Comparing the Definition of Extreme Leadership

Steve Faber 

Steve Faber defines ‘extreme leadership’ as “the dynamic interplay of fear and love- two of the most powerful forces in the human experience … with those who actively and intentionally use the experience of fear and love every day in their attempts to change things for the better being extreme leaders” (Farber, 2014). Comparing Faber’s definition to the formulated definition of what extreme leadership entails, Faber evokes the virtue of love which differs with the formulated definition’s contextual use of resilience as the driving force of extreme leadership. Faber’s definition brings into focus the importance of emotions in the practice of leadership while the formulated definition concentrates in the fulfilment of duty. These two definitions, in a way, differ, but holistically ascribe to the same principle of having an innate understanding of one’s responsibility in fulfilling a role, in whichever situation one finds themselves in.  

Tom Kolditz 

Tom Kolditz defines extreme leadership as that type of leadership that provides solutions to dangerous settings within any field of leadership and as a result, improve the effectiveness of whatever mission the group is meant to attain (Kolditz, 2007). Kolditz adopts a revelatory perception of leadership being a guiding attribute that allows the leader to formulate a way through which their subjects improve and grow. Comparing this definition to the formulated definition, a similarity appears in the manner the leader is the risk-taker and endears others to adopt such a risky route. However, Kolditz definition differs with the formulated definition in the manner leadership is only bound within ‘dangerous settings,’ and not within the process of leadership. In the formulated definition, extreme leadership can be practiced in any form of leadership structure, as long as those involved regard it as ‘dangerous’ within their scope of operation.  

Jonko Willink and Leif Babin 

Jonko and Leif define extreme leadership as extreme ownership. This definition, while it may seem definite, augurs so well with the formulated definition of what extreme leadership should be. The definition demands that a leader takes ownership of good or bad decisions attained and the resulting consequences, whichever they may be (Willink & Babin, 2017). In protracting this form of a definition, Jonko and Leif lay down the fundamental principle that defines who a leader should be; a responsible individual who owns up to their actions. This form of leadership demands ownership of responsibility which forces the leader to take risks and be courageous in the face of an extreme situation. Similar to the formulated definition of extreme leadership, Jonko and Leif define an extreme situation as one that is bound within the context of individual leadership function and not in the extremity of a situation.  

Reviewing Extreme Leadership 

Leadership is a distinct construct that is generally used to define people who are conferred authority over others. The obviousness of such a definition makes true leadership a rare commodity in the sense that leaders usually lack the understanding of what being a true leader entails. For instance, in a general sense, politicians are considered to be the typical figure of what a leader is; however, in the true sense of fulfilment of roles and set responsibilities, the true identity of their selfish self comes out, revealing the vices they engage in on a daily basis (Farber, 2004). True leadership entails taking risks even when there is backlash from those involved. In essence, true leadership can be termed as extreme leadership, where a leader chooses to challenge systemic rot albeit the risk involved in such an endeavor. 

The extremity of a situation does create extreme leaders, and so is the function of being a leader not intended to be only within extreme situations (Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson, 2015). A perfect example is that of a leader being faced with the problem of drug use and cartels, which demands creativity in dealing with it. This can be considered to be an extreme situation where the leader has to find a way through which to deal with a vice that is destroying the lives of those who rely on their protection. If the leader has previously shown true leadership by ensuring efficiency in public resources use and provision of social amenities, then the problem of drugs would not be considered to be an extreme one as the society would be self-regulatory. A leader, thus, is intended to deal with typical situations in the right way, respective of the popular perception of how such a situation should be dealt with.  

