Admiral Eric Olson served as commander of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) from 2007 to 2011. He was the first three- and then the first four-star Navy SEAL, as well as the first naval officer to be USSOCOM’s combatant commander. Olson retired from active duty after more than 38 years of service, leaving a legacy as a visionary leader who stayed connected with his forces at all levels.
In this episode of the Inside the Strategy Room podcast, Olson speaks with McKinsey Senior Partners Andy West and Carolyn Dewar about creating a sense of shared and strategic purpose in high-performing teams, and why all voices count when making important, complex decisions. From his fascinating experiences in the military context, parallels and lessons can be drawn for executives as they grapple with how best to lead in today’s volatile environment.
This is an edited transcript of their conversation. For more discussions on the strategy issues that matter, follow the series on your preferred podcast platform.
Andy West: We are in uncertain times, where executives must respond to global and economic events that haven’t been part of corporate decision-making for some time. Decision-making amidst volatility is inherent in the environment you have led in. Can you tell us your story of how you joined the Navy and your rise to leadership?
Admiral Eric Olson: I grew up in Washington State. For one semester of high school, I lived in Washington, DC. During that time, I went to what turned out to be the largest anti-Vietnam War rally on the Capitol Mall. I went out of curiosity, and what impressed me most was that the protest could occur within view of the nation’s capital. I mentioned that to my mother, who later took me on a tour of the Naval Academy—and that was it.
At the Naval Academy, I convinced myself that I wanted to be part of the ‘smaller’ Navy, rather than be on the big ships, or aircraft, or submarines. I wanted to serve not where you man the equipment, but where they equip the man. At the time, what was emerging in the national consciousness was the Navy SEAL teams, and I was attracted to that. I applied, was selected, was fortunate enough to get through the training, and I enjoyed it. I think one reason I stayed so long was that I felt I had been given an opportunity I didn’t want to quit on. This allowed me to rise through the ranks and ultimately serve as the Senior Navy SEAL, and then in the joint military community as the Senior Commander of Special Operations.
Carolyn Dewar: Not only did you serve, but you led many teams of people to do difficult and extraordinary things. What did you learn about instilling in teams that same sense of purpose and commitment, and then leading those teams to do hard things?
Admiral Eric Olson: The most important thing is to have a purpose. Knowing why you’re there, what you’re doing, and what is necessary to achieve it brings a team together, and it’s what gets you past the obstacles. Having people who are subscribed to something bigger than themselves, who are bonded together to achieve that, who not only trust each other but care about each other—this is the essence of small, high-performing teams. It also enables teams to do their best in the absence of specific guidance; if they know where you want them to go, they will find their way there without that. You tell people what to do, but not how to do it. You teach them how to think, but not what to think.
You tell people what to do, but not how to do it. You teach them how to think, but not what to think.
Of course, the team needs to be well-led, properly resourced, well-trained, and properly educated. But most of all, it needs to know what it’s about. Whether in the military or in the private sector, the purpose can be very nuanced and complex. I found over time that if I couldn’t write down the purpose in a paragraph, I didn’t understand it, and I certainly couldn’t communicate it.
I would say the purpose is generally not to do a thing, it’s to have an impact. I think too many people think of doing the thing as their purpose. It needs to be: Why am I doing this thing? What is it going to achieve? What can go wrong? The purpose really needs to be strategic—you have the tactical actions that get you there, but the tactics themselves are never the purpose.
Andy West: Today, purpose is on the minds of many executives. It can’t just be your own purpose; it has to be a purpose that fits the context of the greater mission. How did you think about establishing the right purpose for the context, in order to make the right decisions?
Admiral Eric Olson: I called it the operational context; what you did had to make sense in the place you were doing it. One of my old adages is that presence without value is perceived as occupation, and we always wanted to bring value in the places we were, and importantly, establish relationships. I recall one example, where we sent this team, all men, to a remote village in Afghanistan. They met with the village elders and asked what project was most important to them. The elders told them that what would help the village most would be a well, so the women wouldn’t have to walk 12 kilometers to the river and back every day. Our captain thought, “I’m in the most enlightened village in Afghanistan, where the first thought on the minds of the men is to save the women a long walk.”
So, they dug a well, then cut a ribbon and ate some goat to celebrate our achievement. Six months later, they went back to check on the project, this time with a woman leading our team. When they asked how the well was, all the men said it was great. The women said, “Everything was good here until you built that well. You took the best time of our day away from us. We would carry our children, and walk slowly to the river, and we would chat among ourselves as women. Now the men expect us to be here all the time.” And we thought, “What? How did we get that so wrong?”
Our purpose was admirable, trying to bring value to a remote place by giving them something that they needed. But the ultimate purpose behind that was to build a relationship, to have access later if we needed it, to have a source of information, all of the things that come from establishing a relationship. It turned out we only established a relationship with half the people in that village.
