0:01 [music] Who are you and where are you going? [music] 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 that we can apply to our businesses and professional practices. So today we're I'm continuing
0:39 with my 24 our 24 episode campaign. We're in the uh third section of it and that is talking about culture and long-term survival and we're in the fifth uh episode of the third phase and that is civil and civil military relations. So this concept is really a cornerstone of certainly the way the military operates here in the United States. So if if one if you were to look at uh how
1:17 military power worked uh in countries in Europe for example, England, France, Germany, Spain etc. So the the monarch, typically a king, uh was also the head of the military usually um oftentimes had some kind of formal military rank. And so there was no separation between so-called the so-called civilian world and the military itself. uh in fact the military was an embedded part of those
1:54 societies in many ways. In the United States there has always been a separation between ci civilian and military affairs. uh where while of course personnel is drawn from the population the um the authority um over the military has that separation and constitutionally it is the civilian side of the equation
2:29 that has ultimate control over the military. So the president of the United States is the commanderin-chief. He is not uh in the military. He may have been in the military at some time, although that has not been the case uh since um the second uh President Bush was was was president. He was he's the last president to have had military experience and in his case he was in as I recall the Air National Guard. Um, so the the days when uh you know a general
3:04 would become president uh that that happened. The last time that happened was with um Dwight Eisenhower. Uh Jimmy Carter, I mean Richard Nixon was in the Navy. He was an officer. I don't recall the the rank he reached. I believe he was maybe like a lieutenant commander or something like that. Jimmy Carter was the captain of a nuclear submarine. And the first President Bush was a pilot in World War II. So he probably was a lieutenant of some sort. Uh and and uh and then if you go back into history,
3:39 you know, Ulissiz Srant, of course, was the general who essentially won the Civil War for the Union. So, um, but the today the the separation, if you will, between the civil civil and military relations is probably broader than it's ever been in American history. And that that that causes some stresses and strains. So on the one hand uh senior uniformed military leadership uh
4:15 can sometimes be dismissive of civilian authority that has from their perspective little if any knowledge of how things really work from a military perspective. Civilians who also will who will acknowledge they have never been in the military. uh oftentimes uh struggle uh to or not oftentimes but sometimes struggle to understand uh what is being told to them by
4:50 uniformed military leadership to understand the constraints and the abilities that the military offers. Now one could argue well that's not a good thing. Quite to the contrary I think that is a good thing. That's I think part of what makes having uh a split between civil and military relations uh so important is each side needs to work hard to uh to understand the other to and then to make sure then that uh
5:27 that strategy national defense strategy in particular is executed in the best way possible. Right. And and so by having these they're not at odds necessarily although sometimes they are um by having these two uh sides of the equation u working to striving to work in balance I guess is the best way to put it. Uh hopefully we come up with with a better solution than we would if one completely dominated the other. So
6:05 uh here in the United and and and there is a similar uh dynamic in the business world. So we we tend to think of CEOs as you know quote unquote running companies and of course they do they they do have the ultimate uh operational authority of a company. They do not for the most part operate in a vacuum. So if it's a publicly traded company, for sure they have a board of directors to whom they're responsible. They have investors whose needs and wishes need to be taken
6:42 into account. Um most businesses operate under at least some kind of regulatory structure if it's a profession like mine. So I operate under a license that is issued by the state of California. I have reporting requirements. I have um uh um continuing education requirements, license renewal requirements. Uh other industries are heavily regulated. So the nuclear industry to pick one is very very heavily heavily regulated. It's it's one of the reasons why the industry
7:17 uh here in the United States is so small relative to other countries. Um and then you have uh you have other uh shareholders. Um they may be um uh going outside the realm of a publicly traded company to a privately held company. Uh you you know you may have partners in the business who are shareholders or you may not be publicly traded but you may still have other shareholders of your business if you're a corporation, right? And so we need to respond to th their needs. And
7:54 then finally, there's public scrutiny. So public scrutiny on businesses today is probably greater than it's ever been. And a company that does not pay attention to its public reputation is really setting itself up for uh potentially very severe damage. So authority is granted to a CEO, but it's never absolute. Okay. perhaps the not even in a case where a business is solely owned by the CEO even in a case like that. So where there's perhaps no
8:31 board of directors or other investors that need you whose whose needs need to be taken into account. You still have uh customers. You still have public scrutiny. You may still have regulatory scrutiny. And so, you know, no CEO is has has, as the French call it, cart blanch to to operate a business. So there's always some interplay if not actual tension between the CEO, the person running the business and these