Defining extreme leadership, just like Jonko and Leif have done, should not be based on the extremity of a situation, rather by the ownership of every end-result, whether it is good or bad (Willink & Babin, 2018). This ownership allows one to be principled in fulfilling their role, even when it poses a danger to oneself. Differentiating between extreme leadership and leadership in an extreme situation is vital as it helps the leader understand their role and those responsibilities that they are mandated to fulfil (Farber, 2020). If extreme leadership is only deemed to exist within the context of extreme situations, it then excuses bad leadership when it happens, as those involved can choose to place blame on others. This allows for poor leadership and excuses leaders when they are faced with challenges, allowing for resource misappropriations and poor decision making.  

The Cuban Missile Crisis 

16th October 

Together with his top advisers, the President was told about the findings of missiles in Cuba. A discussion ensued on how to address the challenge, if it came to it, ensured and in the meeting, two options were brought up. The first option was that the United States deploys an airstrike and invasion and the other option was to put in place a naval quarantine with a threat of further military action. After this short but important meeting, the President resumed on to his official schedule, while still meeting with his advisors periodically to be updated on the events in Cuba and formulate strategies (Markwica, 2018). 

Leadership Analysis: The first day captured President Kennedy’s qualities of an extreme leader, in understanding that leadership is not about setting guidelines and others follow, rather, it is about allowing ones followers to be part of the whole process. In seeking the counsel of his foreign policy and national defense officials and in choosing to act normal in the face of such danger to his country, the President showed an understanding of what true leadership is. He otherwise had the option of choosing to act without consul and attack.  

17th October 

American military started to set base in the Southeast of the United States. Intelligence further revealed there were more sites with 16 to 32 missiles, so the danger was more significant than it was first thought. The President attended service and had lunch with the crown prince Hasan of Libya, after which he headed off to Connecticut (Markwica, 2018).  

Leadership Analysis: The danger being posed by the presence of these missiles in Cuba was not imaginary, rather it was a real and one that the United States had witnessed in their bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima during the world war. The President, therefore, understood that if he did not act in time, he would be exposing his country to a nuclear war that would be catastrophic to the whole world, and he chooses to maintain his calm and keep to his schedule. Like the World War Japan bombing, President Kennedy showed rational thinking by choosing to let those he had entrusted with the responsibility of the country’s security do their work, while he does his job of assuring the country of safety (White, 1996).  

18th October 

Soviet foreign minister pays President Kennedy a state visit and asserts that the “aid” the Soviets are offering to Cuba is not for offensive purposes and is not intended to endanger the United States. In response, the President reads to the foreign minister the 4th September public warning that would follow were the Soviet Union introduce weapons in Cuba. He does not reveal to the foreign minister of his knowledge if their recent activities in Cuba (Markwica, 2018). 

Leadership Analysis: The President chose to ‘go along’ with the Soviet narrative while in an ordinary situation, it would have been an opportune moment to confront the Soviet foreign minister of their missile build-up in Cuba. The President understood that a leader does not lay all their cards on the table, rather, they strategize and plan with an aim of gaining an advantage over their rivals. Had the President revealed to the Soviet Foreign Minister of his knowledge of their activities in Cuba, he would have laid bare their offensive military plans that were being undertaken and put those involved in danger.  

19th October 

The President honored his scheduled campaign trip to Ohio and Illinois, whilst leaving his advisers to debate and figure out the best way forward (Markwica, 2018). 

Leadership Analysis: Leadership is not all about being seen and heard; rather, it is understanding that a leader without followers is a lunatic. The President understood the importance of delegating duty and believing and trusting those entrusted with those responsibilities will respect and honor their roles. He thus chose to play his part and let his advisers do their job and worry about what was the appropriate action to be taken.  

20th October 

The President faked a cold to get away from schedule in order to finalize the discussions that have been going on in his absence. After much discussion, the President decided that quarantine was the best course of action against the Soviet action in Cuba. Plans are drawn in the deployment of naval units, and a speech starts to be formulated, to inform the American people of what was going on (Markwica, 2018). 

