The Myth of Standing Still: Leadership and the Principle of Reversibility

What takes years to build can be lost in months because organizations, like bodies, are always adapting.

One of the foundational principles of exercise science is the principle of reversibility. The concept is straightforward: the body adapts to the demands placed upon it, but those adaptations are not permanent. Strength, endurance, flexibility, coordination, and cardiovascular fitness are all temporary achievements maintained through continued effort. When training stops, the body begins to surrender the very qualities it worked so hard to acquire.

What makes reversibility particularly important is that the relationship between building and losing is not symmetrical. A person may spend six months developing measurable strength gains through disciplined resistance training, only to experience significant declines after several weeks of inactivity. Research on detraining consistently demonstrates that physiological adaptations begin to diminish once the stimulus that created them is removed. The body does not preserve strength out of sentiment. It responds to present demands rather than past accomplishments.

Leadership follows a remarkably similar pattern. Many leaders assume that once an organization reaches a certain level of success, stability naturally follows. They inherit strong systems, capable people, established traditions, and a culture shaped by years of effort. Because those structures already exist, it becomes easy to believe they will continue functioning on their own. Yet organizations, like bodies, are never standing still. They are either becoming stronger or becoming weaker. They are either reinforcing the habits that created success or gradually abandoning them. The danger is that organizational decline often occurs quietly enough that it can be mistaken for stability.

The Science of Reversibility

Exercise physiologists have long understood that physical fitness is not a permanent possession. Muscle tissue, cardiovascular conditioning, and athletic performance all represent adaptations to repeated stress. When a person consistently challenges the body through resistance training, the body responds by becoming stronger. When that challenge is removed, the body begins conserving resources. Muscle mass decreases, cardiovascular capacity declines, and performance deteriorates.

Importantly, decline often occurs much faster than improvement. A novice athlete may spend months developing the ability to perform a difficult movement correctly. A competitive athlete may spend years refining technique and building strength. Yet measurable losses can begin within weeks of inactivity. The body follows a simple rule: what is not regularly demanded is no longer maintained.

The lesson extends far beyond the gym. The same principle applies to every system that depends upon disciplined maintenance. Relationships require attention. Skills require practice. Institutions require stewardship. Excellence is not a destination one reaches and permanently occupies. It is a condition sustained through continual effort. The moment maintenance ceases, reversibility begins.

Organizations Follow the Same Rule

Organizations possess their own forms of muscle. Competence is organizational muscle. Accountability is organizational muscle. Leadership development is organizational muscle. Trust, culture, institutional memory, and shared expectations are all forms of strength developed over time through repeated action.

These qualities are difficult to build. A culture of accountability may require years of consistent leadership. Developing future leaders often takes longer than developing current ones. Trust accumulates through hundreds of small interactions, fulfilled commitments, and demonstrated competence. None of these emerge quickly.

Yet deterioration can occur surprisingly fast. Expectations that were once non-negotiable become optional. Standards that were once enforced become suggestions. Participation that was once expected becomes voluntary. Small exceptions become accepted practices. The organization adapts to lower demands just as the body adapts to lower physical workloads.

The most dangerous aspect of this process is that it rarely appears dramatic. Organizations do not typically collapse overnight. More often, they gradually become less effective while maintaining the appearance of normal operation. Meetings continue to occur. Reports continue to be given. Activities continue to be scheduled. To a casual observer, little seems different. Yet beneath the surface, the organization may already be experiencing the equivalent of institutional atrophy.

Accountability: The First Muscle to Atrophy

One of the earliest signs of organizational decline appears in the way leaders understand accountability. Healthy leaders view accountability as a leadership tool. Struggling leaders increasingly view accountability as blame.

The distinction is significant. Blame focuses on identifying who caused a problem. Accountability focuses on determining who will address it. Blame seeks explanations. Accountability seeks solutions. Blame is often defensive. Accountability is inherently proactive.

When leaders begin losing their grip on accountability, they frequently become preoccupied with external causes. Problems are attributed to circumstances, difficult personalities, changing conditions, inadequate support, or the failures of others. While these factors may contain elements of truth, they often obscure the central question leadership requires: What is my responsibility in this situation?