9:06 other um I don't want to call them stakeholders because regulators are not a stakeholder but these other uh people slashorgganizations that have some ability to impact how the business operates. So going back to the uh the the military side of things now um so in in a republican government a small R republican government right which is the United States is a republic so as I mentioned a moment ago thei the
9:42 military is subordinate to civil civilian leadership and that was done for several reasons primarily to ensure accountability in the use of military force uh alignment with political objectives. Okay, the military is not an entity in itself. It's its power is not used for its own a grandisement. It's it's used in order to fulfill the political objectives of elected leadership. And then it's also
10:17 done to protect against or to prevent against the use of unchecked power. Right? So if if you think of for example Nazi Germany where um Adolf Hitler was not just the chancellor of the civilian government, he was the commander-in-chief of the military as well. So there was no restraint on his exercise of unchecked power and it was why he was able to be a dictator and and take Germany down the path that he did during World War II. Right? So, so
10:54 that's on the civilian side that is very much the rationale accountability of force, alignment of political objections and uh political objectives not objections and prevention of unchecked power from the military commander side. The uh the fact that the military is subordinate to civilian leadership. So it means that they have the authority to execute strategy uh to provide expertise in the development of that strategy by
11:30 civilian leadership to advise on the feasibility of contemplated military actions. Um but they do not define national policy and this is really the important issue here. So we've seen um over the last few years uh for example with the withdrawal from Afghanistan uh uh military leadership was very unhappy not not all of it but there were um people within the uniformed military leadership that were very unhappy about
12:05 how that was handled and um I mean it's it on some level that's understandable but the principle still held and that is the military is subordinate to the authority of the president and so they do not define national policy they execute national policy and so that's why the withdrawal from Afghanistan took place right and so the separation protects both the the military as an institution and the state as a representative of the citizens of this
12:40 country. Okay. and and by again creating tension between the two hopefully we get to the best solution. So uh the structure exists um because history has shown that um when military power becomes independent of civilian leadership. So often times uh strategic objectives drift um accountability weakens and governance becomes unstable. So if we go back to the example in World
13:16 War II of of Adolf Hitler. So, uh you you know he when when he ended up um breaking the um um Molotov ribbon trough uh ribbon trough pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and attacking the Soviet Union. So while there were people within the German military uh that did support that, there were many who did not because they recognized that uh even as powerful as Nazi Germany was, it was unlikely to defeat the Soviet Union. And
13:54 by uh diverting um military uh um uh resources to fighting the Soviet Union, um the Nazi Germany was detracting from its ability to defeat the Western Allies. And so that that two-front war made it much less likely that Germany was going to win. But because uh Adolf Hitler held independent power, there was nobody to contest that decision. And so this decision went on and ultimately it
14:30 meant you know fortunately for the world of course uh the defeat of of Nazi Germany. Um but you know from from the standpoint of what would have been effective for them that was uh you know almost for sure a poor decision on Hitler's part. So civilian oversight of the military, it ensures first of all legitimacy or at least greater legitimacy because uh the military is acting under the authority and at the direction of elected civilian
15:07 leadership. uh and also it it it it serves as a constraint on that power and that's important because uh you know in the United States we've never had a military coup whereas if we look at South America for example there have been a a number of military coups over the decades and and and this has caused a level of instability in those governments that have uh hampered those those countries ability to prosper and have been in in some cases very very negative deadly to
15:45 people living in those countries. Right? So uh so the the thei civilian military divide does create tension but in the broad from the broader perspective it creates it it also establishes greater stability. So the the military principle is um professional control with external authority. So commanders must execute effectively. They must execute the operations and tactics that undergur or
16:23 that that are planned to um bring about uh defense national defense strategy. um to bring to bring that about um commanders must advise honestly. So um this is the uh you know speaking of of of truth to power. So if if the commander-in-chief, the president is contemplating a particular military action, it is up to the military to to military commanders to advise the president honestly about whether that is
16:59 a capability that can be executed successfully. uh what the costs will be in human lives, in human injuries, in in e expending material, right? And it should be unimpeded by whether those military commanders think that the particular operation is quote unquote good or bad. Okay? So, they're supposed to advise honestly. Uh commanders must obey lawful authority. So if the president says to a senior commander, "Stand down." That's it. Commander
