Leader-Leader Model
Replace the leader-follower hierarchy with distributed leadership where everyone acts as a leader
The leader-leader model rejects the traditional hierarchy where a single leader makes decisions and followers execute them. Instead, it distributes decision-making authority throughout the organization so that every person acts as a leader within their domain. The fundamental belief is that leadership is not a mystical quality possessed by a few but a capacity inherent in all humans. Unlike empowerment programs -- which contain an inherent contradiction because it takes a leader to empower, thus reinforcing the power imbalance -- the leader-leader model structurally embeds authority at the point where information lives. The key insight is to move authority to the information rather than moving information to authority. Performance improvements under this model are enduring because they are decoupled from any single leader's personality and presence. When Marquet left the Santa Fe, the crew continued to perform at the highest levels for years afterward, producing an implausibly high rate of officer promotions.
- Move authority to the information instead of moving information to authority
- Leadership is not a mystical quality -- all humans possess leadership capacity
- Empowerment programs fail because they reinforce the power imbalance they claim to eliminate
- Leader-follower structures are optimized for physical work but suboptimal for cognitive work
- Performance improvements must be decoupled from the leader's personality to be enduring
- Leader-leader structures naturally spawn additional leaders throughout the organization
- You cannot use leader-follower rules to direct a shift to leader-leader
- Start in the middle of the hierarchyBegin your transformation with middle management or senior non-commissioned leaders, not from the top or the bottom. Starting at the top uses a top-down approach to implement a bottom-up philosophy, which is inherently contradictory. Starting at the bottom creates too much distance from the leader and lacks organizational support.Pro tipMarquet started with the chiefs because they were the critical connective layer between officers and enlisted sailors, and converting them created a critical mass of participation.WarningDo not try to implement leader-leader by directing people to be empowered. The method must match the message.
- Act your way to new thinkingInstead of trying to change mindsets first and then behaviors, start by changing behaviors and let new thinking follow. Implement concrete mechanisms that redistribute decision-making authority rather than giving speeches about empowerment.Pro tipAvoid lectures about 'working together' and 'taking initiative' without mechanisms that actually enable or reward these behaviors -- they sound hypocritical.WarningYou will not have time for a long philosophical gestation period. Change behaviors now, and understanding will come from the lived experience.
- Find and rewrite the genetic code of controlIdentify all the specific practices, procedures, and approval requirements in your organization that concentrate authority at the top. Systematically rewrite each one to push decision-making down to the level where the relevant information exists.Pro tipLook for the long list of activities that require the specific permission of the senior leader. Each one is a candidate for redistribution.WarningControl without competence is chaos. You must simultaneously build technical knowledge and organizational clarity as you push authority down.
- Support control with competence and clarityAs decision-making authority moves down, strengthen the two supporting pillars. Build technical competence through deliberate action, certification (not briefing), and continuous learning. Build organizational clarity by defining purpose, using guiding principles, and encouraging questioning attitudes.Pro tipWhen you worry about pushing control down, your worries will fall into two categories: competence concerns (will they know enough?) and clarity concerns (will they understand our purpose?). Both can be resolved.WarningDivesting control without first building competence is the mistake Marquet made on the Will Rogers. It produces chaos, not empowerment.
When Marquet took command, USS Santa Fe was the worst-performing submarine in the fleet -- technically, operationally, and emotionally. By systematically pushing authority down while building competence and clarity, the crew went from worst to first within a year in most measures of performance, including retention of sailors and officers.
As engineer on USS Will Rogers, Marquet tried to empower his crew and decentralize decisions using all the standard leadership tricks. Without simultaneously building competence and clarity, the approach backfired. Performance and morale declined, and he eventually reverted to controlling every decision.
Marquet's first experience of distributed leadership came on USS Sunfish, where Captain Marc Pelaez encouraged him to say 'I intend to...' instead of asking permission. The power of that autonomy stayed with him. But when he tried to implement empowerment on USS Will Rogers using traditional techniques, it failed disastrously -- performance and morale both declined. He reverted to micromanagement. Years later, taking command of USS Santa Fe -- the worst-performing submarine in the fleet -- he was forced to try a fundamentally different approach. Because he had been trained on a different submarine class, he lacked the technical knowledge to give detailed orders. This constraint became the catalyst: he physically could not operate as a traditional leader-follower captain, which freed him to develop the leader-leader model. Within a year, Santa Fe went from worst to first.