The moment a leader accepts responsibility, he gains the ability to influence the outcome. The moment he rejects responsibility, he surrenders much of that influence. This is why accountability functions as a leadership tool rather than a punishment. Leaders who consistently ask what actions they can take tend to strengthen organizations. Leaders who focus primarily on why problems exist often become trapped in cycles of explanation and frustration.

Like physical strength, accountability weakens when it is no longer exercised.

Harmony and the Illusion of Health

A second symptom of organizational decline emerges when leaders begin confusing harmony with the absence of conflict. This misunderstanding is common because both conditions can appear similar from the outside. Meetings proceed without argument. Discussions remain polite. Few objections are raised. Decisions appear to move forward without resistance. To many observers, these conditions seem to indicate a healthy and harmonious organization.

Exercise science provides a useful analogy. Consider an individual climbing a flight of stairs. Upon reaching the top, an observer might conclude that the individual is physically fit because the task was completed successfully. Yet a closer examination could reveal a very different reality. The individual's heart rate may be excessively elevated. Blood pressure may spike dramatically. Recovery may take far longer than expected. Blood chemistry may indicate significant health concerns. The ability to complete a task does not necessarily indicate health. It merely demonstrates that the individual has not yet reached the point of failure.

Organizations often operate in precisely the same way. They continue functioning long after underlying weaknesses have begun to develop. Meetings still occur. Events still happen. Reports are still presented. Yet participation may be declining, future leaders may not be developing, institutional knowledge may be disappearing, and critical responsibilities may be going unfulfilled. Because the organization continues operating, leaders may convince themselves that everything is functioning properly. In reality, they may simply be observing an organization that has not yet reached the point where its weaknesses can no longer be concealed.

True harmony is not the absence of conflict. Harmony exists when the various parts of a system are functioning effectively together toward a common purpose. A healthy team may experience disagreement because members care enough to identify problems before they become crises. A healthy organization may engage in difficult conversations because participants recognize that avoiding problems rarely solves them. Conflict is not always evidence of dysfunction. In many cases, the willingness to address uncomfortable realities is evidence of health.

The danger arises when leaders begin treating every challenge, question, or criticism as a threat to harmony. Once this occurs, legitimate concerns become increasingly difficult to raise. Members learn that silence is safer than honesty. Difficult questions go unasked. Problems remain unaddressed. The organization appears peaceful while slowly becoming weaker. Much like the deconditioned individual climbing the staircase, the outward appearance of functionality masks a growing internal decline.

When Leaders Choose Comfort Over Strength

The principle of reversibility also helps explain a pattern frequently observed in struggling organizations. As standards begin to decline, leaders often become less receptive to the very individuals who are most capable of helping them improve.

Anyone who has spent time in a gym understands the discomfort associated with growth. The coach who points out flaws in technique can be frustrating. The training partner who insists on another repetition can be irritating. The scale, the stopwatch, and the performance log provide objective measurements that may reveal disappointing truths. Yet these sources of discomfort are also the mechanisms through which improvement occurs. Without them, progress becomes difficult to measure and nearly impossible to sustain.

Organizations face a similar challenge. Experienced members, critical thinkers, and individuals willing to ask difficult questions often function as the equivalent of coaches and training partners. They identify weaknesses, point out declining standards, and draw attention to emerging problems. While their observations may be uncomfortable, they provide feedback that allows an organization to adapt before serious deterioration occurs.

Unfortunately, leaders who are presiding over decline often begin interpreting discomfort as hostility. Constructive criticism becomes negativity. Accountability becomes blame. Questions become challenges to authority. Individuals who raise concerns are increasingly viewed as obstacles rather than resources. Over time, leaders may surround themselves with people who are less likely to question decisions and more likely to provide reassurance.

This shift creates a dangerous cycle. The organization becomes more comfortable, but it also becomes less capable of self-correction. Critical feedback diminishes. Warning signs are ignored. The people most willing to identify problems are pushed further from decision-making, while those who offer affirmation gain greater influence. The result resembles the individual who abandons difficult workouts because they are uncomfortable. The immediate experience becomes easier, but the long-term consequences become increasingly severe.

