The WAY to WOW Shows
The 24-Episode Campaign: Culture & Long-Term Survival 3
June 9, 2026
Automatically generated from YouTube captions; names and wording may contain errors.

[0:01] Who are you? [music] And where are you going?

[0:07] >> [music]

[0:08] >> What do you want? Hello and welcome to Business Lessons from the Military. I'm your host Kevin Bemel and I'm here every Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time to talk about military history, doctrine, and leadership practices and then distill from them lessons we can apply to our businesses and professional practices. So, we're I'm on to episode three of the um

[0:44] culture and uh long-term survival portion of the 24 episode campaign talking about military doctrine in in a um comprehensive way across all of the service branches. And so, uh we're we're we're we're getting down to the last few episodes here. And and really talking about uh core very core core issues um that that um we we build them day by day even hour by

[1:23] hour sometimes um so that um when we need to access them uh uh they will be there. And I talked uh last week about um uh discipline um under stress. And this week I'm going to be talking about rules of engagement. So, I I I I I hear this from time to time um in in the business world on business podcasts and such,

[1:58] uh and and presumably people understand what these are. But, um just uh you know, to kind of set the the the frame here. So, almost every organization claims that it knows how it will behave under pressure.

[2:20] >> [snorts]

[2:20] >> Um but, I think they don't um unless they have uh been in a in a high a high-pressure situation and have validated that behavior, often times that is not the case. And so, when when when the stakes rise, when there is a crisis, uh whether it's a public relations crisis, a financial crisis, a personnel crisis, so, it becomes more difficult to operate, ambiguity increases,

[2:55] uh especially if it's a personnel crisis, perhaps something with a leader. All of a sudden, a key decision-maker is not there, and so now how how is the organization going to respond? So, consequences accelerate, and and people often times stop following ideals, and they start relying on just sort of gut reaction. Um now, these gut reactions should be governed by rules of engagement,

[3:33] uh but often times they're not. And while we may have sort of written policies and procedures, those will often times be overridden by just reactions. And so, when we talk about rules of it what I'm talking about rules of engagement in this in this context, what I really mean are the often unspoken boundaries that govern behavior, uh you know, in a in a critical moment,

[4:10] okay? And it it it's it's falling falling back on really the core culture of the organization rather than relying on someone, you know, grabbing the manual, the the policies and procedures manual, and figuring it out. So, in in the military, so rules of engagement will determine what force what what amount of force is authorized, when escalation is allowed, what constraints absolutely cannot be

[4:45] violated, and how decisions will be made under uncertainty, right? Now, having said that, that doesn't mean that in in a crisis sometimes constraints uh aren't violated. Sometimes they are uh by mistake. But, what we're talking about here is intentional violations of constraints. So, there is what in what in military circles is is often called collateral

[5:20] damage. I mean, it's it's I I mean, I I understand why the term is used. It's I think it's unfortunate that that such a term is used because collateral damage almost always refers to uh the uh the killing of civilians or the damaging of um you know, cultural heritage or something like that. In other words, something of value that was um that was damaged or destroyed that under normal circumstances

[5:55] would would not have been. So, that that does happen, the fog of war, etc. Can cause that to happen despite rules of engagement prohibiting it, okay? And and that's that's part of the challenge of dealing with rules of engagement is after the crisis is over, so now, you know, there's there should be an after-action review in the military. There will there will be. And to the extent that rules of engagement were violated, you know, one has to look beyond that

[6:32] more deeply into it in order to determine, okay, why was that the case? So, the you know, recent example is the bombing of of the school in Iran. Uh there is no way that that was done intentionally. It was it was clearly a mistake, okay? Now, it was a tragic mistake, to be sure, but there's no chance that combat rules of engagement in the American military allow the bombing of a school. It It is

[7:09] just It is not permitted. Now, why did it happen? How did it happen? Okay, that I'm sure is being investigated to the extent that that rule of engagement was violated. Now, if it was munitions that did not operate properly, and so rather than going where it was targeted, it went off target. Well, so it's hard to hold the targeters responsible for that. On the other hand, it may require going back to the suppliers of those munitions

