social:
/ echelonfront
/ echelonfront
/ echelonfront
/ echelon-front-llc
#ExtremeOwnership #NavySEAL #JockoWillink @JockoPodcastOfficial
The point of a disagreement is to get it right not be right - it's not a competition.
I clicked on the video just to say, shouldn't the video say to "resolve" a disagreement, not to "win" it.
The point of a public disagreement is to sway the onlookers to your side.
Pretty sure the "win" in the title is to appeal to the egotic narcissists who really need to see this video. That's ethical clickbait.
But also you could make a point that the only way to actually win an argument, is together. Because it is never a win when the conflicts goes unresolved. Rather, it would usually be an ill-willed truce. So, the argument is over, and therefore a collective victory (remember that the people arguing are allies) when a consensus is reached.
This is only sometimes true. That's because some arguments arise from a difference of opinion between two parties that ultimately have the same exact goal. but other disagreements arise because different parties have divergent interests: i.e. The argument is not about who has the better technique to get what you both want, but which of you is going to get what you want and which of you is not. The overwhelming majority of politics, especially in the liberal Democratic west, are arguments that are actually of the second variety but are masquerading as the first. that is, people are too scared to admit that they have genuinely different things that they want than other groups within their own countries, and that one policy or decision will favor one or the other, and so they devolve into this endless spiral of technique and principle.
This is how rational adults approach a misunderstanding or disagreement. At the current point in time, we are experiencing a supply chain deficit in rationality.
Yes, in any organization, whether as small or two people or a huge group, this depends on the ability of _both_ people to exercise these skills. A divorce, for example, only takes one partner who wants to leave the tent regardless of how hospitable and skilled the other person is.
Part of the “problem” is that women don’t think rationally to begin with.
6:03
@@lfcbcfcsullivan It's all part of what I'm talking about. Was there a particular point of contention you'd like to make?
Plenty do.@@Thirtiesguy
"Try to understand why the other person is right" great advice
good luck using that advice with a maga type
I used to do this about my current boss... Now I know she's just a bottom of the barrel hire.
Thats a variation on the Socratic method.
Sounds like a waste of time. With some people it's immediately obvious they're wrong.
@@managerialelitetoaster3456 What makes you so sure?
This is probably one of the most important lessons you will learn in leadership and operation inside a chain of command. There have been many operations that I have been ordered to do where I did not agree with the operations plan, but once you leave that office, and execute you can't have a bout of Ego or childish sullenness within your execution, to where you "half-ass" the operation, or do not execute to the best of your ability, at the best, not to succeed and at the worst, doom the operation to failure to provide some childish "See, I told you so" moment. If you do these things people can get hurt or fired or both. You look beyond yourself and see yourself for what you truly are, one cog in a machine that needs to work to get the mission accomplished, no matter who's feelings get stepped on, or someone else takes the credit or any other BS reason why you have to be an "individual" on a "team,"
All of this presupposes that the people "in the tent" have developed their talent to critically examine the situation. Most of the educational system is designed to teach obedience without critical examination and that truth comes from authority. This teaches people to be clone soldiers. Forced compliance leads to malicious compliance.
This.
I think you mean that forced compliance leads to compliant and malicious individuals?
. @internetcancer1672 - I do not believe that it is malicious in the sense that most people understand. The compliance itself runs the risk of becoming malicious because the sense of morality has been destroyed through a well known process. The great danger is teaching obedience to authority without teaching the skills to critically examine the moral principles behind those orders. I came to this understanding after thinking over a recent sermon which mentioned people searing their conscience. ... It is accomplished one small violation at a time. Parents begin the process by teaching obedience to their children, without teaching the principles or purposes behind the given orders. The question "Why" needs to be answered often enough that a child learns the underlying principles and purposes behind the orders. Absent this understanding they will not obtain the mental skills necessary to function in their lives based on moral principles. Another part of searing the conscience is teaching children that truth comes from authority. The natural consequence of thinking that truth comes from authority is a belief that those in authority are right because they said so. Another part of searing the conscience is rewarding obedience instead of achievement. This can be a "tight rope" to walk as achievements can be done under orders. The principle is that obedience for the sake of reward teaches children to ignore their conscience when rewards are offered for small violations of their conscience. Given enough time and following enough orders to violate their own conscience, the searing is complete and the child grows up to become a clone soldier. Obedience to authority will become their definition of "good". Disobedience to authority will become their definition of "evil". This process creates someone with an extrinsic morality, which is easily manipulated by someone in authority because the clone soldier has no intrinsic moral boundaries. Clone soldiers will follow evil orders while thinking that they are doing good, because they are following orders
@@internetcancer1672No I think more like, to use a Nazi example, how an average SS soldier in the 1940s committed heinous acts not because they wanted to but because they were told to do so by authority. They knew in their heart of hearts it was wrong but they did it anyway because they were instructed to do so, that's malicious compliance.