The Speed of Organizational Decline

One of the most important lessons provided by the principle of reversibility is that deterioration often occurs more quickly than expected. Building strength requires consistent effort over long periods of time. Decline requires only the absence of that effort.

Organizations operate according to the same principle. A culture of accountability may take years to establish. A leadership pipeline may require decades to develop. Strong participation, institutional trust, and operational excellence often represent the accumulated efforts of many individuals over many years. Because these achievements take so long to create, leaders sometimes assume they possess a similar degree of permanence.

History suggests otherwise.

Organizations rarely collapse because of a single disastrous decision. More often, they deteriorate through the accumulation of small neglected responsibilities. A standard goes unenforced. A responsibility goes unfulfilled. A problem goes unaddressed. A difficult conversation is postponed. An expectation becomes optional. None of these developments appear significant in isolation. Together, however, they create conditions that accelerate decline.

The process resembles physical detraining. The athlete rarely notices the effects of a missed workout. Nor does the athlete notice the consequences of two missed workouts. Yet weeks later, performance has declined. Endurance has diminished. Strength has decreased. The cumulative effect becomes undeniable. Organizational deterioration follows a similar trajectory. Leaders frequently notice the symptoms only after substantial decline has already occurred.

Conclusion: Every Organization Is Training or Detraining

The principle of reversibility teaches a lesson that extends far beyond exercise science. Strength is never a permanent condition. It is the product of consistent effort applied over time. Once that effort ceases, decline begins.

Organizations are no different. Leadership, accountability, culture, trust, competence, and participation must be continually reinforced. They cannot be inherited and then ignored. They cannot be preserved through optimism alone. They require the same discipline and maintenance that physical fitness demands.

This reality exposes the myth of standing still. Organizations are never frozen in place. They are either strengthening or weakening. They are either reinforcing the habits that created success or adapting to lower expectations. The absence of visible crisis should never be mistaken for evidence of health.

The most effective leaders understand that their responsibility extends beyond managing the present. They recognize that every decision, every standard enforced, every difficult conversation held, and every act of accountability contributes either to organizational strength or organizational decline. Like the disciplined athlete who continues training long after the initial gains have been achieved, they understand that maintenance is not separate from success. Maintenance is success.

The body never stops adapting. Neither do organizations. The only question is whether the adaptation is making them stronger or weaker. What takes years to build can often be lost in months, not because someone intentionally destroys it, but because leaders forget that every organization is always training or detraining.

References

American College of Sports Medicine. (2021). ACSM's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Bompa, T. O., & Buzzichelli, C. (2019). Periodization: Theory and methodology of training (6th ed.). Human Kinetics.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don't. HarperBusiness.

Drucker, P. F. (2006). The effective executive. HarperBusiness. (Original work published 1967)

Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Kraemer, W. J., et al. (2002). Detraining produces minimal changes in physical performance and hormonal variables in recreationally strength-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(3), 373–382.

Mujika, I., & Padilla, S. (2000). Detraining: Loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Sports Medicine, 30(2), 79–87.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.). Doubleday.

Trust, Competence, and the First Follower: A Leadership Philosophy Revisited

Author's Note: This essay began as a personal leadership philosophy paper for a college leadership course, but it evolved into something more meaningful. Nineteen years after publishing Leadership: Texas Hold'em Style, I revisited my original definition of leadership as the art of influencing people toward organizational goals and examined it through the lens of contemporary leadership theory and research. Along the way, I found unexpected connections to my current writing project, Leadership in the Age of Sail, particularly regarding trust, competence, followership, and influence. Rather than changing my understanding of leadership, this course strengthened it by providing academic support for lessons learned through decades of professional service, volunteer leadership, and community involvement. This essay is both a reflection on leadership and an exploration of the foundations that make influence possible.

