Feature Article - June 2009

Who's in Charge Here Anyway?

Sen. Boxer Makes it Clear with a Brigadier

                                                                                                                                                  by Tom Davidson

In what initially appeared to be routine testimony before Congress, Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh ran into an ambush he wasn’t expecting. 

At a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the general was answering a question from Sen. Barbara Boxer and addressed her as “ma’am,” as in “yes, ma’am.”  Sen. Boxer interrupted him to say, “You know, do me a favor.  Could you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’  It’s just a thing.  I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you.” At which point, the general responded crisply, “Yes, senator.”

It is well-established military protocol to address a superior officer (or anyone higher in the chain of command) as either “sir” or “ma’am.”  Even though the officer clearly meant no disrespect and was choosing his words properly, the senator appeared irritated, even implying that she had been insulted or degraded.  But what did she have to be offended about?  Nothing.

She was making a point related to her leadership, not his language.

The Boss-Subordinate Relationship

You don’t have to work in the rings of the Pentagon or the halls of Congress to be familiar with the boss-subordinate relationship.  By definition, the relationship is out of balance.  The boss has more positional power than the subordinate. Power to establish expectations.  Power to make decisions.  Power to promote, demote, and create a work environment that can be miserable or masterful.

Adults understand the need for a “chain of command” in the workplace, military or not.  Hierarchy is necessary in organizations to give clarity to roles and differentiate responsibilities, but depending upon the situation and their intentions, bosses and subordinates can take action (covert and overt) to balance the relationship to their liking.

To “bring them down a peg,” subordinates can embarrass a boss, withhold needed information, or let them fail in any number of ways.  Subordinates can also bring themselves up by boasting, grand standing, or demonstrating power of their own.

Bosses can equilibrate the relationship, thus minimizing the power gap and making the relationship more collegial.  This can be done by working side-by-side with subordinates, meeting them on their “turf,” using self-deprecation, or choosing language that implies partnership more than power.  Bosses can also make the power gap wider, unbalancing the relationship even more than normal.

That’s what Sen. Boxer was doing, and it was not a compliment to her leadership abilities.  If the general had done something to insult, diminish, or undermine the senator, then her chastising might have been appropriate to re-balance the relationship.  However, since none of these factors was evident, Sen. Boxer diminished herself and her leadership.

“Pulling Rank” Should be Your Last Resort

As I explain in The 8 Greatest Mistakes New Managers Make, your rank (or job title) does not give you as much power as you think.  The power to get things done through others -- the leader’s real job -- comes from understanding human behavior and relationships, not from heavy-handed, junior-grade tactics, like these.  Leaders who rely on their positional power, as Sen. Boxer demonstrated, might achieve a degree of compliance, but they will never earn the discretionary effort of their subordinates.  Leaders who learn to rely on personal power will be more effective and more likely to go farther -- faster.

Click here to Subscribe to our Leadership Newsletter