@@djjazzyjeff1232 Malice is the intent to do harm. I normally hear the term "malicious compliance" used to mean that a person complies very literally, in a way that is intended to backfire, to cause the order to work against the person who gave it. For example a frustrated boss yells "don't knock on my door or bother me when I'm talking to my girlfriend!" So the subordinate does exactly as they are told. They sit quietly, not disturbing the boss, when the boss is with his gf and the boss's *wife* pulls up. If the order is "get as many as you can!", the subordinate gets a ridiculous number of whatever, causing problems for the boss. Or "ugh! Whoever is ringing the doorbell, tell them to go away" - so they dutifully open the door and tell the CEO who flew in from Seattle "the manager said go away". :)
Jacko quoted Leif quoting him. Classic
As an engineer working with a lot of other engineers, i approve this message...
Just learned about "Informational Influence" where the goal of the argument is to find out what's real and works. It's nemesis, for me, is "Normative Influence" where the goal is social acceptance. By trying to make the other person as right as you can understand them to be, you extract the best information to build the best plan. Beautiful.
Excellent advice here. If I'm in a misunderstanding with someone who matters to me, I often choose to actively try to prove myself wrong. Sometimes my reasoning is concrete and it holds up, but sometimes it doesn't and I realize I'm being a knucklehead. That's extreme ownership in the works.
Wish more people shared your tenets.
@@michaelbanks2303 I didn't have this mentality until I was into my 30's, so it's only been the last decade or so where I purposefully developed this mindset. Listening to those early Jocko Podcasts helped solidify it for me. So while it was a few decades later than I could have adopted it, it's also a sign that there is hope for others who don't yet share that mentality.
What if its someone that doesn't matter to you?
Sometimes you can't reach agreement. When I was a police officer, a Sergeant insisted that we go into a house to confront a suicidal man with a rifle. Our protocols then called for securing the scene and calling out a negotiator and the SWAT team, but it was late at night and he just didn't want to do it. I made my points respectfully, and as fully as possible in the circumstances, but then he said the conversation was over. I asked him for a clear order to go into the house, which he gave, and which I obeyed. But, I didn't "leave the tent" until I had agreement, or an order that put all responsibility on him, as was appropriate in a chain of command situation.
I like how you did everything you could to follow the protocol and asked for an explicit order. Be care through, as following an order that is wrong does NOT absolve you of moral (and should be legal as well. We need a police ucmj so following bad orders is a crime like the military) responsibility for the action if it is against the Constitution. Not saying that happened in your situation, just pointing out that happens, like like Uvalde, which should have resulted in criminal prosecutions against the officers who let people and kids die.
Sometimes you can't reach agreement. I agree. I also saw that in the military. Often there is no sultion except discontinuing agression.
Two things that kill leadership at any level… 1) ego 2) fear
If you leave the tent, you accept what was asked. You cannot go back afterwards, so leave the tent only when you took the chance to give your input.
Don’t leave the tent works until you get dragged out of it…
But then he says you do the mission but mitigate the risk. How depends on the mission, but he specifically said "you go down in the cellar and drink wine," which means you kinda do the mission, but not take the risks they would have wanted you to take.
Yeh, but dude, those chili beans from last night... You gotta leave sometime.
Better inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in !
There is no black and white here. You can at any moment go back into the tent. The road has no power over you, you are the one deciding to continue walking in the wrong direction with each step. And every single one of them is an opportunity to correct the situation. It takes the will of two people to complete an order.
I am in a tent with a customer right now. I am very slow to pickup on things so at 62 I realise far too many people have taken advantage of my good nature. One thing to be kind. A totally different thing to be a pushover. A client wanted a $100k job,, quoted to them for 20k, and negotiated down by then to 10k. The tent in this saga is willing to accept their terms when reality is, they will be your biggest pain in the ass customer BECAUSE they cannot afford you and in their desire to own a Ferrari, you sell them yours too cheep which costs you in the process. The tent IS the deal that makes the transaction 'sweet!' and not kaka! If you have such customers, get rid of them or set rules and boundaries so they have no recourse.