    Nineteen years ago, in Leadership: Texas Hold'em Style, I defined leadership as the art of influencing people toward organizational goals. At the time, I intentionally chose the word influence because it encompassed the broadest range of leadership behaviors. Leaders influence through encouragement, coaching, mentoring, persuasion, example, discipline, and, when necessary, corrective action. Every leadership action is ultimately an attempt to influence human behavior toward a desired outcome. While I recognized that trust was an essential component of influence, my understanding of leadership was primarily centered on the leader's ability to move people and organizations toward meaningful objectives. After completing this course, I realize that my original definition remains largely intact, but my understanding of how influence is created, sustained, and exercised has become significantly more sophisticated.

One of the most significant concepts reinforced during this course was trustworthiness. As I am currently working on another book, Leadership in the Age of Sail, I have devoted an entire chapter to the subject of trust. Consequently, our group work and discussions surrounding trustworthiness were particularly relevant to my current research and writing. What I found most valuable was the emphasis on competence as a foundational component of trust. While integrity, honesty, and ethical behavior are essential, they are not sufficient by themselves. Followers must also believe that a leader possesses the knowledge, skills, judgment, and experience necessary to navigate challenges successfully.

This concept resonated with me because it aligned closely with conclusions I had already begun developing in my writing. A leader may have excellent intentions, but if followers doubt the leader's competence, trust will eventually erode. Conversely, highly competent leaders who lack integrity may achieve short-term success but ultimately undermine trust through their actions. The research examined during our group project demonstrated that trustworthiness rests upon both character and competence. This understanding expanded my original definition of influence by helping me recognize that influence is not simply a product of authority or personality. Sustainable influence is earned through demonstrated competence and reinforced through trustworthy behavior.

The course also expanded my understanding of followership and its relationship to influence. The video commonly known as The Dancing Guy has been one of my favorite leadership teaching tools for years. I have used it repeatedly in presentations, training sessions, and discussions about leadership. However, this course encouraged me to look beyond the obvious lesson of the lone leader and focus instead on the role of the first follower.

In many of the community organizations where I serve, I often find myself acting as the first follower rather than the person introducing a new idea. Community leadership differs from many traditional organizational settings because success frequently depends on recognizing good ideas developed by others and helping them gain momentum. The ability to identify a worthwhile vision and become its champion may be just as valuable as originating the vision itself. The first follower transforms an individual's action into a movement. Reflecting on this concept caused me to reconsider influence as something that does not belong exclusively to formal leaders. Influence can also be exercised by those who recognize potential, support others, and encourage collective action around a worthwhile goal.

Another important contribution of this course came through Adam Grant's Think Again. Grant argues that effective leaders must remain open to new information and willing to reconsider their assumptions. I found this perspective useful because it reflects a lesson I have learned repeatedly throughout my professional and volunteer experiences. Some of the most valuable people in any organization are those willing to challenge prevailing assumptions and ask difficult questions.

Throughout my career, I have intentionally sought out individuals who are willing to challenge my thinking. In environments where decisions carry significant consequences, mistakes can have far-reaching effects. Whether in law enforcement, community service, or organizational leadership, leaders benefit from people who are willing to identify flaws, question assumptions, and propose alternatives. At the same time, I believe leadership requires balance. There are situations involving ethics, safety, public trust, and organizational liability where leaders must firmly defend core principles. Openness to new ideas should not become indecision. Intellectual humility requires leaders to remain teachable while maintaining the courage to stand firm when circumstances demand it.

Several leadership theories explored during this course support my longstanding belief that leadership is fundamentally about influence. Servant leadership, in particular, aligns closely with my philosophy because it suggests that influence grows when leaders focus on helping others succeed. Rather than viewing leadership as a means of exercising power, servant leadership views leadership as a responsibility to develop people and help them reach their potential. This perspective mirrors my own experiences in volunteer organizations, community service, and professional leadership roles.

Authentic leadership also resonates strongly with my understanding of influence. Authentic leaders create influence by aligning their actions with their values and demonstrating consistency over time. Followers are more likely to trust and follow leaders whose actions match their words. Similarly, transformational leadership focuses on inspiring individuals toward a shared vision and motivating them to accomplish more than they believed possible. While these theories approach leadership from different directions, they all reinforce the central idea that leadership occurs through influence rather than authority.