17:35 stands down. It's immaterial whether he thinks he should stand down or not. Uh if you've ever seen the movie uh Patton, toward the end of the movie, uh uh General Patton is advocating taking on uh the Russians. And uh of of course um uh President Truman did not want to do that. That was not part of American strategy. Uh and and General Eisenhower was not going to do it either. And and and this is historically
18:11 accurate. uh Patton uh basically says, "Look, I can create I can take steps to create an incident that will make a a a war with with the the Soviet Union inevitable." Um and so we we you know we can in essence get around uh you know the the division of uh civilian and military leadership and of course that is rejected out of hand. Uh so uh all military commanders from the most senior to the most juniors junior have to obey
18:48 lawful authority and and but the commanders also must maintain operational autonomy within defined limits. Okay. So this the rules of engagement have to be set. uh once they're set, commanders need to be able to they need to be given the maximum amount of flexibility within those rules of engagement in order to have the best chance at being at bringing about a successful operation. So the balance is delicate, right? and and we can we can try to be as clear as as possible, but
19:25 the reality is that in in any kind of military operation, uh it it's difficult to be 100% clear. And so what we need to do is is have as well- definfined limits as we can, but then we have to trust in uh military commanders on the one side to do what needs to be done and civilian leadership on the other hand to you know watch what's going on and pull back on the reigns so to speak if necessary. So too much control from above meaning from the civilian side reduces effectiveness.
20:03 uh too much autonomy risks misalignment, right? And so those are the two uh the two parts that are are typically uh in in tension uh between this civilian civilian and military relations, right? And so uh you know I I I've given some some historical examples already. So, but we can look at a more contemporary example with what's going on uh in in Iran right now. So, um, it's rumored I I have no
20:38 inside information on this, uh, but it's it's it's rumored that, um, that Defense Secretary Pete Hegsth, uh, was, uh, against, um, the memorandum of understanding, uh, with Iran because he felt that uh, more military action uh, was was required in order to get a betterou. view. Now, of course, Secretary Hegsth is on the uh is on the civilian side now, but he was uh I
21:14 believe an army officer earlier in his life. And and and this, by the way, is is one of the challenges of having um a secretary of defense who's former military. uh you know they're often times um they are um perhaps more sympathetic to the military side of the equation than a civilian who either has never had uh military experience or whose military experience was a long time ago which is not the case with Secretary Hexath. He's too young for that to have been the
21:49 case. Now, setting aside, you know, the right or wrongs of the situation, uh the the rumor is that he was sidelined uh during the the negotiations over theou uh because um he uh was was putting on too much pressure to continue military operations when the president did not want that to happen. Right? And so, uh, you know, at the end of the day, uh, look, the it was the president's
22:25 decision to make. Obviously, uh, Secretary Hegsth acknowledged that, uh, if he wasn't going to, his course would have been, of course, to resign. Uh, but we can see that that these issues are are current issues with what's going on in the world today. And so the the the civil military relations uh you know are are a part of of our lives right now. So um looking at another issue within the current military. So Secretary Hegsth is very
23:03 very uh um uh bullish on making sure that service members are physically fit and ready to to execute mi the mission. I can tell you when I was in the Navy there was not nearly that level of emphasis on physical fitness and and especially if you look at more senior people in the military who tend not to be as physically fit as perhaps they ought to be. Uh there was there lot of uh push back when when the Navy would try to
23:39 you know more strictly enforce physical standards. I know in one case uh a a senior enlisted person actually um falsified the physical readiness test in order to protect a a senior um u officer's ability to stay in the Navy. Um it never got it never got exposed to uh to to leadership that that had happened. I didn't find out about it until um I I was long gone from from
24:15 that command and and the officer who was protected was already out of the Navy at that point. But you can see that uh that that the presumably our our fellow civilians, our fellow citizens who were civilians want a military that is as physically fit and ready to execute on on strategy as it can get. While within the military, uh there is resistance to that. And so again, you can see um you can see some of this uh tension playing
24:52 out right now between Secretary Hegsth and senior military leadership. You can also see it playing out in his desire to curb senior military leadership, reduce the number of admirals and generals. And you know, nobody who's got a lot of stripes on his sleeves as as at least as we do in the Navy, you know, wants to give up that that that power. And so uh this is again this is another place where civil military relations are are somewhat at odds and and it's I'm I'm I'm watching it fairly closely to see how it plays out. Right. So it's again
