The Day You Stop Learning is the Day You Stop Leading

There is a dangerous point in the career of every successful leader when experience begins to masquerade as expertise. You have been doing the job for twenty years. Maybe thirty. You have led large and small organizations, managed real and imagined crises, built teams, fired people, promoted people, survived failures, and accumulated enough scars to believe that you have probably seen most of what the profession can throw at you. People seek your advice. Your résumé gets longer. Your office gets bigger. Maybe you’ve even navigated the Dunning-Kruger curve and come out on the right side of it. Eventually, if you are not careful, you stop asking questions because you have become accustomed to being the person who provides the answers. That is precisely when leadership begins to deteriorate. The day you stop learning is the day you stop leading.

I spent more than 27 years in the Army, and one of the things that experience taught me is how little experience actually teaches you if you are not deliberately trying to learn from it. I served in different units, different countries, different kinds of organizations, and different kinds of wars. I spent years around Special Operations Forces and around a decade teaching and working with cadets at West Point. I have also had the privilege of spending considerable time with senior military leaders, including many general officers from the United States and allied militaries. The leaders who impress me most are rarely the ones who seem to have all the answers. They are the ones who keep asking good questions.

Leadership and learning are inseparable because leadership is fundamentally an exercise in adaptation. Organizations change. Technology changes. People change. Competitors change. Enemies certainly change. A leader who relies exclusively on knowledge accumulated in the past is attempting to solve tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s understanding. Experience is enormously valuable, but experience is not the same thing as wisdom. Experience tells us what happened before. Wisdom requires us to determine whether what happened before is relevant to what is happening now.

The military offers particularly unforgiving examples of this phenomenon. History is filled with armies that became exceptionally proficient at fighting the previous war. They refined doctrine, equipment, training, and organizational structures around lessons purchased at enormous cost, only to discover that their adversaries had been learning too. We should remember that as the American military continues digesting two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously preparing for conflicts that may look very different from either one. The lessons of the Global War on Terror are important. Some were purchased with blood. But honoring those lessons does not mean assuming that the next war will resemble the last one.

I saw versions of this during my own career. Things that seemed self-evidently true in one assignment were considerably less obvious in another. Techniques that worked in one country did not necessarily work in another. One of my greatest frustrations was serving in Afghanistan and having someone with Iraq experience come in and tell me, “Well, in Iraq, we… ” Hold up. I’m gonna have to stop you there, brother. First, does Bagram look like Balad to you? Because it didn’t to me. On anything of the three times I served there, or the four times I served here. Different terrain, different populace, different friendly forces. Almost everything is different. Time to learn something new. You’re making too many assumptions, and bad assumptions get people killed.

I commissioned as a military intelligence officer but was detailed to the infantry for my first four years in the Army. The assumptions that made sense in an infantry unit were not always the same ones that mattered in an intelligence organization. The way people approached problems in conventional units could differ significantly from how those same problems were viewed inside special operations. Even within the same war, what worked during one deployment might be obsolete by the next because the enemy had adapted. Sometimes we forget the obvious: the other side gets a vote, and the other side learns too.

That danger exists at the individual level as well. One of the easiest traps for senior military leaders is believing that rank validates knowledge. It does not. A general officer may possess decades of experience and still know considerably less about a particular technology, culture, adversary, or tactical problem than a lieutenant, sergeant, specialist, or civilian analyst who has devoted serious attention to it. Rank determines authority within a military hierarchy. It does not determine who possesses the best information.

I have seen senior leaders handle that reality very differently. Some enter a room and demonstrate, intentionally or otherwise, that everyone is there to hear what they think. Others enter and immediately begin asking questions. What are we missing? What do you think? What would you do differently? Who disagrees with this assessment? The difference is profound. The first kind of leader may leave the meeting having demonstrated how much he knows. The second leaves knowing more than when he entered. Over the course of a career, I know which one I would rather follow.

The same principle applies in business. A chief executive who built a successful company twenty years ago cannot assume that the same instincts will produce success today. Markets evolve, consumer preferences shift, regulatory environments change, and technologies emerge that can destroy seemingly invulnerable business models with remarkable speed. Kodak understood photography. Blockbuster understood video rental. Sears understood retail. Their accumulated expertise did not protect them from disruption because expertise about the existing environment is valuable only as long as the environment remains substantially unchanged.

That lesson has become increasingly relevant to me in retirement from the Army. Moving between military service, higher education, publishing, nonprofit work, and other professional environments has reinforced something I probably should have understood much earlier: leadership principles may travel well, but specific leadership practices do not always do so. You cannot simply take the way you led an Army unit, transplant it into a civilian organization, and expect identical results. There is no rank structure compelling compliance. Authority is different. Incentives are different. Organizational cultures are different. Even the language is different. If you enter that environment believing your previous success has already taught you everything you need to know, you are probably going to struggle.

This is why intellectual humility is one of the most underrated characteristics of effective leadership. Intellectual humility does not mean lacking confidence or refusing to make decisions. Leaders are paid to make decisions, frequently with incomplete information and under significant pressure. Instead, intellectual humility means recognizing that confidence and certainty are different things. You can confidently make the best decision available while remaining open to the possibility that your assumptions are wrong. In fact, the willingness to revise a decision when new information becomes available is usually evidence of strength rather than weakness.