As I reflect upon this course, I find that my original definition of leadership remains valid. Leadership is still the art of influencing people toward organizational goals. However, I now possess a deeper appreciation for the factors that create and sustain influence. Trustworthiness, competence, followership, intellectual humility, and service to others all contribute to a leader's ability to influence effectively. The course did not replace my understanding of leadership; rather, it provided academic support and theoretical frameworks for ideas I had largely developed through experience.

The most significant impact of this course was helping me better understand the foundations of influence. Nineteen years ago, I focused primarily on the outcome—the ability of leaders to influence people toward worthwhile objectives. This course encouraged me to look more closely at the underlying mechanisms that make influence possible. Trust must be earned. Competence must be demonstrated. Followers must choose to participate. Leaders must remain humble enough to learn while possessing the confidence to act. Together, these lessons strengthened my leadership philosophy and provided new insights that I will apply in my professional work, community service, and ongoing writing projects. Whether serving as a leader or as the first follower, my objective remains unchanged: to help people move toward meaningful goals while becoming better versions of themselves along the way.

 

References

Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don't know. Viking.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.

 

 

Pennsylvania Guard Shapes Army's Extended Basic Leader Course

May 26, 2026 | By Army Sgt. 1st Class Shane Smith, 166th Regiment - Regional Training Institute |

National Guard members assigned to Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, are leading the validation effort for the Army's expanded basic leader course, refining the curriculum before it is implemented forcewide later this year. 

The 166th Regiment - Regional Training Institute, which provides training and support to develop leaders through professional military education and training, is serving as the validation site for the new 29-day course. 

Conducted from April 28 to May 26, the validation course expands the previous 23-day curriculum, creating a more field-intensive leadership experience that places soldiers in tactical scenarios designed to evaluate decision-making, troop-leading procedures and squad-level leadership under stress. 

The validation builds on a recent active-duty pilot course conducted at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and positions the Pennsylvania National Guard at the forefront of implementing and refining the Army's updated curriculum for junior noncommissioned officers before fielding it forcewide. 

As part of the validation effort, Regional Training Institute leaders from Nebraska, Colorado, Ohio, Mississippi and Vermont traveled to Pennsylvania to observe how the 166th Regiment planned and executed the new field-focused training. The visiting instructors reviewed training products, lesson plans and evaluation methods that may later be adopted by Regional Training Institutes across the National Guard enterprise. 

"Nothing from the 23-day [basic leader course] is being lost," said Army Master Sgt. James Webb, 166th Regiment basic leader course chief of training. "But a lot is being added — what we're calling reps and sets — which is essentially an additional six or seven days of field training." 

Under the updated program of instruction, students now spend eight days in the field conducting leader-stakes training, land navigation and a culminating situational training exercise that evaluates leadership performance in realistic combat scenarios. 

During the leader-stakes portion of the course, soldiers rotate through training lanes that hone their skill level 10 tasks — entry-level skills required of junior enlisted soldiers, also known as warrior tasks and battle drills. These include medical skills, weapons proficiencies, patrolling techniques and vehicle recovery operations that progressively build tactical proficiency and confidence while preparing soldiers for leadership evaluations later in the course. 

Students train on tasks such as reacting to ambushes and indirect fire, evacuating casualties, requesting medical evacuations, conducting patrol base operations and leading troops. The training grows more complex each day. 

The culminating exercise places soldiers in leadership positions, during which they receive fragmentary orders, develop plans, brief subordinates and execute missions under time constraints and simulated battlefield conditions. 

"The end goal is to develop team and squad-level leaders by putting students in a tactical position and having them execute troop-leading procedures and make decisions," Webb said. "We're not grading them on their ability to do battle drills; we're grading them on the ability to make decisions in a stressful environment." 

During the course, Army Sgt. Maj. Elizandro Jimenez, a basic leader course manager assigned to the U.S. Army Noncommissioned Officer Academy at Fort Bliss, Texas, visited the 166th Regiment to observe how the team implemented the new program and provided feedback on the evolving courseware. 