[7:45] and and and finding out well why did this happen? What what caused this munition to not operate properly? On the other hand, if the targeting was flawed, well, so then maybe that particular service member or that team may be held responsible for violating that rule of engagement because they did not follow, you know, proper procedure to stay within the rules of engagement. So, those are the kinds of things that the military does in order to establish and reinforce rules of engagement. Okay? So,

[8:23] in businesses, um when we look at equivalents to rules of engagement, we're we're looking at which tradeoffs are acceptable, what ethical lines cannot be crossed, how far will leaders go under pressure, and in the end, will profit override principle? Right? That's that is the fundamental question. And and hopefully for your business, the answer to that last one is no. Profit will not override principle. That that

[8:59] is as sacrosanct uh an a a rule of engagement as exists, right? And so, but if that's the case, it needs to be established as part of the culture consistently long before crisis hits. Okay? Because at the point where crisis hits, if it is not embedded into the sort of unwritten rules of behavior, it's likely to be violated uh by, you know, it it could be someone very junior, or it could be someone

[9:36] who's very senior. There's no the the the level of a person within an organization does not determine the likelihood of their following or not rules of engagement. Okay? It It has to do with how deeply they've embedded those rules in themselves, right? So, culture is what's not written, right? So, you may have a policy on a written policy on uh you know, hiring, on firing, on on all

[10:12] kinds of procedures within your organization. The culture is how those procedures are enacted. So, let's take a a a business example here. Just recently with the firing of uh Steven Paley from 60 Minutes, right? So, I suspect that 60 Minutes I I NBC in general I I I don't know this. I've never worked for NBC. But, I suspect that NBC has a policy that basically says

[10:47] um we do not raise our voices and disparage each other in meetings, right? I'm I would hope that all organizations have that rule, okay? Uh it's it's probably not written down. It's It's probably a general assumption of sort of mature adult behavior, right? And so, when someone violates that the way Steve Paley evidently did, right? So, that that is saying that that that he

[11:26] he does he has not embedded that aspect of the culture in his behavior, Right? And so he's violated that rule of engagement and and that was evidently the reason that CBS fired him. Right? So the the the comparable issue in the military would be that uh seniors do not yell at juniors and and juniors do not to you know to their subordinate and and subordinates do not you know yell at their uh seniors or

[12:01] their subor- their you know the people who are yeah senior to them. So uh now that doesn't mean that people don't raise their voice. I mean in combat they may have to to overcome the din of of you know rifle fire or or ordinance going off or whatever. Okay, that that's one thing. But uh the the sort of public dressing down um that that you sometimes see in movies about the military um that does not happen in in the in the contemporary in the modern military. Uh largely

[12:37] because it's counterproductive to developing good order and discipline in the military, to developing effective communication up and down the chain of command, etc. And so um there there is no uh you know um clause in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that says says you know juniors will not yell at seniors. It's understood. It's part of the military culture. Okay? Now interestingly enough there is uh there is a clause in the UCMJ that

[13:13] prohibits uh seniors from uh dressing down uh in an angry way uh subordinates. Um that's for the protection of you know people who are more junior in the military. Okay? But indeed, the culture of the military is one of mutually respectful communication. Okay? And you can always tell a bad leader uh because he thinks he has to yell to get his point across, okay? And And you don't. Okay? If you're yelling to get your point across in the military, you've already failed, right?

[13:50] And And And I I I I would say that, you know, probably should be removed from your position of authority or command. Okay, so uh rules of engagement in the military. So, they're the legal boundaries of force, they're the conditions for action or restraint, uh and and the the sort of escalation ladder in conflict. And they're designed to prevent uncontrolled uh escalations, to maintain ethical uh legitimacy, and to ensure a disciplined response

[14:25] in chaos, okay? So, um rules of engagement are not suggestions. They are a binding operational constraints, okay? So, if we look at what's happened recently in the Middle East when Iran uh fired missiles uh at at at Israel, so Israel responded proportionately, right? So, that's a rule of engagement, almost for sure. Uh again, I'm I'm I'm not part of the IDF, but but I can tell you that proportional