25:30 it's no different in the business world uh where uh modern CEOs as as I mentioned earlier they operate they operate in multi- authority environments. So, uh, boards of directors set governance. Um, investors demand returns, regulators impose constraints, and public markets, uh, enforce transparency, uh, and, you know, a a higher level of customer engagement can put a company under public scrutiny in a way that wasn't the
26:08 case before because of the advent of social media. So this creates uh a dual challenge. On the one hand, CEOs need to maintain uh strategic control, but at the same time, they're operating under external pressure, right? And they they can't ignore that external pressure. If they do, it's really at their peril because if they ignore regulators, for example, regulators can come in and can they confine a company. They can stop operations. there's all kinds of things that they can do that can materially
26:44 impede the ability of the business to operate. So, uh many leaders um confuse authority which is the formal permission to act from power which is the ability to influence outcomes. Okay. And so boards hold typically hold authority. Okay. But executives have to maintain operational power. Um if if if the board tries to take power
27:20 over decisions, now you've got executives who are not going to be able to fulfill their mandate, right? They're being hamstrung by the board. Uh and and by the way, it doesn't necessarily even hap have to happen at the board level per se. So I I once did a collateral review at a company where uh the sole owner of the company exercised such almost uh dictatorial control that I observed to my client who was
27:55 contemplating lending money to the company that if something were ever to happen to this the owner um the people who would be left to operate the company wouldn't be able to do though because they they were never given the opportunity to deal with all of the myriad issues. And so it would be a big gamble that they'd be able to step into that owner's shoes. So um if the if the if a if boards of directors uh mismanage the use of their authority and they start um moving into
28:31 accreing power and taking it away from executives. So leaders will become reactive instead of proactive. Strategy will typically become fragmented and and now execution slows down. And in the fastpaced business environment of today uh that can be very harmful if not deadly for a business. So if authority by the for example a board of directors and power held by um u executives is in
29:06 balance. So governance should strengthen decision making uh by giving the executives as clear a sense of po as possible about what's expected and giving them the autonomy to be creative in in fulfilling those expectations. So oversight can improve discipline. So if executives know that in the end they are subject to oversight, their actions are subject to oversight by the board uh and and the board of directors is going
29:41 to be an honest arbiter of that oversight. So this should improve discipline and finally um execution can maintain agility because the board is not seeking to uh usurp power. They're setting the guidelines and then giving maximum flexibility to the executives to execute it. So, let's take a quick break and we'll look a little further into this. When life brings unexpected changes,
30:16 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
30:51 or visit magnumprops.com. Okay. So, uh there is a risk to executives losing agency, meaning the ability to uh to enact uh decisions within the strategy that's been set. So when external pressure dominates, okay, so leaders become compliance driven as as opposed to being foresight driven and and and being engaged in in how to lead
31:28 the business forward into it to the most successful execution of strategy. Also when external pressure dominates so innovation slows because uh executives become risk adverse and you know they don't want to run a foul of outside or of external uh oversight and so they won't they won't take risks uh and and and and that that um lack of risktaking uh can can impact not only uh decline in
32:03 innovation But just when there's perhaps when there's a crisis and it's really necessary to take a calculated risk for the good of the business, executives may be reluctant to do that as well for for fear of of a blowback, right? And so strategy becomes defensive, right? Don't let any bad thing happen rather than offensive, i.e. let's look to make good things happen right and so when and then when when oversight is ignored so now
32:40 governance is going to fail there is no restraint on what's happening and often times while while we often think well you know if I could just do anything I wanted I'd be able to be successful that is rarely the case usually good execution ution of strategy comes from having to work within constraints uh real constraints not madeup constraints but the real constraints of the market of acting within the values of the business etc and and so then one
33:17 has the executives have to get down be creative in figuring out how to do that well uh and then when oversight is ignored typically trust erodess because those who who are responsible for oversight. If they're not exercising it, they're also not they don't know what's going on. And so they don't know whether they should be trusting the executives or not. As well, executives who are not engaged with oversight, they they tend to just ignore the people responsible for oversight. And finally, leadership
33:52 legitimacy weakens, right? So if rank and file team members see that leadership has no uh constraint, has no uh limiting principles. So uh you know the the um the opportunity for u mistakes even abuse of power um becomes greater and and that reduces the legitimacy of leadership in the eyes of the people affected. So both extremes are dangerous. We want to operate in to to a