"Pennsylvania's cadre demonstrated exceptional adaptability while implementing this new curriculum," Jimenez said. "The work being done here is helping shape how the Army develops future noncommissioned officers across the force." 

Students participating in the pilot course said the additional training time and increased tactical focus have made the experience more valuable and realistic. 

"I think the extra week of training will really help people fully understand their roles as NCOs," said Army Sgt. Tyler Kase, a combat engineer assigned to the Pennsylvania National Guard. "It's changed my perspective as a leader and how I'll handle things moving forward when I return to my unit." 

Army Sgt. Drayton Coyle, an infantryman and team leader assigned to the Massachusetts National Guard, said the expanded field training better prepares junior leaders for unpredictable operational environments. 

"You don't know what's going to happen in the Army," Coyle said. "The operational environment and the way we fight is rapidly changing. Having that culminating event — that [situational training exercise] at the end of the course — will help us prepare." 

Give Them Wings, Teach Them to Fly: The Making of a Phoenix Raven

May 21, 2026 | By Jewaun McElroy, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst |

Opportunity, challenge, travel, legacy — these guiding words form the motivational reason for Air Force security forces defenders as they push through the demanding 28-day Phoenix Raven Qualification Course with the 421st Combat Training Squadron at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. 

Phoenix Ravens are tasked with safeguarding aircraft, personnel and critical assets in austere locations where threats may be elevated or unpredictable.

The course equips airmen with the advanced skills and adaptability required for this specialized mission. The curriculum emphasizes cross-cultural awareness, legal considerations, embassy operations, airfield assessment techniques, explosive ordnance recognition, aircraft search procedures and unarmed self-defense. 

"It's our job to prepare these candidates to be able to go straight from graduation to the operational mission and to be able to perform," said Air Force Staff Sgt. Joshua Pineda, course instructor. "We tailor training to be as intense as possible and push them as hard as we can, because our teammates downrange or in hubs right now are depending on us to get it right here." 

The course leadership team is composed of current Ravens, as well as subject matter experts from explosive ordnance disposal, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the base judge advocate office.  

From Day 1, trainees are placed in an intense, fast-paced environment designed to test and exceed standard operational limits. Instructors enforce strict discipline and attention to detail, sharpening situational awareness of self, team members and surroundings. 

Physical fitness is consistently integrated as a key training tool, training the mind to maintain mental clarity while replicating the physical strain and fatigue that may be encountered during real-world missions. 

"We push them to their limit here. We try and redline these candidates to put them in a stress inoculation phase that pushes them out to the point where they don't know how to handle a situation," said Air Force Tech. Sgt. Michael Lex, course noncommissioned officer in charge. "We give them the baseline and the foundation to be able to push through that mental barrier, which can happen on every single mission." 

Beyond the stress and mental exhaustion candidates face, conflict de-escalation tests the defenders to see if they have what it takes to earn the coveted Raven tab. 

A Raven's first line of defense is communication. The course emphasizes talking as the primary method for diffusing situations. If those efforts fail, hand-to-hand combat using a baton, a nonlethal weapon, becomes their primary defense. 

To practice these skills, cadets enter the "house of pain" for the initial evaluation. There, they face off against instructors and fellow students wearing distinctive red protective gear. The service member rotates continuously throughout the combative interaction, forcing cadets to adapt to shifting dynamics in the encounter. 

"You never know what you're going to do until you get hit. Not many students that come through have ever been in a fight before, or have gotten hit," Pineda said. "I think the biggest misconception that students have is that there is a way to beat the [evaluation]. The point of training is to beat them but also to teach them to take the hit, keep going and get that situation under control." 

As military operations worldwide evolve, the course leaders continue to play a vital role in securing assets across the globe. They maintain operational proficiency through deployments during their tenure at the training squadron. This real-world experience helps shape the curriculum and enhance credibility with students. 