Leadership Analysis: In choosing the term ‘quarantine’ instead of ‘blockade’, the President and his advisers showed wisdom. This is because, while quarantine is a blockade in all essence, the term “blockade” is translated as an act of war. The intention of the President was not to start a war and this captured wisdom on his part. A true leader understands that any decision that they make affects first and foremost, their followers, and it is their responsibility to protect them. In this act, the President showed an understanding of his role and an ownership of responsibility. 

21st October 

The President with his wife attended mass at St. Stephen Church and then later met with General Walter Sweeney of the tactical air command. The general informed the President that an airstrike was not going to be effective enough to guarantee total destruction of the missiles, were it to be undertaken (Markwica, 2018).  

Leadership Analysis: Consultation is an integral part of leadership as it allows the leader to have a better understanding of the dilemma facing them and how best to tackle it. Even after arriving at a go-ahead, the President understood that he could not solely rely on one plan and thus choose to consult. This was in an effort to gain better understanding of the options that were available to him, were it to come to fruition.  

22nd October 

The President talks to former Presidents and the British Prime Minister and briefs them on what is happening, while at the same time forms an Executive Committee of the National Security Council. The committee is meant to meet daily during the crisis and coordinate all actions pertaining to the crisis. The President further briefs his cabinet and the congressional leaders on the situation and also addresses the nation, informing them of the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. In his address, the President implements the quarantine, while restating that the United States will uphold this quarantine until the USSR removes the missiles from Cuba (Markwica, 2018).  

Leadership Analysis: A leader cannot fulfil their function without the support of stakeholders that empower them to the position they hold. Their power and influence are driven by the understanding that in times of crisis, they need professional help. In creating an Executive Committee, informing former Presidents and British prime minister and the public, the President, depicted a control of the situation, which allowed the public to have an assurance that the situation will be handled effectively and efficiently. More importantly, he presented to the outside world an outlook of control that allowed them to find value in adversity that faced the United States.  

23rd October 

The organization of American States (OAS) offered its support on the United States decision of the blockade, which conferred President’s Kennedy action a legitimacy. Resultantly, the U.S. ships effected the blockade. The Soviet freighters that were stopped in the open waters, while the Soviet submarines shifted base in an effort to counter the quarantine (Markwica, 2018). 

24th October 

Khrushchev, in a letter, spoke against the said quarantine. The Pope appealed to either leaders to seek peace rather for war (Markwica, 2018).  

25th October 

The United States called for an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting. The Soviets categorically refused that there were missiles that had been taken to Cuba. Adlai Stevenson then reveled the damning evidence of the reconnaissance photos of the missiles. The United Nations secretary-general requested for both parties to agree with each other, to which President Kennedy refused as this did not guarantee the removal of the missiles (Markwica, 2018).  

Leadership Analysis: A leader understands the goals set and does everything to attain those goals (Sweeney, Matthews & Lester, 2011). In refusing to ‘cool off’, President Kennedy showed a determination of attaining what he and his generals had intentioned when they decided to take this route to addressing the crisis. The President knew that if he gave in on one thing, then the Soviets would regard that as a weakness and take advantage, which would render the work done by the Executive Security Council useless.  

26th October 

Missiles that were in Cuba became operational, with the Soviet IL-28 bombers beginning the construction of Cuban airfields. In response, the United States moved into DEFCON 2 and in response the Cuban President asked Khrushchev that they should to attack first. The Soviet Premier penned a letter that asked for a commitment from the U.S. not to invade Cuba (Markwica, 2018). 

Leadership Analysis: President Kennedy refused to give in and instead set in place American war machine, relaying the seriousness of the United States to the Soviet. As a leader, the President understood that the only language that the Soviets would understand was one that matched their arrogance. As a leader, he showed courage in the face of danger, knowing too well that had his plan failed, then it would have end up in a nuclear war; affecting not only the United States but the whole world.  

