Everybody has an opinion. And these days, everybody seems determined to share it.
Introduce a new policy, propose a different approach to training, challenge a longstanding organizational practice, or suggest that something we've been doing for decades might deserve reconsideration. Then watch what happens.
Before the proposal has been fully explained, somebody is already telling everyone why it won't work. Before anyone asks what problem we're trying to solve, somebody announces that we've never done it that way before. And before we've evaluated the potential benefits, risks, or consequences, we've already chosen sides.
Sound familiar?
Here's a question worth considering.
Are we responding to the situation, or merely reacting to how the situation makes us feel?
Because there's a difference. A significant one. And that difference reveals something about our character.
Your First Reaction Is Not Necessarily Your Best Judgment
I've spent more than four decades in criminal justice, including time as a prosecutor, police officer, commander, and instructor. One thing I've learned is that experience doesn't automatically produce wisdom.
Sometimes experience produces something else.
Certainty.
We become so confident in what we've learned, what we've accomplished, and how we've always done things that we stop questioning whether our thinking remains appropriate for the circumstances confronting us.
And when someone challenges that thinking?
We get defensive.
Sometimes angry.
We interpret disagreement as disrespect. We perceive change as criticism. We confuse questioning a practice with questioning the people who developed it.
Here's the tough-love part.
If your first response to an unfamiliar idea is to defend your position before understanding the proposal, you aren't demonstrating leadership. You're demonstrating resistance.
Now, resistance isn't always wrong.
Some changes are poorly conceived. Some proposals ignore operational realities. Others introduce unnecessary risks or attempt to fix problems that don't exist.
And sometimes resistance reflects something leadership has overlooked: organizational memory.
Experienced officers may remember previous initiatives that were poorly implemented, inadequately funded, or abandoned when leadership changed. Their skepticism may be grounded in legitimate experience.
But there's a difference between explaining why a proposal may fail and rejecting it simply because it's unfamiliar.
How would you know whether an idea has merit if you haven't examined it? Rejecting an idea without understanding it isn't critical thinking.
It's a reaction.
Sun Tzu Understood Something We Sometimes Forget
More than two thousand years ago, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu emphasized the importance of understanding circumstances, evaluating advantages, and exercising judgment before committing resources.
His message was not that leaders should avoid decisive action.
Quite the opposite.
Decisive action must serve a strategic purpose.
In The Art of War, Sun Tzu warned against allowing anger to determine whether a ruler or general commits forces to battle.
From years of studying Sun Tzu's teachings, I've come to appreciate a principle that extends well beyond the battlefield:
The greatest opportunity for meaningful change comes when people understand its value and willingly embrace its purpose, not when compliance is simply forced through rules, regulations, or positional authority.
That doesn't mean compliance is optional.
It means genuine commitment produces something far more valuable than reluctant obedience.
Consider how that principle applies to leadership today.
How often do we make decisions because we're frustrated?
How often do we reject proposals because we dislike the person presenting them?
How often do we defend organizational practices because changing them might suggest we weren't doing everything correctly before?
And perhaps most importantly:
How often does protecting our ego become more important than accomplishing our mission?
That's not strategy.
That's emotion masquerading as leadership.
Mission, Not Emotion, Must Drive Tactics
In law enforcement, we understand that tactics must support the mission. At least, that's what we teach.
But what happens when our emotional response begins defining the mission itself? We become focused on winning the argument rather than solving the problem.
We become determined to defend the existing process rather than evaluate whether it still serves its intended purpose.
We confuse being right with doing right.
And sometimes, we become so invested in defeating a proposed change that we overlook the very problem the change was intended to address.
Think about that.
You can successfully defeat an idea and still fail your mission. That's a pretty hollow victory, winning the argument but losing the battle. This doesn't mean we should embrace every proposed change.
Far from it.
It means we should evaluate changes according to their potential contribution to the mission, not simply our emotional reaction to their introduction.
What problem are we trying to solve?
What evidence supports the proposed solution?
What are the operational consequences?
What could go wrong?
What could improve?
And what happens if we do nothing?
Those are leadership questions.
And they require informed discussions to answer, not unilateral dismissal simply because you are the boss.
Whether we like the proposal isn't the most important consideration. Whether it advances the mission is.
The Burden of Proof Goes Both Ways
Here's where I want to challenge those of us who have occupied leadership positions. It's easy to criticize employees who resist change.
But what about the leaders introducing it?