Weeks of classroom instruction and training for cadets culminate in a field training exercise aboard a decommissioned C-130 Hercules aircraft. Instructors transform into adversaries in scenarios based on past Raven missions, testing to see if students can navigate their way through high-stress, simulated deployment scenarios to protect their assets and personnel. 

Upon completion of the course, graduates are awarded the coveted Raven tab, identifying them as certified Phoenix Ravens, members of an elite force who are ready to tackle any challenge ahead. 

"I think the tab means a lot to everybody [who] wears it, because we all get trauma bonded by surviving the course or any mission that we fly on that may go the wrong way. Like in Afghanistan or Operation Epic Fury, you can experience indirect fire or drones flying at you with [weapons]," Lex said. "You might not be expecting that to happen, but when you look to your left and right, you see the Ravens [who] are there with you, and you know you will get through it together." 

Ravens remain a force that is routinely called upon to protect Air Force personnel, aircraft and resources in uncertain environments around the world. Forged through adversity, discipline and trust, each graduate leaves the course carrying more than just the tab; they carry the responsibility of safeguarding the mission and legacy of those who have served before them.

The Most Dangerous Phrase in Lodge Leadership

Author’s Note

This is probably a very good essay filled with sound advice, hard truths, and warnings that could help many organizations avoid preventable decline.

Almost no one who truly needs to read it will.

Some will dismiss it as too harsh. Some will assume it applies to someone else. Others will nod in agreement while continuing exactly as before. Institutions rarely collapse because they lacked warnings. They collapse because warnings are uncomfortable, and comfort is easier than accountability.

Still, I wrote it because certain things need to be said out loud, even when they are unlikely to change minds.

And honestly, writing it made me feel better.

Within many nonprofit organizations, fraternal groups, Masonic Hall Associations, and trustee boards, one phrase is repeated with almost casual confidence when recruiting officers, directors, or trustees:

“Don’t worry. It’s only one meeting a month.”

At first glance, the statement appears harmless. It is often intended to reassure hesitant volunteers that service will not overwhelm their personal lives. Yet beneath that seemingly innocent phrase lies one of the most destructive attitudes in institutional governance. The “one meeting a month” mindset minimizes responsibility, lowers expectations, attracts unprepared leadership, and gradually erodes the culture of stewardship necessary to preserve organizations and their assets for future generations.

The greatest danger of this mentality is that it fundamentally misunderstands what governance actually is. Governance is not attendance. Governance is responsibility. A trustee or director does not fulfill his obligation merely by sitting in a chair once a month, listening to reports, and voting on motions. The true responsibility exists continuously — every day between meetings — because the fiduciary duty never pauses. Buildings continue to age, leases continue to bind the organization, insurance exposure continues to exist, and financial liabilities continue to accumulate whether a board meets or not.

This misunderstanding is especially dangerous within Masonic Hall Associations and fraternal organizations because these institutions often manage aging and historically significant properties with limited financial reserves. A Hall Association board may oversee:

• commercial tenants,

• mortgages,

• insurance policies,

• capital improvement projects,

• investment accounts,

• maintenance contracts,

• legal compliance issues,

• and long-term preservation planning.

These are not ceremonial obligations. They are serious fiduciary responsibilities involving real financial and legal exposure. Yet when potential trustees are told that the role only involves “one meeting a month,” the organization unintentionally communicates that expertise, preparation, and active engagement are unnecessary. The office becomes viewed as symbolic rather than consequential.

The result is often the recruitment of individuals based not upon competence, but availability, popularity, or seniority. Instead of seeking people with experience in finance, law, construction, real estate, risk management, or nonprofit governance, organizations begin selecting directors merely because they are willing to occupy the seat. Over time, this creates boards that lack the collective knowledge necessary to govern responsibly.

One of the most damaging consequences of passive governance is deferred maintenance. Many institutional crises begin not with corruption or scandal, but with neglect. Roof repairs are postponed. Electrical systems are ignored. Reserve funds are depleted without replenishment. Insurance coverage becomes outdated. Tenant agreements go unreviewed. Each individual decision may appear minor, but together they create a slow institutional decay that can ultimately destroy an organization’s financial stability.