Yes, it's not a good thing looking back and realising several people have taken advantage of you over the years because of your inherent character predispositions..... ask me how I know........
@@michaelsimpson9779 I am interested :)
Guess I’m not alone in this either. Maybe we’ll get straight on the next round.
Follow up: I went to an existing client with a proposal. The tent: You pay 120k + 10% on increased sales, and I will double your sales from 2m to 4m in 12 months. I then took the proposal to 2 other businesses and sold the same. How? I am the programmer of an ERP and can change how everyone works. In the past, people just bought a mod. Now, I operate as a freelance CTO. the trick here has been to re-write the rules and be willing to make the obvious points. 'I can set your business model in any way we can imagine' whereas previously people only improved a segment of operations.
This isn't about winning, it's about communication more then it is reaching your preferred outcome
I can confirm the "Yep, got it. And then you go fuck off somewhere else and never do it" tactic works very well. We picked up a BS snap TCP mission on our first day of refit. My senior section sergeant had me sit in the truck and manually move our FBCB2 icons carefully to the area. Called up a trip ticket and everything. Never even left the base.
100%. This is important in any kind of team or relationship. Your ultimate goal is most likely the same. And more likely than not the real issue between the disagreement is actually not what the two parties are vocalizing. This mentality is key in figuring out how to get to that mutual goal. I wish more people would have the guts to stay in the tent.
I like this. Of course it depends on the reversibility of the decision. If it’s a low risk, low investment decision that can easily be reversed, then spending 5 hours “in the tent” to understand why the boss wants blue highlighters instead of red, then you’re wasting time. Try it. See what happens. Adapt. But if people will die, as is the case very often with complex military operations, if you’re wrong, you can’t undo the damage. With that one missing piece added in, I think this is great advice. :)
One of those things that sounds really profound, but is in fact glaringly obvious.
Great point, but there's an issue. The Union kept extending their line with more troops. Gettysburg wasn't just Longstreet delaying because he didn't like the plan. He kept adjusting to the Union right flank moving considerably.
Longstreet will always be a whipping boy for Lee worshippers. Pickett's Charge was a disaster from the moment Lee conceived it. If Longsteet had jumped to the task, Pickett's division would have just died sooner. Not to mention there was a preparatory artillery barrage going on during his so called hesitation.
I listen to you guys, see the humility and empathy quite frankly being displayed, and I cant help but feel some heartbreak that instead being in positions to improve global social/economic policies, you were having to deal with the effects of bad policies/situations with a rifle in your hands. I see the talent and wonder what the hell are we doing with the egotistical bent world leaders we have when there are people like you guys who would be exactly what this world needs. Anyway.
"Never give an order you KNOW will be disobeyed."
i actually deal with those issues every day when im in charge and when im being managed. loved it. it should always be about getting the mission right.
Part of this discussion sounds like habit 5 (i.e. “Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood”) from Stephen Covey’s “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”.
chase the truth... if there are conflicting approaches- re-examine the actual goal, starting with the opposite viewpoint that you disagree with... then determine why you feel committed to your own goal... is there a pro/con equation that creates a clear path. but there is a chain-of-command process that needs to be followed. a good leader can recognize a fair alternative.
Thank you!
Thank you for this
What if the alpha leader is heading toward dementia, and he doesn't know it? I suppose it sounds familiar...
He probably wouldn't find his way off the stage...I mean, out of the tent.
I know, Trump is so problematic. "TROTH SENCHAL, Nikki Haley caused J6, etc etc." The guy can't even keep the names of his children straight. It's sad.
I think you raised a really good point about selecting the right type of potato for a fry. It depends on the style of the cut.
Heading toward? Lol and apparently he's gonna run again. Arrrgh
Happily there are improvements in testing and treatment. Document incidents and reach for qualified medical professionals. This is no joke. For anyone.
Too often you'll be up against people who want to make you lose. Agreeing with them is not 'losing' in their eye's. They need you to be forced against your will.
ALWAYS DO YOUR OBJECTIVE
someone has to make the call, its on everyone else to follow the call. Do your best to do so, otherwise you go from ally to enemy. you dont get to work at a cross purpose and remain on the team.
it takes a very secure person to be able to do this. i am about halfway there.
That is a spiritual concept that takes your flesh out of it.
Love the message. Don't love click-baity titles
It's part of the world. It was in print, it was in radio, it was in TV. It's nothing new. Businesses need the bait because MOST people DO NOT want the straight truth. They can't handle it.