I have become increasingly convinced of this through conversations with senior leaders. One of the great privileges of my work in recent years has been listening to general officers discuss leadership with cadets, especially through West Point’s Five Questions for a General podcast. These are people who have spent decades making consequential decisions in enormously complex organizations. Yet one of the recurring themes in those conversations is how often they talk about what they learned from other people. Sometimes it was another general. Just as often, it was a platoon sergeant, a young officer, a mentor, a subordinate, or someone who told them something they did not particularly want to hear. The best senior leaders seem to understand that accumulating authority should expand the number of people you learn from, not reduce it.

That distinction matters because organizations tend to amplify the personality of their leaders. When the boss is curious, curiosity becomes acceptable. When the boss asks questions, other people ask questions. When the boss admits, “I don’t know,” others become more comfortable acknowledging uncertainty. Conversely, when leaders present themselves as infallible, organizations quickly learn to conceal disagreement and uncertainty. Meetings become performances in which subordinates attempt to determine what the leader already believes and then construct arguments supporting it. At that point, the organization may still possess tremendous intellectual capacity, but very little of it is reaching the person making the decisions.

The Army has a particularly useful mechanism for combating this tendency: the after-action review. At its best, an AAR is an institutionalized form of humility. What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why was there a difference? What should we sustain, and what should we change? Those questions are deceptively powerful because they begin with the assumption that performance can improve. It does not matter whether the participants are privates or colonels. Something happened, there is something to learn from it, and the organization should be better next time because it took the time to examine itself honestly.

As I came to understand through my leadership consulting work with Thayer Leadership, businesses use different terminology, but the concept is the same. Postmortems, quarterly reviews, customer feedback, performance analytics, red teams, and lessons-learned sessions all serve essentially the same purpose when conducted properly. Unfortunately, military and civilian organizations share the same temptation to transform these mechanisms into exercises in self-protection. People explain why failures were unavoidable, why forecasts were reasonable, or why someone else was responsible. The purpose of reflection should not be to assign intellectual blame. It should be to improve future performance. A leader who is more interested in proving that yesterday’s decision was correct than understanding how tomorrow’s decision can be better has missed the point entirely.

Continuous learning also requires leaders to deliberately expose themselves to people who know things they do not. Reading matters, but so does listening. Senior leaders should spend time with junior employees, technical specialists, customers, competitors, scholars, critics, and people outside their profession. Military officers should read business, history, psychology, economics, technology, philosophy, and literature in addition to doctrine and professional military journals. Business executives might benefit from studying military history, organizational behavior, geopolitics, or fields far removed from their immediate industries. Intellectual cross-pollination matters because innovative ideas frequently emerge at the boundaries between disciplines.

Teaching has probably reinforced this lesson for me more than anything else. There is something wonderfully humbling about spending time around talented young people. Students and cadets will ask questions you did not anticipate, challenge assumptions you did not realize you held, and occasionally demonstrate that something you have believed for years does not survive serious examination. That is not a threat to expertise. It is how expertise stays alive.

There is also something deeply practical about remaining a student. Asking thoughtful questions allows leaders to see their organizations from perspectives that authority often obscures. The higher you climb in an organization, the more filtered your information tends to become. Bad news gets softened. Complicated problems become PowerPoint bullets. Ambiguity becomes a green status indicator. Leaders who stop actively learning eventually become prisoners of the information architecture surrounding them. They may possess more authority than ever while understanding less about what is actually happening.

Perhaps most importantly, leaders who continue learning demonstrate something powerful to the people they lead: improvement is never finished. The lieutenant colonel can still become a better officer. The CEO can still become a better executive. The professor can still become a better teacher. The thirty-year professional can still discover that a twenty-five-year-old employee understands something important that he does not. None of this diminishes experience. It gives experience continued relevance.

There is a reason the best leaders I have known remain intensely curious late into their careers. They read. They listen. They seek criticism. They ask junior people what they think. They revisit assumptions that once seemed obvious. They study their competitors and their enemies. They are willing to discover that something they believed for twenty years was incomplete, outdated, or simply wrong. Their accumulated experience becomes a foundation for additional learning rather than a substitute for it.

Eventually, every leader reaches a point where experience alone can carry him surprisingly far. You know the routines. You understand the institution. You recognize familiar problems and can often anticipate outcomes before younger colleagues even understand the question. That is when complacency becomes most seductive. It is also when deliberate learning becomes most important.

Because leadership is not a credential you earn once. It is not a rank, a title, an office, or a position on an organizational chart. Leadership is an ongoing responsibility to understand the environment well enough to help other people navigate it. The world keeps changing whether we are studying it or not. Our organizations keep changing. Our competitors keep learning. Our enemies keep adapting.

The question is whether we are doing the same.

The moment we decide that our experience has taught us everything we need to know, we may continue to hold the position. We may continue to have the title. People may continue to salute us, report to us, or sit through our meetings.

But we have already stopped leading.

_____________________________

Charles served over 27 years in the US Army, which included seven combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan with various Special Operations Forces units and two stints as an instructor at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He also completed operational tours in Egypt, the Philippines, and the Republic of Korea and earned a Doctor of Business Administration from Temple University as well as a Master of Arts in International Relations from Yale University. He is the owner of The Havok Journal, and the views expressed herein are his own and do not reflect those of the US Government or any other person or entity.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.