[15:03] response to aggression is got to be a cornerstone of rules of engagement, really for any military, okay? So, uh lobbing a few missiles at Israel um or lobbing missiles at Israel means a similar attack back. Now, if Iran launched one missile at Israel and Israel turned around and destroyed the oil facilities on Kharg Island, uh that would not have been a proportionate response. And and and would not would

[15:40] would likely have violated rules of engagement. Okay? Now, having said that, when you know, when a military operation is being planned, uh that military operation which has certain strategic, operational, and tactical uh intent in it, it it may do something that on the face of the war uh may not look proportional, but it's it's it's being done to in in order to achieve typically a some kind of strategic objective. Okay? So,

[16:17] you know, one needs to look at these rules of engagement in context. So, how they how they are in a a planned and executed uh you know, combat operation, okay, may look different than in you know, sort of the the the exchange during the heat of battle. Okay? So, it that's what makes this subject so complicated and difficult is, you know, we want to say, "Well, you know, you can never ever do this." Well,

[16:52] I mean, you know, should should we have a rule of engagement that says, you know, you can never ever kill a civilian? Well, in the Middle East, that wouldn't work. First of all, it's very hard to identify who is a civilian because often times military people, Hamas, Hezbollah, will dress exactly the same as military people. And so, you won't you wouldn't be able to tell a combatant from a civilian in that case. And that's number one. Number two, uh sometimes civilians will attack even

[17:30] though uh they're not part of the military. And if that happens, uh should the, you know, should the military person allow himself to be attacked even though you know, by the civilian because that person is a civilian? O- O- obviously not. So, it would be more accurate to say that a rule of engagement is uh that uh non-combatant uh civilians a- a- are protected, okay? Because there are what would other I think what would

[18:05] perhaps best be described as combatant civilians, okay? And so, again, this is where rules of engagement need to be considered, they need to be well thought through, and they need to be well explained to to rank and file, to team members, okay? So, why they matter in a crisis is um fear as I talked about last week, fear compresses decision-making and communicated becomes communication becomes fragmented. And so, split-second

[18:40] a split-second judgments dominate and and so, uh without clear rules and training in those rules, without them being part of the culture, uh i- i- individuals will act inconsistently, uh escalation becomes unpredictable, and the the chances of an ethical failure increases, right? And so, rules of engagement help create stability when instinct takes over and and and when chaos is is is more likely

[19:17] to to you know to erupt if you will. So, Um okay, so we I've I've talked about some some military examples. So, let's let's let's move on to why businesses I think sometimes misunderstand rules of engagement. So, in in corporate settings rules of engagement are rarely explicit because in the civilian world businesses just seem to be part of civilian life. So, I think there's an assumption that well,

[19:54] we're going to act in a business context like we do just in in regular life and so there's no reason to set specific rules of engagement for a company. Unfortunately, I think because the rules of civil discourse or the civil I shouldn't say the rules, but I mean I guess yeah, I guess the rules of civil discourse have loosened significantly over the last 50 years or or so. So, the way people behave in public is much different today, right? So,

[20:32] you know, when the Secretary of Transportation says you know, you you shouldn't wear pajamas on an airplane, right? I mean, that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. Today people wear their pajamas everywhere. I I I find it a kind of a bizarre thing thing to do. But, um because the rules of proper behavior are are I think I don't know that they're no longer taught, but they don't seem to have the hold on society that they used to. So,

[21:08] businesses need to The idea that that rules of engagement are not explicit is problematic for businesses. So, um they typically typically ROEs exist informally based on what leadership rewards, what leadership ignores, and what behavior is tolerated under pressure, right? We we see this societally, but we we see it even more so in business. And the problem is this

[21:43] creates a dangerous kind of ambiguity so that uh you know, unethical sales practices happen during downturns. We see compliance shortcuts under when people are under under pressure to perform. We see aggressive behavior masked to sort of, you know, reorienting people or having a results orientation. And we see inconsistent enforcement of standards. So, when the rules are

[22:18] unclear, so behavior becomes inconsistent, and then under pressure, it's not predictable how the organization is going to respond. So, let's take a quick break and we'll talk we'll come back and talk some more.

