Transformation Framework: Application - Level Five Leader

The character traits of any would-be DNI are profoundly important for both transformation and sustaining a high-performing enterprise. Any Director of National Intelligence (DNI), as the chief executive of the IC, must embody personal humility, an intense will, and be driven not by ego, the pursuit of political office, or personal legacy, but by an ambition that is first and foremost for the enterprise itself. Meanwhile, our chief executive should be utterly intolerant of average or lackluster performance. Combining these, a DNI should exhibit these traits even to the extent he or she displays the ardent and calm moral courage to defend a resolute but deliberate approach to transformation. Indicators that they embody these requirements include deep personal and professional forming experiences from which they have risen noticeably stronger, a futurist mentality, a disciplined approach evident in everything they do, and a non-celebratory-like attribution of success to others, while taking ownership of any and all institutional mistakes. A would-be DNI should also exhibit a commanding pedigree of performance. They must demonstrate a long track record of success, in concert with the L5L pyramid, on a personal, individual contributor, team, management, and executive level. Similarly, the organizations they have led should have continued their high performance well after their departure.

While all the aforementioned traits are directly derived from GTG, there are some other traits that represent preferences due to the nature of the IC. Ideally any chief executive should have demonstrated effectiveness and results in both mission-related and business-oriented intelligence functions. It is important the IC’s chief executive demonstrate a strong understanding of each mission component of the IC. Such understanding should underpin their ability to orchestrate an enterprise approach and disciplined end-to-end approach to the delivery of critical outcomes. An equally well-developed business acumen is equally important. Strategic, financial, operational, human capital and other enterprise- and organization-level functions are too important for the transformation of the IC to leave those functions entirely to a constellation of independently operating agencies and similarly large constellation of agency chiefs and executive teams. In short, the best DNI must be able to make sound judgments considering mission- and business-related factors together, using each to influence the other.

Given the size and technological sophistication of the IC a person of this kind should not be terribly difficult to find. The fact that the IC commonly draws people with a sense of mission and desire to make a contribution to something external to the self, makes sourcing this kind of chief executive somewhat easier. Similarly, since the IC has a significant number senior military officers who have both lead a major portion of the IC, have thrived in military institutions with a strong management and leadership ideal, development pipeline, and performance-based culture, the IC has a relatively sizable group from which we can draw promising candidates. However, we stress the word ‘candidates.’ There is some caution in both these thoughts (large population of mission oriented and idealistic employees, sizable population of disciplined military executives).

First, though mission and idealism are apparent in the IC, it is not necessarily the case that disciplined executives is equally apparent. Therefore, finding an executive with substantial qualitative and quantitative understanding of enterprise and business strategies, architectures, and processes; portfolio, program, and project management; finance, operations, quality, and human resources, may be more challenging. These are not important so much because a DNI has to be an expert in all these areas. Rather, that these areas represent the corporate capabilities any chief executive ought to be able orchestrate to transform and compel high performance. Finally, like the potential dearth of business acumen in the IC, it may be similarly difficult to grade potential candidates on past performance, since the IC is largely not currently driven by performance.

Second, we should not place blind trust in a military candidate. Certainly not every military officer, even very senior officers, exhibit all the qualities of a L5L. Even Collins notes this in his summary of L5L Key Points. A candidate fitting a military stereotype (Patton) represents a ‘Level 4 Leader’ and, therefore, is not a appropriate chief

executive for the IC. More specifically, both the military stereotype, which some senior officers unfortunately fit, and a Level 4 Leader are both characterized by a high degree of forcefulness. This trait tends to result in unsustained performance after their departure. As such, a senior military officer is not necessarily the best or only DNI candidate. The population of senior military officers merely represents a population reasonable for exploration and consideration during a search. Most important is that a candidate exhibits the character traits and performance-based career progression described by GTG.

General Finding

We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for turning a good company into a great one. Compared to high-profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to have come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy – these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates that Patton or Cesar.

Key Points

Every good-to-great company had Level 5 leadership during the pivotal transition years

Level 5 refers to a level-five hierarchy of executive capabilities, with Level 5 at the top. Level 5 leaders embody a paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will. They are ambitious, to be sure, but ambitions first and foremost for the company, not themselves.

Level 5 leaders set up their successors for even greater success in the next generation, whereas egocentric Level 4 leaders often set up their successors for failure.

Level 5 leaders display a compelling modesty, are self-effacing and understated. In contrast, two thirds of the comparison companies had leaders with gargantuan egos that contributed to the demise of continued mediocrity of the company.

Level 5 leaders are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce sustained results. They are resolved to do what ever it takes to make the company great, no matter how big or hard the decisions.

Level 5 leaders display a womanlike diligence – more plow horse than show horse

Level 5 leaders look out the window to attribute success to factors other than themselves. When things go poorly, however, they look in the mirror and blame themselves, taking full responsibility. The comparison CEOs often did?just the opposite – they looking tin the mirror to credit success, but out the window to assign blame for disappointing results.

One of the most damaging trends in recent history is the tendency (especially boards of directors) to select dazzling, celebrity leaders and to de-select potential Level 5 leaders

Collins believes that potential Level 5 leaders exist all around us, if we just know what to look for, and that many people have the potential to evolve into Level 5.

Unexpected Findings

Larger than life celebrity leaders who ride in from the outside are negatively correlated with going from good to great. Ten of eleven good-to-great CEOs came from inside the company, whereas the comparison companies tried outside CEOs six times more often.

Level 5 leaders attribute much of the success to good luck, rather than personal greatness

We were not looking for Level 5 leadership in our research, or anything like it, but the data was overwhelming and convincing. It is an empirical, not an ideological, finding.

Level Five Leadership Key Points and Unexpected Findings

Source: Collins, 39-40.