I've seen leaders become so personally invested in their own proposals that they interpret legitimate questions as challenges to their authority.
Some confuse disagreement with disloyalty.
Others announce changes without adequately explaining the problem they're attempting to solve.
Then, when employees raise concerns, leadership dismisses them as resistant to progress.
That's not leadership, either.
If you demand that others keep an open mind about your ideas, you'd better be willing to keep an equally open mind about their objections.
Leaders proposing change have an obligation to explain its purpose, demonstrate its potential value, consider unintended consequences, and listen to legitimate concerns.
Those opposing change have an equally important obligation to evaluate the proposal fairly, identify specific concerns, and offer constructive alternatives when appropriate.
Neither authority nor experience exempts anyone from critical thinking. And neither side gets to substitute emotion for evidence.
Leadership isn't about winning the argument.
It's about achieving the best possible outcome for the mission and the people responsible for accomplishing it.
Forging Character Requires Intellectual Courage
Within Warrior Servant Leadership, we speak about Preparing People, Forging Character, and Inspiring Leaders.
Forging character isn't simply about teaching integrity, courage, and accountability.
It's about developing the discipline to exercise those qualities when they're uncomfortable.
And few things make people more uncomfortable than having their assumptions challenged.
It takes character to acknowledge that someone with less experience might have a better idea.
It takes humility to recognize that a practice you've defended for years may no longer be the best approach.
It takes courage to challenge the prevailing opinion of your peers. And it takes maturity to admit that your initial reaction was wrong. None of those things diminishes your leadership.
They strengthen it.
The strongest leaders aren't those who never change their minds. They're those who refuse to let pride prevent them from changing their minds when the evidence warrants it.
Preparedness Begins Before the Decision
Context-Based Preparedness™ challenges us to consider whether we're intentionally preparing people for the circumstances they may encounter.
That includes preparing them to think.
Not simply to follow instructions.
Not merely to repeat established practices.
And certainly not to respond emotionally whenever circumstances challenge their expectations.
Preparedness requires anticipation, judgment, adaptability, and an understanding of context.
When confronting a new idea, challenge, or proposed change, I suggest a simple exercise.
Before announcing your position, ask yourself five questions:
1. What is actually being proposed?
Not what I assume is being proposed. Not what someone else told me it means. What is the actual proposal?
2. What problem is this intended to solve?
If I don't understand the problem, how can I fairly evaluate the proposed solution?
3. What are the potential benefits and risks?
Both deserve consideration. Good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes, and unfamiliar approaches aren't automatically bad ones.
4. How does this support or undermine our mission?
This is where strategic thinking replaces personal preference.
5. What response will produce the best outcome?
Not the response that makes me feel better.
The response that advances the mission while protecting the people we're responsible for serving and leading.
That's the difference between reacting and responding.
Emotions Are Information. They Are Not Instructions.
Don't misunderstand my argument.
I'm not suggesting leaders should become emotionless.
Compassion matters.
Passion matters.
Anger at injustice can motivate necessary action.
Fear can alert us to dangers we might otherwise overlook.
But emotions should inform our understanding, not dictate our decisions. Sometimes the most courageous response is immediate action.
Other times, it's having the discipline to stop, listen, examine the circumstances, and reconsider our assumptions.
Knowing the difference is what leadership demands.
And developing that judgment is part of forging character.
Here's My Challenge
The next time someone proposes something you don't like, resist the temptation to immediately explain why they're wrong.
Listen.
Ask questions.
Challenge assumptions, including your own.
Evaluate the proposal against the mission.
Then decide what action is warranted.
You may ultimately reject the idea.
You may discover it has merit.
Or you may find that combining elements of the proposal with existing practices produces something better than either approach alone.
But whatever you decide, make sure your decision reflects deliberate judgment rather than an emotional reflex.
Because leadership isn't measured by how quickly we form opinions.
It's measured by the quality of the decisions we make and the consequences we're willing to accept.
Every choice carries a price.
So does indecision.
So does defending a failed practice simply because abandoning it would require admitting we were wrong.
Mission should drive tactics. Emotion should never be allowed to hijack the mission.
And if we're serious about forging character, we must first be willing to challenge our own.
Listen. Learn. Lead.
Major (ret) Pat Welsh, JD is a retired police commander, former prosecutor, leadership instructor, author, and host of The Warrior Servant Leader Podcast. His leadership work emphasizes preparing people, forging character, and inspiring leaders through Warrior Servant Leadership and Context-Based Preparedness™.
Comments