So, I am in St. John’s, Newfoundland (yes, google it – I had to) to give some speeches and workshops about High Reliability Organization principles and leadership based on my experience as a Submarine Captain. I have a little time on my hands on the weekend as you can imagine in Newfoundland this time of year, so I go to see the new submarine thriller, Hunter Killer. I settle into my seat excited about the movie and get ready to relive some of the glory days.

Now I am not going to spoil the plot for anyone but I will say it was very entertaining. They got some of the basic litany on torpedo launch and ship handling pretty good and there is plenty of action. Clearly the US Navy supported this film and in terms of a Hollywood rendition of submarine operations, it was pretty good (or at least pretty fun to watch.) But, I could not help myself but to reflect on the accuracy in the leadership portrayal. I have a serious problem, I know.

I remember in 1995 when I was a Submarine Junior Officer going to watch Crimson Tide with my shipmates. I was completely embarrassed and disappointed by that movie. The crazy Captain (expertly played by one of my favs – Gene Hackman) with his little dog pissing on the missile tubes was more than I could handle. The entire plot was centered around the relationship and struggle for leadership between the Captain and his number two in command, the Executive Officer. And, in true Hollywood fashion, they completely distorted any possible resemblance to reality. But, again, it’s Hollywood. What can we expect?

Hunter Killer also has a sub-plot relationship between the Captain and his Executive Officer (XO). Opposite of Crimson Tide, this time the XO was in the wrong. But, the XO did display what we teach to our clients about “Watch Team Backup”. When he didn’t agree with the Captain’s plan, the XO would object out loud but usually with respect, at least until things got really hairy then he just about loses it. And the Captain allowed him to voice his opinion. As you might expect, I was glad to see this. We teach that leaders need to develop a culture where people are willing to speak up and question even their leaders when they don’t agree.

But, this movie made me start to think a bit about how this entire leadership relationship is usually approached incorrectly both in Hollywood and by some leaders in real life. Everyone tends to picture the leader (the submarine captain in this case) as out in front, making decisions, taking action and everyone follows his or her lead. This is so typical of the way we portray leaders in the movies. Let’s call it the John Wayne leadership style (and I loved the Duke by the way.) We love in the movies where the strong leader steps up and leads the charge – after all, isn’t that what leadership is? Taking charge? Well, sometimes. But, leading a highly complex, risky operation like a nuclear submarine sometimes takes a different approach.

What I learned from many great leaders in the submarine force was that, whenever possible as Captain, I should allow the Executive Officer and my senior leadership team lead and run the show. I could then stand back in the corner with my arms folded and my mouth shut watching and evaluating. I could step in and be the “team backup” when needed. After all, the Captain should have the most experience and therefore be in the best position to provide the “backup” needed.

But, many leaders struggle with this approach. I think it’s because of the pressure to “look like a leader.” You know how it is. You get promoted to a leadership position and you feel like you have to be very visible and vocal so people (above you and below you) know who is in charge. You don’t want to appear to be weak or ineffective. And, you are probably good at running the show. That’s why you got promoted. So, you naturally want to jump in and be in charge. Somebody has to do it, right? Yes, somebody does, but it doesn’t have to be the Captain all the time…

During my time in command of USS KEY WEST, I was blessed to have two great executive officers. I could let my XO run the show and I stood back and provided him back up. I tried to do this as much as I could – yes, I failed at this some times more than I wanted to and stepped in when I should not have. But overall, I think we ran KEY WEST like this. Both of my Executive Officers went on to command of their own submarines which is another great outcome of this leadership style – you develop your organization’s future leaders.

It’s not always possible to lead this way. Sometimes there is no time to see if your second in command can do the job (like when the ship is sinking or being shot at by the enemy) and sometimes you don’t have the right person and you have to do it yourself until you get someone better. Think of the Executive Officer in the awesome and hilarious movie Down Periscope. (As an aside, this movie is arguably the most accurate portrayal of life on a submarine, but I digress. Please don’t call your congressman, I am just kidding, sort of ;))

Finally, many organizational structures have removed this type of “second in command” position in order to reduce costs and remove layers in the organization chart. But, I think this is a mistake, especially in organizations running complex systems where the consequences are high for failure. For all the reasons described above, when there is no second in command, we remove the opportunity for the leader to provide the “back up” to his team. You can try to set up the same relationships with several direct reports, but there is still a single point failure with the leader.

I highly encourage you to go see Hunter Killer. I challenge you to watch this movie now without thinking about the leadership style of Captain Gerard Butler and his relationship with the XO. You are welcome.

My therapist tells me that in another 5 years I may be able to watch a submarine movie without analyzing leadership and culture. This is awesome and I hope it comes just in time for Down Periscope 2! Love me some Kelsey Grammer as a submarine skipper! We both have a tatoo…