[nilkn]

This approach is great for peacetime and for when the team is already reasonably functional and performing. The really hard leadership problems occur during wartime (the business is in crisis, or shrinking, or responding to a serious competitive threat, or must aggressively cut costs, or must integrate an acquisition, or...) or when the team you have is routinely underperforming at scale.

These two situations require different techniques. Applying peacetime techniques during wartime does not work: you'll rapidly accumulate debt from unsolved organizational problems, politics you've lost control of, competitive pressure you failed to respond to decisively enough, or an underperforming team you've failed to correct enough. Or all of the above.

But, similarly, applying wartime techniques during peacetime also does not work. You'll alienate your high-performing team and suffocate critical innovation that will grow the business.

Confusing the two situations is a major category error that managers often make. It often happens because they've only experienced one of the two categories before, they were successful previously, they don't fully appreciate the extent of the existence of the other category, and when they encounter it for the first time they rely too much on their prior experience and have slowed down their own learning too much (because of said prior success).

[tikhonj]

Wartime is exactly when centralized control breaks down the hardest, because conditions start changing incredibly fast and communication breaks down. There's a reason the phrase is "fog of war" and not "fog of peace"!

[nilkn]

In management, what it means is having to repeatedly make decisions that are in the best interest of the company, but not necessarily in the best interest of the people on your team. This could mean needing to fire people, conduct layoffs, merge teams together and remove redundancies, strip a manager of their direct reports or reduce their scope, replace a leader, drive a major re-org that changes people's jobs in ways they may not like, shut down an entire project or team that isn't succeeding even though it's very popular or well-liked in the organization, own a technical decision that hurts one or two teams but helps the overall organization enough to offset it, etc.

[IAmBroom]

Counterpoint: Name a great victory where top leadership mattered very little.

Or, for that matter, a massive upset where top leadership did not truly contribute significantly.

The "fog of war", AFAIK, tends to refer to general breakdown of communication (as you noted), but even fully localized control (terrorist cells, I suppose) are not highly effectual without coordination and informed assessment of the overall picture. The horrific triple (almost quadruple) attacks of 9/11/2001 would have been greatly diminished, probably by 2/3, if the attacks weren't centrally coordinated.

Wartime is exactly when centralized control is most needed.

[tikhonj]

Leaders can matter—a lot—even if they do not exercise granular, top-down control. They can provide the right context and motivation, articulate high-level aims, resolve issues and create the kinds of systems and cultures that do not need explicit direction.

A great illustration of this idea in context is Andrew Gordon's book on the Battle of Jutland, The Rules of the Game[1]. He mostly contrasts the leadership philosophies in the British Navy shortly before and during the Battle of Jutland. The British Navy became very top-down and procedure-oriented during peacetime, which did not generalize well to operating in battle.

[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/354137.Rules_of_the_Game

[protocolture]

Yeah I get this. And it goes both ways too, I find that I am a much better wartime employee than peacetime.