34:29 a certain extent in balance. Now it's never going to be completely in balance. It's always going to be a shifting back and forth and that's a good thing. Okay. So translating these into business applications. Okay. So number one, when we are trying to create a a civil military balance or a a you know board oversight versus ex executive balance, first of all we want to clarify decision boundaries early in the military. Um we
35:04 call this rules of engagement. We want to set the rules. Civilians should set generally speaking set the rules of engagement. um having been advised by military leadership. Okay. So ambiguity creates friction if people don't know what the boundaries are. So there's a tendency to either uh be overly careful about coming up on where a boundary may be or to move through where a boundary ought to be and not really think about it, not really
35:40 care about it. So the the the clearer decision boundaries are the better it is for those who are making the decisions because they can come up to the boundary they know not to cross it. Okay. As well uh decision rights need to be established early. So who gets to decide what right? I I see this in my own business where you know I'll be working with an advisor or one of my team members and I'll say
36:15 look the decision is yours to make. Okay. I'm I'm I'm you know establishing decision rights typically as early as I can in the process so that they know then how deeply they need to dig into a situation um you know in order to be in in order be or I should say because they are going to have the responsibility for that decision and then of course they are they always know that they're responsible for reporting that decision and executing it and and keeping track of how successful they are in that
36:52 execution. Okay? And so then expectations need to be aligned with authority. So if I'm giving someone uh the authority to make a decision, so I need to align and they need to align expectations with that. Okay? My expectation is if you have the authority to make a decision, then you're going to execute that authority in a mature way. If a mistake gets made, you're going to let me know and we're going to work it out. Okay? And in that way, we can be
37:27 focused on positive progress, not be worried about uh you know, needing to be play defense or need to be concerned about blowback. those kind of things. Those are all unproductive. Okay. So, in in my role as a uh as a trustee and a probate administrator, I'm kind of like the board of directors in many respects uh with my other team members. And so I need to balance the oversight that I uh am required to
38:03 maintain with making sure that they have uh you know as broad autonomy as possible to do the best job possible in executing uh whatever the strategy is. Okay. Number two um maintain transparent communication with oversight bodies. So trust is built through visibility. If people don't know what's going on, they tend to not trust the situation. So, I know in my practice, I send out monthly status reports to the parties who are
38:38 interested, whether it's the heirs in their of an estate or their heirs and their lawyers. uh whether it's uh other people on my team, other professionals, whether it's you know my lawyer, the accountant involved, real estate people involved, whatever it is, I try to give maximum transparency to what's going on uh in order that people can be as well uh um can be as as up to speed as possible and and so therefore uh have as broad a knowledge within to make decisions about their part of the effort as they can
39:14 possibly have. Right? So, I tend to report proactively, not retroactively. Meaning, I don't wait for people to call me to ask what's going on. I send out information to them so that they have it in in as timely a way as possible so that they can execute their parts of of our our you know our large task uh in the in in in the best way that's possible. uh I also um work to explain the rationale for any particular uh
39:52 policy or or uh you know thing that I'm asking to have done. I I I explain the rationale why why do I want it? Why am I doing this? Why does it need to be done this way? As opposed to just saying look this here's the outcome just get me the outcome. Okay. When people understand the rationale between the desired outcome, they can be more effective in bringing that about. And so having that level of transparent communication uh between oversight and execution is very important. And also then in that way as we're having those discussions uh
40:29 risks can surface early and they can be dealt with more effectively than if we're not having that proactive communication and then something happens because one or the other of us uh wasn't uh well enough advised and so now we've got a much bigger problem than we would have had. Number three, uh preserve executive autonomy within governance. Right? So oversight should not micromanage, right? And and especially for founders of companies, this is one of the hardest
41:05 things to avoid, which especially if you know in the process of building up that company, they've done all the different things, you know, that that need to be done in order to make the company successful. So, one of the things I uh essentially indoctrinate my team members to is there there are there are lots of ways or at least several ways that any particular outcome can be brought about. And just because I I would do it any one
41:41 particular way doesn't make that the quote unquote right way. Right? So um what I want is for for the people with whom I work to have maximum autonomy within the constraints that as the person who has oversight authority within that I set. Okay. And and that way they can be the most creative. So, I want to protect operational decision spaces, especially when I'm not going to be the one who is going to be making those operational decisions. Right? I I
42:18 tell my people all the time, you're much closer to the problem than I am. You have much more knowledge about it. You are in a much better place to make this decision.