Reminds me of the arguing to understand, instead of arguing to persuade technique. Boss says execute plan "bad". Hey boss, help me understand the plan better? what are the advantages/ disadvantages? What information do you have that I don't that shaped your perspective? Why is this plan better than plan "good"?
Yes!
Except when you are ordered to leave the tent…
That when you go in the basement and drink wine. You must’ve missed that part.
@@MrSmallie you must’ve missed the part about context…
The flaw with this approach is that it requires that the person in charge gives a damn what you have to say. Most don't.
The point of debate should be to find truth...not to win an argument.
I like this. So often I try to understand and people take an immediate defensive stance. Must be how I present myself. I try to come off the way I intend, the response from others says I am not coming off like I intend
Underlying principles that apply to personal relationships aswell
I think going down into the cellar and drinking wine could become the go-to default course of action in quick order.
In a disagreement, suggesting that you yourself is wrong and don't understand the solution of our colleague allows you to take control of the situation and continue to probe and search for common ground. If you think you're right and won't/can't change and won't/can't explore change, you've given control over to the other guy...
One problem, what happens when the other person's goal goes from "Explaining their approach" to "I don't have time for this, I want you to leave the tent"?
In the Gettysburg example, it could be argued that both outcomes (whether Longstreet committed or not) would have led to failure. When your boss lets their ego get in the way of a good decision, it's a no-win.
Tactical orange straw flowing up the mic stem
The problem is many great thinkers can not remove ego or attachments while "in the tent". I often know a plan has a major flaw but I need concentration to analyze it. Often, sitting in the car or lying in bed I can pinpoint the flaw that will certainly cause failure but I can't communicate it while in the meeting among others egos and attachments.
But when you're in the tent, you have to drop the "I'm not 12 and you're not my dad, and the "because I told you so" ain't cutting it".... sometimes you have to accept that all you get is the "what", not the "why".
Anyone know when Jocko’s coming to Seattle?
Whats important isn't saying, "I was right you were wrong" or vice versa. Whats important is that you find the *truth* between you and leave the tent with a shared truth.,
Wish I saw this on Monday. 🤦🏻♂️
would've been helpful for me too.
Oh to have a Hardcore Recondos in a 2XL. One day. Replenishment woes.
Relating this to a corporate situation... It's hard to find mature leaders in the tent who would listen to their subordinates' dissension. It's hard to take ownership of a soulless, faceless entity's goals.
It is hard to find mature leaders who will carefully listen to dissent. It's much easier to find leaders who have a human ego and will enjoy explaining their decision, to a subordinate who wants to be fastidious about doing exactly what the leader wants, and to understand the leader's thinking. Both subordinates are seeking to have the leader think through the decision more carefully and to thoroughly discuss the situation. One of them has a much better chance of succeeding in making that happen. "I'm not sure if I heard and understood everything right, and I want to be sure to do it the right way. What should we do if it turns out the delivery is delayed by a few days?" Vs "ugh that would only work if the delivery is exactly on time - and it's never on time. Dumb."
😂 what the hell I just watched that episode of band of brothers, and I mean I'm on the couch currently and paused the next episode and this video is suggested. Creepy
This advice here only works if your boss is mature and experienced.
Any one whohas played a team sport and been in a sutuation where some one didn't like the play call so they just sand bag it, knows how poorly it effects the play. A bad play exicuted with every one behind it always does better than a good play with only some people participating.
If you can’t listen to your coach and do your best for the team then you should quit the team.
WW1 troops who would not leave the Trench (Tent) were shot
It's true, many people are simply not in a position where they have the ability or the right to disagree. I think in this case the tent is metaphorical and this technique is specifically about unit commanders who have a disagreement with a higher level commander, that is someone who at least in theory should be empowered with decision making.
Great advice and I can’t wait to wear all my jocko swag and tactical gear with my fellow badass club members as we discuss various weapons systems platforms and tactical maneuvers for our trip to BW3 for wing night. We will not leave the tent until everyone has touched tips ceremoniously in anticipation of the onslaught of wing devouring. Hell yeah brother warriors!!! Onward until Valhalla!!!!
How do you reconcile disagreeing with your field leader (in this case Jocko or Dave) when they've been saddled with an objective that they also felt unreasonable but came down from those who weren't put at any risk to themselves by a failure of the plan? I think a good leader will ask for opinions from his team and try to work them in (when given the rationale from those members why they want changes made) unless it's been made clear to him from his higher-ups to do it THIS way. Everyone should leave the tent content that the plan will work, or they have other plans in place to mitigate the collateral damage or failure. If you decide to change or ditch the plan (like Major Winters did), you have to have another plan in place to cover your ass, dereliction of duty isn't something you want to be forced to face once the smoke (or lack of) clears. What would have happened if Col. Sink had decided to show up at 4am on the riverbank to welcome the guys back personally? BTW, Dale Dye killed that part, he was awesome.