27th October 

Khrushchev wrote another harsher letter to President Kennedy demanding that United States had to promise not to evade cub and also promise to dismantle their military base in Turkey. In a tense meeting, President Kennedy refused to give in to military action against an earlier attack, at the same time refused to give on the Turkey issue. The committee thus agreed not to respond the later letter and respond to the former letter, while in the same time prepared air force troop carrier squadrons in case the plan did not go as envisioned. That day an agreement was reached for Cuba to dismantle their base from from Cuba in exchange of the United States not evading Cuba (Markwica, 2018).  

Leadership Analysis: Despite the fact that an American citizen lost their life, President Kennedy showed much restraint by refusing to give in to his generals to engage immediately. A leader understands that in every engagement, there must be casualties, and that does not mean one has to go on a rampage; instead, it calls for critical thinking. As a leader, President Kennedy showed resilience, courage and foresight in choosing to charter a path that was not supported by his generals, even when all signs demanded otherwise.  

28th October 

Radio Moscow announces the acceptance of the proposed solution and releases a statement from Premier Khrushchev affirming that the missiles would be removed and that the United States would not evade Cuba (Markwica, 2018). 

Leadership Outlook 

The question as to whether President Kennedy depicted an extreme leader, or it was a leader acting in an extreme situation is one that is founded on the meaning of what extreme leadership entails (Karthika, 2015). In the context of the situation leading to the Cuban missile crisis and the suspicion that existed between the East and the West, the whole situation can be defined as being extreme. The World Wars and The Cold War made any clash between the United States and the Soviet Union such a sensitive issue that the whole world believed that a third world war was imminent. It would be fair and right to say that President Kennedy, in handling this situation the way he did and in avoiding the eruption of a nuclear war, depicted the true meaning of what an extreme leader should be. He epitomized courage, risk, resilience, and most of all critical thinking, in the face of a global crisis that promised the eruption of a nuclear war. Whilst most extreme leaders deal with factual instances and experiences that allow them to have a clear understanding of the risk and dangers involved; President Kennedy lacked that luxury. Instead, he was faced with a situation that expected him to navigate emotions (east vs west), anger (against the Soviets), espionage, suspicion, and malice; while lacking the understanding of how the Soviets would react if he took any action at all. The nucleic danger that promised to erupt created a risk that even the best of extreme leaders would find it challenging to deal with. It would be therefore safe to say, that President Kennedy epitomized what and how an extreme leader should act in the face of an extreme situation.  

References 

Farber, S. (2004). The radical leap: Liderazgo Radical: a personal lesson in extreme leadership . Chicago: Dearborn Trade Pub. 

Farber, S. (2014). The radical leap: a personal lesson in extreme leadership . Poway, CA: Mission Boulevard Press and Digital. 

Farber, S. (2020). Love is just damn good business: do what you love in the service of people who love what you do . New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Giannantonio, C. M., & Hurley-Hanson, A. E. (2015). Extreme leadership: leaders, teams and situations outside the norm . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 

Karthika , D. K. (2019). Women & Leadership: Leading under Extreme Diversity. International Journal of Research in Arts and Science , 5 (Special Issue), 09–15. doi: 10.9756/bp2019.1001/02 

Kolditz, T. A. (2007). In extremis leadership: leading as if your life depended on it . Chichester: John Wiley. 

Markwica, R. (2018). The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. Oxford Scholarship Online . doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198794349.003.0004 

Sweeney, P. J., Matthews, M. D., & Lester, P. B. (2011). Leadership in dangerous situations: a handbook for the Armed Forces, emergency services, and first responders . Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. 

White, M. J. (1996). Kennedy’s Cuban Policies: Misconceptions and Missed Opportunities. The Cuban Missile Crisis , 22–59. doi: 10.1057/9780230374508_2 

Willink, J., & Babin, L. (2017). Extreme ownership: how U.S. Navy SEALs lead and win . New York: St. Martins Press. 

Willink, J., & Babin, L. (2018). Extreme ownership: how U.S. Navy SEALs lead and win . Sydney, N.S.W.: Macmillan.