42:28 >> [snorts]
42:28 >> My job is to give you the uh the authority to make that decision and then see how it works out and if it works out great terrific and if it doesn't work out as well as we'd hoped okay then we'll fix it. Right? That in my opinion is should be the philosophy. So um you know people with oversight need to resist over over influencing o over influence I'm sorry people on the exact execution side need to resist um interference or over interference uh
43:06 from various stakeholders and this can be a difficult thing to do. some stakeholders may have a lot of authority or a lot of uh abil ability to impact a a situation. So recently I resigned from the administration of a probate because one of the lawyers is just he's just he's he's he's interfering so much in my ability to administrate the estate. The last time
43:41 this happened, I ended up in the hospital because of the stress over trying to solve problems that I could not effectively solve. And so rather than risk my health, I submitted my resignation. Right? This is a this and and I I I told people involved in this on several occasions if if they couldn't figure out a way to let the administration of this estate proceed, I was going to have to resign. I think they didn't believe that I would. Um and now here they are. So So now they're
44:17 going to be de delayed. Uh they're gonna they're gonna have to find somebody else. um they've got there there's some um pretty significant issues um that are going to have to be dealt with quickly and and and it's very likely that as a result the heirs are not going to um make as much or they're not going to get as much money out of the estate as they might have because you know they interfered or through their representative anyway interfered too much in the administration. So in order to m in order to ma maintain
44:53 speed in execution, micromanagement has to be avoided by the bodies that have oversight of a particular situation. And and this is one of the challenges of my business is in theory the court has oversight. Uh when individuals try to essentially assert their ability to exercise oversight on top of what the court is doing that becomes a recipe for really stasis because it prevents an
45:29 administrator from from acting. So execution requires room to operate and and people have to uh have to give ex executives that that room. Okay. Number four um manage up without losing direction. So leadership not only means leading people who are subordinate to us. It means in essence leading people who are senior to us. Okay. And so
46:05 as leaders, as people executives in business, we need to educate stakeholders on operational realities. So in the situation I was just mentioning a moment ago where I resigned from the administration of an estate, I tried for months to explain that what uh this particular person was demanding was going to be costly to the estate not just in money but in time and it was going to cause a problem. U and the person just didn't want to hear that they you know for whatever reason. Okay.
46:42 Um maybe that person in the end regretted agreeing to my um administrating the estate. Maybe they thought I would be a pushover because they agreed um and would just do whatever they wanted. Obviously, they didn't know me that well. Um but but in any event, um you know, I had to at least try to educate them. Now, we can only try. We cannot force people to learn, right? And so, but we still have to make that effort. Um, we also need to frame decisions in strategic terms. In other words, how is this decision
47:18 aligned with the strategy that those who have oversight have set out? Okay? And that's part of the education process, but it's in addition to it, right? And so, we need to speak their language rather than requiring them to understand our language. And doing that translation can be challenging. And so we need to practice at it. We need to work at it. And we need to check in. Do is what I'm saying making sense to you? Is it clear? Do I need to explain it a
47:55 different way? It's perfectly fine to say those kinds of things in order to make sure that we're communicating effectively. Uh finally, and this this kind of encompasses both of the prior two, we need to align our messaging with organizational goals. As executives, we cannot ignore the goals, the strategy that that those with oversight have set. No, quite to the contrary, we need to be responding to them. So influence is as important um with compliance as it is with subordinates.