How can I apply this tactical strategy/strategic technique to ascertain the course of action that will lead to the greatest likelihood of an optimized outcome in situations wherein I am trying to decide whether or not it is worthwhile watching a youtube video all the way to the end?
As an army of one you need to work that out.
Ahem, I believe in the military this calls for... FITFO.
I think it depends on the type of tent. Some tents are bigger than others and it might be hot.
And here I thought this was supposed to be a way to win an argument.
Imagine if people did as they were askked because it is what they said they would do. To question your superior and demand that he explain his plan to you so that you feel okay with it is disobedience. If you agree to subordinate yourself to a leader, then do what you're asked. Decide before you go into battle whether or not a person is worth following, then follow. True leaders consider every option and then make a decision. How vsin do you have to be to think that you know better than the person whom you have previosly decided knows better than you.
That's all fine and good until you try to execute your boss's bad decision and you get to be the scapegoat when it fails. Sometimes you have to leave the tent and not come back. There is no such thing as AWOL outside the military.
@@shawnbottom4769 why would you voluntarily choose to work for auch a person? There is no forced subordination outside the military...
I could not fight for a cause i do not believe in or at least understand
@@ohnoitisnt nor should you. However, I feel that it is one's own responsibility to ensure that you do agree with the cause before placing yourself under any obligation to follow orders. Once you have decided that a cause, or a leader, is worthy do not dishonor yourself by constantly demanding an explanation for every detail. Sometimes, great leaders may ask you to do something counter-intuitive. If you decided that they were worth following already, it is safe to assume that they are worth following even if you don't understand their actions. But this is just my perception. I do my best not to get into business with someone before I understand their values.
@@lawnbear5958 Well said, i agree and can relate especially on doing buisness with people who which i know their values. ATB
Pickett's charge = folly. Pride goes before the fall.
This is 1v1 which never happens IRL. More likely scenario. I disagree in a meeting and 1 person with a bad plan (and ego) and authority, is supported by 5 yes men. Making it 6 on 1
That is a legitimate wrinkle in this plan I have faced myself. Not sure how to break through. Even the most obvious evidence is powerless in this scenario.
Just roll with it. Stay in your lane and ALWAYS HAVE A PAPER TRAIL. Also, try to make friends with HR.
It's a shame my wife can't think like this^^^ 🤣😆🤣
Crazy how he takes 8 min to explain a 30-second concept. But thinks he should give communication advice
Anyone know what the book? is he was talking about ?? "leadership strategy and tactics" ?
Here you go: www.amazon.com/Leadership-Strategy-Tactics-Manual-Expanded/dp/B0C74TGGGM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=QG0JH8E1PK5B&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.9VZdYQq2BESruo_sg3n_9SNb3Iz0V30Rajlqn3qMnefQDUeAhPx0EP-Gb1lOQYKkUGO013Ss68sB8ybBr6mryVWFNW-Qq9Yo-iqHFossLK_FGZtjAUakql5UeuLOd_yU_D0rw4N76LXzKChgcyfdIHUcXMw6y9s6ArD-gBh--to5oeisJbWUeWnP0T9UR-3kprMtH8CQTbYHtuiNSeTa56seNuYhaxm3Zo0z9aXYPa4.mT1l1gHWyirKnqpVrSkdGdgv_5KBEvface4hXB0Cwo4&dib_tag=se&keywords=leadership+strategy+and+tactics+jocko&qid=1708444374&sprefix=leadership+st%2Caps%2C162&sr=8-1
All this tent talk has made me want to go camping.
There is an Amazon Leadership Principle (LP) that aligns 100% with this clip: Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit: "Leaders are obligated to respectfully challenge decisions when they disagree, even when doing so is uncomfortable or exhausting. Leaders have conviction and are tenacious. They do not compromise for the sake of social cohesion. Once a decision is determined, they commit wholly."
Its ironic when u consider the whole reason hes in the public forum is bc he committed friendly fire
He didn't commit it, his team did. He owned how it got to that point, however. I can think of lots of military leaders that lead to poor outcomes and deaths, and they don't own their mistakes...
