{"id":43718,"date":"2021-08-05T07:10:52","date_gmt":"2021-08-05T11:10:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=43718"},"modified":"2021-08-09T07:57:19","modified_gmt":"2021-08-09T11:57:19","slug":"improve-morale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/improve-morale\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Improve Morale: Tips From a Navy Captain"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Do you need to improve morale at your workplace? What leadership model could make this happen?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Captain L. David Marquet<\/a> took command of USS Santa Fe<\/em> in 1999, the need to improve morale was palpable. He accomplished this feat within a year by deploying the leader-leader<\/a> model to empower the demoralized crew.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read more to learn how to improve morale with the leader-leader model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Before Taking Command<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Marquet first visited Santa Fe<\/em> in December 1998. When he greeted crew members, they didn\u2019t make eye contact. They seemed defeated, having been told repeatedly that their submarine was the worst.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During Christmas break, Marquet wandered around the ship, where a skeleton watch crew was performing routine duties. He asked the petty officer on watch, \u201cWhat do you do on the ship?\u201d The answer was a cynical \u201cWhatever they tell me to do.\u201d  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petty officer\u2019s reply revealed he was an unhappy follower who wasn\u2019t taking any responsibility for his unhappiness. It was an insulting comment to a commander (implying that the leadership was incompetent). But it also encapsulated the problem and the attitude pervasive among the crew. There was a clear need to improve morale, and Marquet knew that leadership was key.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Wrong Kind of Leadership<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The executive officer (XO) on Santa Fe<\/em> required department heads to check out with him before leaving for the day, so he could go over tasks he had given them to do and ensure they weren\u2019t leaving with something major undone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this made the XO, not the department head, responsible for each department head\u2019s work; the XO thus \u201cowned\u201d the task. Marquet believed that the department heads should use check-out to report what they\u2019d accomplished and planned to do, thereby taking ownership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While it would be risky for the leader to have accountability but give up decision-making<\/a> authority, this would be better than the passivity of the \u201cwhatever they tell me to do\u201d approach, where brains were shut off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The XO\u2019s check-out procedure was another example of the pervasiveness of the leader-follower mentality. The result was that out of 135 men on board, only a handful were engaged in problem-solving<\/strong>. A whole range of procedures like this reinforced leader-follower. Santa Fe\u2019s<\/em> problem wasn\u2019t a leadership vacuum, but too much of the wrong kind of leadership. The cost was passivity and paralysis. Something had to be done to improve morale and combat readiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking Command<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As Marquet sat on the stage awaiting his part in the official change-of-command ceremony, he thought of the positives he\u2019d uncovered on his visits to Santa Fe<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n