Extreme ownership
Jocko Willink and Leif Babin served together in SEAL Task Unit Bruiser, the most highly decorated Special Operations unit from the war in Iraq. Through difficult months of sustained combat, Jocko, Leif and their SEAL brothers learned that leadership -- at every level -- is the most important thing on the battlefield. They started Echelon Front to teach these same leadership principles to companies across industries throughout the business world that want to build their own high-performance, winning teams. This book explains the SEAL leadership concepts crucial to accomplishing the most difficult missions in combat and how to apply them to any group, team, or organization. It provides the reader with Jocko and Leif's formula for success: the mindset and guiding principles that enable SEAL combat units to achieve extraordinary results. It demonstrates how to apply these directly to business and life to likewise achieve victory.
Stats for nerds
91recommend
148mentions
119people
2016–2026years
78% recommend20% neutral2% critical
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Not to be a contrarian, because I agree for a lot of the industry, but there are some genuine gems out there. Few examples:
Extreme Ownership really helped me be a better leader and take more accountability for my own actions
Atomic Habits really helped me think about goal setting and what the underlying driver was
Coaching Habit improved my 1:1s drastically (I basically stopped talking or advice giving and just listened -- profound, I know, but the book helped smack me in the face with it)
Many more examples, but there is definitely a ton of self-help hack slop out there as well.
- Yeah I've seen this as well with self betterment non-fiction
> If you read a few of these books, you inevitably notice the patterns: every chapter begins with an anecdote...
It really feels like padding sometimes. I've read some books where the anecdote does provide some value as a lead in to a topic, like in Extreme Ownership. Most of the time though, it really feels like a way to hit a publisher minimum page count.
I personally see a shorter book as a potentially good thing, not a lack of value. Not that page count is a great measure of the value a book can provide, but I definitely don't see it as a negative.
- It was likely more than that, or at a bare minimum at least your delivery.
Check out the book ‘Extreme Ownership’ if you have time. There is a lot of good advice in it regarding ‘managing upwards’
- I think a lot of people struggle with decision-making in their lives. For me personally, I tend to take time to go through all my options, think about them for a while, and make what I think is the most logical choice given the facts at hand. If I have to make a rushed decision, because we are not always given the luxury of time, I trust my gut with the facts as they are presented to me in the moment.
Do I make mistakes, sometimes? I also beat myself up over them more than I should. The important thing though is to learn from the mistake to be better prepared next time. Here are a few tips that may be suitable for you.
1. Always view your problem from different perspectives instead of sticking with your initial solution. ... 2. Do not make a decision just because it is the most comfortable. ... 3. If you already have your mind made up, do not just seek information that supports what you want to do. ... 4. Focus on the decision that is in front of you and your present situation.
Some time ago I read an insightful article here however I do not remember exact URL: https://www.lifelords.com/success/
As for books, Jocko Willink's Extreme Ownership is a good place to start. Take ownership of yourself and become the best version of yourself.
- I hope this isn't too much too late!
Disclaimer: I am not a historian, my knowledge of Rickover is probably wrong and probably low quality.
I guess you're kind of asking how did Rickover maintain people's intrinsic motivation (sense of autonomy, mastery, and purpose), despite asking a lot from workers particularly in a frequently hostile way?
I think if I had to guess it comes down to two words: "Mission driven."
I think Rickover went all in on purpose. I think every single subordinate had explicit responsibility that mattered. Not only that, but there was the greater context of the cold war. It didn't just matter, it mattered.
My potentially wrong understanding is that Rickover assigned responsibilities, not tasks.
I think Rickover was a pioneer of the technical interview. His interviews were intense and existed to filter out people willing to BS or play games. I think he wanted people who were willing to speak truth to power. I think his interview process, while unconventional, was probably central to his management.
Rickover was a major proponent of (liberal) education (as opposed to technical). He strongly believed in molding quality clay and making experts, rather than hiring experts. That means investment. Investing in a person is validation that they are worth investing in. A person who is invested in probably feels a sense of debt.
> How can people feel ownership while they're being frequently told their output isn't satisfactory?
I think when communicating to someone that their output is unsatisfactory, it can be done in different ways. I think you could tell someone their output is unsatisfactory in a technical way they might even agree with, or you could communicate to someone that they are producing unsatisfactory output. I think that is a night and day distinction. I guess the right question is does the person feel that it is "us vs the problem" or "them vs the manager?" Rickover seemed like a very "us vs the problem" kind of person.
I think some workers also don't get told why their work is unsatisfactory, which is very damaging. Knowing the consequences of unsatisfactory work is centering.
What is clear is that I think Rickover would have debugged the unsatisfactory output, probably himself. Unrealistic time pressure is a failure of management, not a failure of an employee, so I think Rickover would have been upset if a timeline shifted, but only if he was not told early and told why.
My understanding is that it was frequently contractors and people who would fleece the government that would draw his greatest ire.
I think the context of getting yelled at matters, too. Getting a verbal shakedown, especially by a CEO, communicates that what you are working on is important and there are real consequences and that you have the power over them. Yelling means you care. When other people care, you care.
Things like burnout are often thought of as stress issues, when they have very little to do with stress and a lot to do with progress. Feeling stress but not making progress is what creates burnout. Stress with progress is accomplishment and boosts future stress tolerance because the progress ends up justifying the stress.
I don't know if you've heard Gordon Ramsey speak about his abuse, but he makes a distinction between the abuse he experienced from his dad, and the abuse he experienced under Guy Savoy. Guy's abuse was something he valued because it had a purpose, the purpose was to get better food.
> How do you balance firing people who can't perform without creating a culture of fear?
I think if you have a clear ethos about firing vs training this isn't practically a problem. I had co-workers that I wished were fired. Firing those people would have made me respect management as competent. If you fire someone who should be fired I don't think that creates fear. Not firing dangerous co workers might be an even larger crisis.
Arbitrary firing creates fear. A manager firing an employee for what are the managers failures, not the employees, creates fear.
If you read about the NTSB investigation of an ATC issue resulting in a runway plane collision that was posted several weeks ago. I think that's relevant. The mistake the ATC made could have been made by anyone. So firing that ATC would have created a culture of fear because any other ATC could have seen themselves in her position. Boeing has a culture of fear, not because people are fired, but because if you speak up, you suddenly become a person fingers can be pointed at, and therefore a target for legal discovery and firing. The fear comes from the people in power not taking responsibility, not the firing.
If you fire someone, and people can imagine that being them, that's the culture of fear.
Rickover was probably an influence for navy seal leadership which is analyzed in more detail in the very good book Extreme Ownership, which explicitly addresses unsatisfactory workers and firing. If you like Rickover, you'd probably like that book. It is much much better than it looks or sounds.
- - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45303387-an-elegant-puzz... - An Elegant Puzzle: Systems of Engineering Management by Will Larson - excellent intro into the job of an Engineering Manager
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23848190-extreme-ownersh... - Extreme Ownership by Jocko Willink, Leif Babin - showcase of leadership techniques (with references from US Navy)
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18077903-creativity-inc - Creativity, Inc. by Ed Catmull, Amy Wallace - explains how to create a working environment that drives creativity and
Related
Principles
75 recommend · 156
Who Owns the Future?
28 recommend · 72
Discipline equals freedom
5 recommend · 10
The dichotomy of leadership
3 recommend · 4
Leaders Eat Last
15 recommend · 21
The Richest Man in Babylon
56 recommend · 86
How to Get Rich
65 recommend · 99