Carolyn Dewar: So even if your intentions are good, it’s hard to get it right. You talk about this idea of “not everyone gets a vote, but everyone gets a voice.” Many private sector leaders struggle with this balance between who ultimately decides, versus ensuring everyone feels listened to. How did you balance that?
Admiral Eric Olson: I think that in small, high-performing teams, people want their individual contributions to make a difference, whatever level they are. And I think a leader, in order to come to the best decision, has the responsibility to listen to everybody’s ideas. The broader the spectrum of people you can have on a team, the better. The more lenses you can look at a problem through, the better. The more collective life experience, the better. You’re just more likely to come to a better decision. So, I believe that everybody gets a voice.
But I don’t believe everybody gets a vote. The person or people who are going to be held accountable for the outcome get at least 51 percent of the vote. Somebody needs to be a leader, to take that on and understand that if he or she is going to be held accountable, then it’s his or her decision to make. But no one’s too senior to be wrong, and no one’s too junior to have the best idea. Often, we got our best ideas from the junior people who were the ones closest to the problem.
No one’s too senior to be wrong, and no one’s too junior to have the best idea.
Andy West: That takes confidence, as well as intellectual space and time. Senior executives are tight on time; how did you find space to listen to the more junior person on the team?
Admiral Eric Olson: You just have to do it. Most of my small, high-performing teams—whether that was a SEAL platoon in the early days, or my team of admirals and generals at the end of my career—had between ten and 20 people. Shame on us if we can’t find time to solicit input from a group that size. And shame on us if we’re willing to rush to a decision without having heard from them, because I can’t remember a time my thinking on something wasn’t changed by listening to somebody else talk about it.
Carolyn Dewar: I met you over 15 years ago, and I was expecting a big domineering voice from the leader of all the special forces—I was surprised by your quiet, but commanding presence. On your leadership journey, how did you think about what kind of voice you wanted to have to build such respect and lead as you did?
Admiral Eric Olson: I didn’t have a military bone in my body when I started, and I had a very nontraditional career. I had a United Nations peacekeeping role serving in the embassy in another country—there was a lot of operational time, but it wasn’t traditional. Then, I didn’t go to a war college, which you typically do to become an admiral. So, I had to figure a lot out along the way, and that encouraged me to be a better listener. Of course, military culture has a reputation of being hierarchical; whoever yells the loudest wins, and there is tight discipline. But that wasn’t what I saw coming up. I saw careful team building, and people growing trust and working for each other, and I was just drawn into that way of doing things.
I think one of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to pretend to know more than he or she does, just because they are older, or better educated, or so on. A very important part of the military culture is the culture of the non-commissioned officer, the experienced mid-grade to senior-grade enlisted person who has eight, ten, or 12 years of service, who becomes the chief instructor of the junior officers. I was very fortunate to have great senior enlisted members on my teams, who wanted to help me succeed. I owe much of what I was able to do in my career to the people I learned from along the way.
Carolyn Dewar: Given the load on leaders at the moment, there’s a lot of focus on mental and physical fitness. How have you thought about that in your career?
Admiral Eric Olson: In my world as a Navy SEAL, physical fitness was a big part of it, and there was a lot of peer pressure to stay in shape. I think leaders do need to stay in good shape. I’m an average guy; I was never the biggest, strongest, fittest, fastest, funniest, or best-looking guy in the room. But my teams expected me to be at the front of the pack. I think it was important to the team to see that I was a full member of the team, who could hold my own, and they could count on me to be there both mentally and physically.
I think physical strength leads to mental strength. The more prepared you are physically, the less fatigue, stress, and other dynamics become factors. The mental part is actually more important, but it feeds off the physical part to a certain extent.
Andy West: You talk about the idea that a team is not a group of individuals, but that the role of the team is supporting others. The military has a rich history of acknowledging this, but I think it might be overlooked in the private sector. Can you talk about that?
Admiral Eric Olson: My experience is that the highest performing teams are the teams in which the individuals care most about the other team members, where they want everybody else to succeed. Where it’s not a competition, it’s “if we succeed together, then we’ll all be better off.” That spirit requires a trust that has to be earned, and it takes time to build. But once that trust is there, people will do amazing things for each other.
I was recently told a story about a new platoon leader in Iwo Jima who went down his line of Marines at night, saying to them, “Stay alert. If you fall asleep, the enemy may come and kill you.” And his grizzled platoon sergeant said, “That’s not the message for these Marines, Sir. They’ve been in this fight so long, they don’t care that much about themselves. You need to tell them that if they fall asleep, the enemy is going to come and kill their buddies. That’s what’s going to keep them alert.” In my own career, I saw that play out a few times.
I don’t know how that translates directly into the private sector, but I do believe teams are bonded over challenge. If there’s not enough challenge in the workplace, then it’s good for a leader to create challenges. This causes teams to work together to accomplish a mission. And, doing this also allows a leader to observe the team, to see who rises to the occasion more than others, to see who responds to stress more than others.