[22:37] >> When life brings unexpected changes, managing inherited property shouldn't add to your stress. Magnum Properties specializes in probate and trust real estate management. We handle the complexities while you focus on what matters most. From property maintenance to tenant relations, from legal compliance to maximizing value, we're your trusted partner through every step. Magnum Properties Inc. Turning property challenges into peace of mind. Call us today at 213-264-4396

[23:14] or visit magnumprops.com. Okay. So, the reality is most organizations, most business organizations, so during normal conditions they look functional and aligned. So, culture is not defined in a stable situation. It's defined in a crisis. Again, I talked about this last week as well. So, when an organization comes under pressure, so that typically it will reveal

[23:50] what it truly prio- prioritizes and what leaders are willing to excuse and which boundaries actually matter, okay? And and that's therein lies the problem is these these boundaries should not be defined under crisis. They should have been defined prior to crisis in order to help contain what's going on and make sure that the business continues to operate in in the way that it it has

[24:26] in the through in the culture that it has set for itself. Okay, so let's let's translate these into some better defined business doctrine. So, first and foremost, okay, an organization needs to define non-negotiable boundaries. So, I I believe I talked about this again last week as well. In the property management company that I oversee, there is a non-negotiable boundary. We do not raise our voices to each other. We behave in essence like uh

[25:02] ladies and gentlemen, and uh there's there's no yelling, there's no berating, there is discussion. Sometimes there's disagreement, and that's that's fine. In fact, that's oftentimes good because through disagreement, the the the the problem that we're discussing gets more fully understood, and then we can figure out uh what what we're going to do. But uh putting people down, uh yelling at people is not acceptable. Period. End of story. Okay? Vulgar

[25:37] language is not permitted. Right? And And it it's it's just not. Um I I'm I'm particularly insistent about that because, number one, I don't like it, and number two, I don't think it's uh appropriate to be using profanity uh in really in front of anybody, but in especially in in front of women. You can say, "Okay, you you Kevin, you're a chauvinist." Okay, maybe I am. Um I I mean, that that's how that's how I was taught to behave, and and I believe that especially in a professional setting, uh profanity has has no place. Now, I I

[26:13] think that probably makes me an outlier um in many businesses, and that and that's fine. Um but, you know, what I have to do is I have to define the non-negotiable boundaries in my business, okay? And for the people who don't want to adhere to those boundaries, then we're you know, we have to work that through. And people know uh there that, you know, I I there are certain things that I I I won't permit, and and if I see them breaking those boundaries, I will have a private

[26:48] conversation with them about it. Um and and hope I I just hope that I have the kind of relationship where people will, you know, see my point of view. And and if it's a situation where I'm, you know, I'm kind of in charge, if you will, so then this is just the way it's going to be. Um, now, if I'm not in charge, uh, then I have to decide uh, whether I'm going to remain involved with that. And and in a recent example, I have a situation where I don't think that the people are acting appropriately. And and I've been very concerned about the situation. It

[27:24] finally got to the point where I feel the situation is untenable. And so, I'm removing myself from that situation. Uh, it means I won't make, you know, quite as much money, um, but that's okay. Uh, you know, I I think, you know, we have to have our non-negotiable boundaries and those are important. So, uh, we have to identify I I really don't like this term, but I I it's it's used frequently today. We have to define our ethical red lines. We have to define our ethical limits. Okay? And we And And when we when we reach those,

[28:01] we don't mess around with them. We do not cross them, right? And we have to document acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. And we need to reinforce boundaries consistently. So, if everything is flexible, there is no stability and there are no rules of engagement. People will do whatever they they feel they can do and they'll see what they can get away with, right? So, you may have heard the expression, sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission. And and and

[28:36] sometimes I think that that is the case. But, with with rules of engagement, they should never be handled as, you know, well, it's okay, I'm going to break them and ask for forgiveness afterwards. No, they shouldn't be so tight that they uh prevent people from acting prudently and cogently uh to deal with a crisis. Okay? They they should give the greatest freedom of action while at the same time permitting effective response to the

[29:12] crisis. Okay? And that can be a difficult balance to achieve, but but that's really what what the goal is. Okay, next, uh establish decision rules for crisis conditions. So, normal rules often break under stress. And so, we need to define sort of escalation protocols so that in emergencies, okay, who has authority, what the extent of that authority is is

