A: You have to have empathy. In an organisation that is unwilling to change, find the opportunity to talk and interact with people - figure out why they don't want to change. It could be habits, it could be people's personal equities and reputations are defined by the role they're in or the process they've mastered.
Change is painful, and people are always reticent to accept a lot of pain. If you come in with a bulldozer mentality and say, "What you are and what you do is wrong," you're not apt to get a long line of people following you. But if you make the case for it, and you show people that the status quo is unsustainable, then I find that you get a lot further.
Watch: Gen. Stanley McChrystal on shaking up the military, by Lillian Cunningham, Jayne Orenstein, Jhaan Elker, Kyle Barss and Julio Negron (Credit: Post TV)
Q: Do you think the military's ability to produce great leaders is in decline?
A: The military does very well taking average people and making them very good leaders. We spend a lot of effort on it, job titles are built around it, efficiency reports focus on it.
Where I think the military is struggling, the same as businesses, is that speed and interconnectedness have changed the landscape in which people operate. Just as we look at the decline in military leadership, look at the average tenure of chief executive officers of companies. It's dropped precipitously. Look at the disdain in which many people hold political leaders now. Leaders stamped from an outdated mold are going to struggle.
The basic DNA we've got to implant in leaders now is adaptability: not to get wedded to the solution to a particular problem, because not only the problem but the solution changes day to day. Creating people who are hardwired for that is going to be our challenge for the future.
Q: What could the Pentagon do to bring in people who traditionally haven't been as interested in military careers but who have skills we need in order to adapt?
A: Unfortunately, in these monolithic professions, not a lot of fresh air blows in through the windows. What I would argue for the military and others is that lateral entry makes a lot of sense.
I think nowadays the essential skills of being a military leader are not to shoot a weapon, they are not even to read a map. They're to make tough decisions in an uncertain environment and to engage with people and build relations. It's almost the same as what you'd find in senior leadership in any other realm.
Q: What would that look like?
A: Someone could say, "We want you to come into the Army for four years. Here's what you'd do and we're going to make you rank X." In three months, they could get you the right uniforms, teach you how to salute. You'd walk in and be effective right away. When you left, the Army would have produced another alumnus who would communicate out - and you would have brought different ideas and different perspectives.
I've dealt with a lot of chief executive officers who could walk in and be general officers in the military tomorrow. All we'd have to do is get them a uniform and a rank. It would be seamless, because they solve problems and they lead people. Take Brad Smith from Intuit. He could come in as a three- or four-star general in the military, and he'd be value-added at the end of the first week.
Q: Could that ever happen?
A: There's a natural aversion to it. But I think it should happen. We ought to let ourselves loose from some of the things that say, "No, it couldn't." Similarly, military leaders could walk out and be effective in business tomorrow.
Q: High-profile generals often seem to go into leadership consulting. Why did you decide to spend your time this way and start McChrystal Group?
A: The common avenue for most senior military leaders is to go into the defence business, because that's a familiar area and tends to be very open arms and accepting. I made the decision not to be in that particular sector. Nothing wrong with it, but I wanted something different.
So I started teaching at Yale. And I formed an organisation that works only with civilian companies, because I thought that what we learned, particularly in Iraq from 2003 to 2008, was so transformational and was not unique to the military. That's been deeply rewarding, working with companies that face remarkably similar challenges in terms of silos and decision-making.
Q: Have you been surprised by anything in that work?
A: In the military, you always have this view of civilian businesses being a black box. To be quite honest, I thought of civilian business people as greedy but hyper-efficient. I thought of the military as very altruistic and honest, but really not very efficient.
Then I started dealing with the civilian world. I would be in meetings where leaders would say, "The military would never be this inefficient, would they?" And I'd smirk a little bit. I'd say, "This is us!" You are not hyper-greedy like I thought, nor are you hyper-efficient like I thought.
It's just extraordinary how similar it is. But I guess it shouldn't be shocking. At the end of the day, you're getting people together to do things, whether they wear uniforms or suits.
Q. You've been pushing this idea of a year of voluntary but expected national service. Tell me why you find that concept so important.
A. The concept of the Franklin Project, which is part of the Aspen Institute, is to make the opportunity available for every young American to do a year of full-time, paid national service.
If you think about it, we've allowed the concept of citizenship to erode. It's not a geographic boundary. It's not something you win in a lottery. It's not something that's automatically passed to you. It's a promise: If I accept citizenship, I promise I will do things in my relationship to other people.
When we allow it to be cheapened, to be transactional, it's like we've said, "Citizenship is some kind of birthright that I have. Wait a minute, it's here in my pocket or my purse." In reality, citizenship sits in your heart and in your head.
I joined the Army because I thought it would be interesting and an adventure, not because I wanted to serve. But after I'd been in 10 or 15 years, the service part was deeply important to me. I know young people out of AmeriCorps, City Year, Peace Corps, and they're extraordinary. They see the world a little differently then anyone who didn't have that opportunity.
Q. What is something you believe? You can interpret that however you want.
A. I believe that people can be pulled to a higher calling. I fundamentally believe that there's something inside all of us that wants us to be better than we are. When we go home at night and look in the mirror, there's something about the person we see that bothers us a little bit. We know that we're not quite as honest. We're not quite as forthright. We're not quite as committed to other people. We're not quite as generous as we wish we were.
I guess some people learn just to beat that into a corner of themselves and ignore it, but I think that is inside everybody and you can call to that.
Q. What are you still hoping to improve about yourself?
A. I have expectations about myself, and the biggest frustration I have is when I don't meet them - but I can also be very demanding of other people, and sometimes unreasonably so. That's something I'm trying to improve.