48:33 Okay. So we need to be constantly working on both sides of that equation. Finally, we need to build trust through consistent performance. So trust is what determines what really allows autonomy. If if if oversight if those with oversight do not trust executives, they are going to resist giving them autonomy. The flip side is if they trust them, then they will give them a lot of autonomy. And that really fundamentally is is the situation in which I found
49:10 myself. I have to assume that since they were the one individual in particular was was so um against giving me the autonomy that I needed in order to effectively administrate this estate. I had to assume he didn't trust me. Now that all by itself I don't particularly care about. However, if I have a lawyer, if there's a lawyer who doesn't trust me, now I'm putting myself in danger of litigation, and I I have no interest in
49:46 getting involved in litigation because a lawyer disagrees with something I did. Too much pressure comes from that, too much stress, and too much of a risk to my well-being. And so, you know, in the end, that's what justified uh my resigning, right? And so we need to build trust. So first of all as executives we need to be reli we need to reliably deliver results. Okay. Um and we need to honestly communicate setbacks.
50:21 Right? So if we can't deliver the goods, we need to be candid about what went wrong. What was our part in that going wrong? What are we going to do to fix it? [snorts] And then finally, we need to maintain integrity under pressure. So when things are not going right, that is the time we have to be most diligent about acting with integrity, sticking to our values, not straying from how the organization wants us to act. Right? So trust expands freedom to lead. Right? So
50:57 I've talked about this idea of balance um already in this civil military relations. Um it teaches a broader principle and that is power must be constrained to be legitimate and authority must be exercised in order to be effective. And so the same applies in business. Governance ensures discipline. Leadership ensures motion. Neither works without the other. And so what this means for modern leaders is in today's
51:35 environment, pressure increases on stakeholders. um because of things like activist investors, expansion of the regul of of regulations and regulatory regimes, public accountability and rapid information cycles. And so leaders have to operate in a system where authority is uh distributed, where expectations are high and where scrutiny is pretty constant, right? And so success on navigating all of these and so success I
52:10 should say depends on navigating not resisting this structure. And so it takes a lot more diplomacy if you will to operate a business today than it might have in the past. As is the case with all of the these episodes uh that that we've uh we've had on the 24 episode campaign. Leadership discipline is required. So leaders must accept oversight without losing confidence. They can't view oversight as a personal attack on them. Right? They need to
52:46 still move forward confidently while working within uh the limitations that oversight has set. They need to maintain independence within constraints and they need to communicate upward effectively um while preserving execution speed under that scrutiny. So leadership is not directional. It's not just moving forward. It's also relational and it's relational to peers, to superiors, and
53:21 to subordinates. So closing reflection. No leader operates alone. Even if you have your own business, you fully own it yourself. Maybe you're the only person in the business. You still have the oversight of clients and customers. You may have o regulatory oversight. No leader operates alone. So whether in military command or in corporate leadership, authority is always balanced by some kind of oversight. So the
53:57 challenge is not choosing between power and control. It's learning how to lead effectively inside both. Right? So I thank you very much for joining me today. Um, if you I'd be curious to know where where is their oversight in your business. Is it regulatory? Is it investors? Is it partners? Is it uh, you know, other other customers? Is it a board of directors? What where is the
54:33 oversight in your business? And how do you deal with that oversight? How do you how do you work effectively with it for the better for the greater good of of of the company for which you work? So, if you look right down below, you'll see links to social media and the show notes, and I'd love it if you'd post a comment there. Always always enjoy reading your comments. So, I thank you very much for joining me today. Real quickly, schedule for the week. Mondays at 10:00 a.m. Pacific time, trust and estates weekly. Tuesdays like today uh 10 am Pacific time, business lessons
55:08 from the military. Wednesdays at 10 a.m. Pacific time, people making money. And every other Thursday at 5:00 p p.m. Pacific time, uh 5:00 p p.m. Pacific time, join me at Jiggers's place for a cocktail and a schmoo, and we'll talk about lots of things unrelated to finances. So once again, thank you so much for joining me. Wishing you a wonderful rest of the day and signing off as I always do. Marie darling, you are my bell. Courage at all times, my friends.