[29:47] clear. Okay? So, depending on the size of the crisis, that may determine in an escalation protocol who has the authority to make a particular decision. Okay? So, if it's a you know, an an upset customer who's in the store screaming, you know, are are we going to refer that to the CEO of the company? I hope not. All right? Because that's going to take so long, whatever damage is going to be done will have been suffered before it can be dealt

[30:22] with uh appropriately. So, so the salesperson on the spot should have the authority that to uh you know, to make decisions under that situation. And concurrent with that authority, they should have the training that's necessary to handle it appropriately. Okay? And so uh we need to in essence pre-decide uh what high-pressure trade-offs the

[30:58] organization will make. Okay? So, in that example I just gave of an irate customer in a store screaming, I think one of the trade-offs we need to consider is how much authority are we going to give to that front-line salesperson to make a decision uh versus so that it can be handled quickly and hopefully effectively, but by someone who is probably less experienced than more seasoned leadership. Okay? Versus how much time are we going to

[31:34] take moving that problem up the chain of command uh to get to someone who maybe is more experienced, but in the meantime perhaps more damage is called. And every organization is going to have to decide that for themselves. Okay? So, uh chaos uh will reign where uh where where there aren't prepared frameworks, and that's what we're seeking to avoid. Okay, next. Align incentives with ethics. So, incentives do shape behavior. I know it

[32:11] was popular um a while back that to say, "Oh, you know, people don't really care about incentives, financial incentives, you know, they want X, Y, and Z." I I I I I I don't I don't believe that. I'm not saying that people only respond to financial incentives, uh but people and people respond to all kinds of incentives. And so, we have to look at that topic writ large to understand what kind of behavior

[32:46] we're incentivizing in our organizations. So, uh we first of all, we need to ensure that whatever performance metrics we have do not encourage misconduct, right? So, if we're setting sales goals that are so lofty that they're almost impossible to meet, while at the same time uh putting, you know, a huge amount of someone's compensation on meeting those sales objectives, we're really creating

[33:21] an atmosphere where where the person is being enticed to behave unethically, okay? Versus a more reasonable uh sales goal, perhaps, and and a reasonable bonus for meeting that goal, um but not one that will become so enticing that the person will, you know, essent- essentially be incentivized to behave unethically. So, uh we need to avoid um rewarding outcomes that are achieved through

[33:57] harmful means, right? So, if we've got an employer a manager who screams at employees to get them to do what he wants them to do, okay? It and and then he gets promoted for, you know, his team's success. So, we are we are rewarding that person for using for being successful through harmful means, okay? And and and that is counterproductive to building the organization. And and finally, we need to show that we

[34:34] want to balance results with integrity, with integral behavior, right? So, people oftentimes follow incentives faster than they follow values. Now, I don't think that's always the case. It depends how deeply ingrained those values are. To the extent that values are not deeply ingrained, and there are heavy incentives that could encourage violating those values, so then uh we're creating situation where people are

[35:09] likely to do so. Okay, next. And I've I've I've alluded to this uh a few times uh already, and that is we need to train for ethical pressure scenarios. So, ethics must survive stress testing. And so, we should simulate crisis decision-making, we should expose teams to ambiguous situations, and [clears throat] we should evaluate judgments made under pressure, right? And giving people an opportunity to

[35:45] practice how this will work does several things. One is it helps embed uh ethical the the the values of the organization in their character and behavior. Next, it lets them feel the temptation of violating those values and getting a sense of how they how they respond to that. Okay, and finally, it lets them see how people around them respond, and what the temptations are to

[36:23] follow the herd or not. Okay, so, all that can be in it. It doesn't have to be a big elaborate situation. It could be something that's kind of role-played, you know, during a a sales meeting or a staff meeting or something like that. There are simple, quick ways to do little trainings on this, but they can also be done more elaborately as well. It depends on what the stakes are and and how intent the organization is in maintaining its rules of engagement