Jocko does a great job turning a 1 message into 8 minutes 🙄
What an opportunity, especially for young people to take advantage of. Bye putting these principles in place. Thanks.
Am I hearing this right. It is ok to disobey an order from your superior if you disagree with it?
So, more or less, he's a yes man. If you're sitting there and your only thought is "The only possible way this situation happens is if you can't understand what the boss wants". That makes you a yes man.
BLUF: Confederates didn't have the resources to retreat from Gettysburg and draw the war out longer. What's not being discussed here is the tactical vs big picture strategy. Tactically Longstreet was right, big picture Lee knew that the Confederate state was running out of men and resources and therefore time. A Gettysburg victory would have ended the war much quicker in the Confederates favor. It was a do or die situation.
id give jock these hands
Seems like there’s been changes to the 38h and other tier 2 vehicles Much harder to get commander xp
N ppl forget he was involved in a friendly fire incident
Don't take a job that requires you to get shot at
…about being on the same page and enjoying the story.?
Robert E. Lee was not always the genius general that some historians say he was. At the earlier battle of Fredericksburg the South rejoiced in the wholesale slaughter of Yanks. This same exact tactic lead to the slaughter of Lee's troops at Gettysburg. If Longstreet had not carried out Lee's order, Lee would've replaced him and someone else would have done it. I'm not really sure how any of that part of the discussion supports the idea of staying in your tent.
Love this but there is a humongous caveat in all this. Most, and I mean most people don't view disagreements as a contention to come to an agreement. For most, it's a win-lose proposition. It's all ego, a zero sum game, a finite game AND bragging rights to hold over your at their discretion on how you were wrong and how they were right. Which is why I agree with Jim Rohn and many other whom have copied him--I have surrounded myself with very few people, for me less than 5, with whom I can have a conversation like that described above by these two gentlemen and I can actually see it their way without 'being defeated'--because it may be me who has things calculated wrong. Like the saying goes: Get into an argument with an idiot, people looking on from the outside cannot tell which one of you is the idiot. Harsh , I know, but true.
Don’t leave the tent until you get fired? or If I don’t leave the tent has is the boss going to learn?
Ronald Reagan - 'There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.'
There is little evidence that Longstreet did anything other than execute the order from Lee. No evidence that he stalled or drug his feet. Any delay was in the logistics of getting his troops in place.
HPPO, Highest Paid Persons Opinion. Most leaders everywhere don't give a single shit about seriously considering a subordinate's input, certainly not these two that is for sure. And most people outside military have no idea what following orders even means, doing what your told and doing it well is something very, very difficult for everyone to do
what happened to execute the plan as if it were your own?
Long story short, Listen to people as if they know something you don't.
It’s hard when you’re working in a circus tent with trained monkeys
Longstreet was right .
What am I not getting? If I don't agree and "don't leave the tent," there's still a disagreement...
Being large, muscular, with a booming voice and butt chin is also very helpful in winning a "disagreement".
If you never leave the tent then you're not get anything done
disagree but commit
What a weird way to think 💀💀 who cares if you have a disagreement. You need to accept just not trying to prov yourself right all the way ime
These instructions more than likely have cost a subordinate their livelihood.
"What if the Alpha Leader is heading towards dimentia and he doesn't know it". Let me clarify that statement that is not mine. Dimentia applies to women. Alzheimers disease applies to males. Secondly, If there was a leader in that situation, and let me apply this to our "America's" most important positions, we have a second in Command. That is part of the reason for a Vice. Let me assume that comment applies to our current leaders age. I think that possibly the reason for that idea is our political mentality Dem in Contrast to GOP. The GOP position is a strong stance towards China. As a Dem, I concur with that stance, but we are a Democratic Nation. Our Eagle on our Dollar has a plant that represents Peace, in the other claw, there are weopons. Look in the news. What might one find. Our current leadership trying to be as Neutral with China as possible. But that is typical news, that isn't military news. If you check military news, which Biden leads our military. You can tell the current administration supports standing our ground with China. Positions here, there, exorcizes here and there. Reinforcements west and east. It is best to keep from making statements that could provoke a large scale or any size war. So I suspect that statement was a statement that says "he's so old he can't lead", "he's so old, he doesn't know what he's doing". He looks like he's doing a fine job to me.
If you need to win every disagreement, you probably arent a real man who can hear differences without having emotional overreactions.
um, does he realize this is union collectivist bargaining mentality?
Lol What i recommend is: comercial
Some people just like to hear their own voice. This is definitely one of them. He quotes other people quoting him.. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Naaaaaaaaaah mate.