[36:58] and also what prior problems is the organization seeking to to to overcome. Okay. And so then finally, especially in a crisis, the rules of engagement need to be enforced consistently. There cannot be one set of enforcement's for people who are maybe the the rainmakers of the company or who are in senior leadership positions and another enforce set set of enforcement rules for people

[37:34] who are you know, not not you know, the primary you know, business generators for the company or who are at lower levels of leadership or are you know, rank and file employees. They have to be consistent across the company. I know going back now I quite a number of months now I think I believe it was I I hope I'm getting the company right. I think it was McDonald's fired the company president for conduct with that was not aligned with the standards of

[38:10] the company. To the best of my recollection, they didn't release what the person did but but you know, this obviously this is one of the most senior people in the company and uh look, we on the outside I I don't know that I I don't need to know what he did. Um what I will say is, uh you know, good to the extent that, you know, he did do that which he was accused of that for which he was accused, um you know, good for the company for holding him accountable in the same way

[38:45] they would have undoubtedly held more junior people accountable, right? And so, this consistency is the foundation of trust both up and down the chain of command. And so, as I was mentioning a moment ago, um the the enforcement rules need to apply uh equally across roles. Uh they need to avoid exceptions for high performers. And in in in particular, during high-stakes moments, they must be enforced. So, we

[39:23] can't drop enforcement just because we're in a crisis. Quite to the contrary, the most important time to enforce rules rules of engagement consistently is at those high-stakes crisis moments. So, exceptions become precedent. And having happened once, people will will essentially look to exercise those same exceptions in the future. All right. So, there is a strategic risk of undefined

[39:58] rules of engagement. And that is, without them, uh decision-making becomes inconsistent, trust erodes internally, uh external credibility weakens, and leaders lose moral authority, right? And so, the reason for following all those five things is to counteract these kinds of situations that erode the quality of the business. Okay? As is the case with all of these, it requires disciplined leadership.

[40:35] So, leaders must define boundaries before crisis occurs. They need to communicate expectations clearly and repeatedly. They need to enforce standards, especially under pressure, and they need to accept that restraint is part of strength. So, leadership is not tested by vision. It's tested by enforcement and most specifically by enforcement during times of crisis where uh the the incentive to

[41:15] uh look the other way is perhaps the strongest and and the temptation is the highest and therefore uh they they you know, they just cannot if they want to make sure that rules of engagement are embedded in the culture of the company. So, um today um modern organizations uh operate in an environment of reputational risk with social media, especially social scrutiny, regulatory pressures, rapid information spread, and uh especially with the advent of remote

[41:52] work, internal cultural fragmentation. And so, in these conditions, unclear rules will almost inevitably lead to ethical violations as well as in um um inconsistent enforcement creating distrust and pressure exposing cultural gaps quickly through which someone will inevitably slip to the detriment of the organization. And so, disciplined organizations outperform because they are predictable

[42:30] when it matters most. So, everybody knows that the standards, the rules of engagement are going to be upheld even during a crisis. There's going to be no backsliding, okay? So, rules of engagement determine behavior when control is weakest. And in war, as in business, the most dangerous dangerous moment is not when pressure begins, it's when the boundaries are unclear and then pressure emerges. So, strong

[43:06] organizations, they don't improvise their ethics under stress. They define them in advance and enforce them when it matters most. So, uh, I I thank you for joining me today. If you have, so, my question for you is does your organization have rules of engagement? And if so, what's one example? Are they written down or are they just part of the unspoken not unspoken, but un-

[43:42] unwritten down culture of your organization, right? So, so, um, if if you if you have a minute, uh, just, you know, jot that or you know, make a post in social media. Look right below you, all the links are there in the show notes. I'd be curious to see, uh, if if, you know, how your organization deals with this topic. So, slate of shows during the week on Mondays at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time, Trusts and Estates weekly, Tuesdays, like today, at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time, Business Lessons from the Military, Wednesdays at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time,

[44:17] People Making Money, and then every other Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Pacific time is my show Jigger's This Place, where we sit back, relax, have a cocktail, and a schmooze. So, lots of opportunities for us to be together uh during the week. Hope to see you again soon. Thanks again very much for joining me and signing off as I always do. Marie darling, you are my bell. Courage at all times, my friends.