The danger is magnified because deterioration often happens gradually. A board operating under the “one meeting a month” mentality tends to become reactive rather than strategic. Problems are addressed only after they become emergencies. By the time a failing roof, structural issue, or financial shortfall becomes impossible to ignore, the cost of correction may exceed the organization’s ability to recover.

Another serious symptom of the “one meeting a month” mentality is the gradual breakdown of the meeting process itself. Ironically, organizations that minimize governance often become unable to govern at all. One of the clearest warning signs is the repeated failure to achieve a quorum.

Boards typically fail to maintain quorum because members no longer view attendance as a fiduciary obligation. Once the role is psychologically reduced to a casual volunteer activity rather than a position of institutional responsibility, attendance becomes optional in the minds of many directors. Personal schedules, minor inconveniences, fatigue, or simple disinterest begin to take priority over governance duties. Over time, directors stop preparing, stop engaging, and eventually stop attending altogether.

This creates a dangerous cycle. As attendance declines, productive board members become frustrated by the inability to conduct business. Meetings are postponed, decisions delayed, and unresolved issues accumulate month after month. Eventually, even responsible members begin disengaging because they feel the organization has become ineffective. The board slowly drifts into paralysis.

The consequences can be severe. Without quorum:

• contracts cannot be formally approved,

• expenditures may lack authorization,

• leases may go unsigned,

• maintenance projects may stall,

• insurance issues may remain unresolved,

• and financial oversight weakens dramatically.

Critical decisions are deferred while liabilities continue growing in the background. Buildings deteriorate, tenants become frustrated, and organizational credibility suffers. In some cases, the inability to maintain quorum becomes the first visible sign of a deeper institutional collapse.

Perhaps even more dangerous is what often replaces formal meetings: governance by text message, email chains, hallway conversations, or informal side agreements. When trustees stop meeting regularly but continue attempting to make decisions electronically or informally, the organization enters extremely hazardous territory both legally and operationally.

Governance by text message creates several serious problems.

First, it destroys transparency. Proper meetings create structure:

• agendas,

• recorded motions,

• documented votes,

• minutes,

• debate,

• and accountability.

Text conversations rarely provide these safeguards. Important decisions become fragmented across multiple private conversations. Some directors may be excluded entirely. There may be no clear record of who voted, what alternatives were considered, or whether proper procedures were followed.

Second, informal electronic governance weakens deliberation. Complex fiduciary decisions require discussion, questioning, and collective analysis. Text messaging encourages rushed reactions rather than thoughtful governance. Nuance disappears. Directors may approve significant expenditures, contracts, or legal positions with little meaningful review simply because responding electronically feels casual and low-risk.

Third, governance by text may violate bylaws, corporate governance rules, and nonprofit legal requirements. Many nonprofit and mutual benefit corporations require:

• formal meetings,

• proper notice,

• quorum,

• recorded minutes,

• and documented votes.

Boards that operate primarily through text messages may unknowingly expose themselves to challenges regarding the legitimacy of their decisions. In extreme cases, unauthorized actions may create liability for individual directors or invalidate corporate actions entirely.

The deeper problem, however, is cultural. A board that governs primarily through text messaging often reflects an organization that has stopped treating governance as a serious institutional responsibility. The board becomes reactive, fragmented, and personality-driven rather than structured and accountable. Decisions begin occurring through convenience instead of process.

This is especially dangerous in Masonic Hall Associations because they frequently manage:

• valuable real estate,

• long-term leases,

• restricted funds,

• historical property,

• and major fiduciary obligations.

Such institutions cannot be responsibly governed through sporadic text exchanges and informal consensus. Stewardship requires discipline, structure, and active participation.

A functioning board is not simply a collection of names on paper. It is a deliberative body. The meeting itself serves an essential legal and organizational purpose: it gathers fiduciaries together in one place to collectively exercise judgment on behalf of the institution. When boards stop meeting, they stop governing in any meaningful sense.

Equally dangerous is the psychological effect the “one meeting a month” attitude creates within the board itself. When leadership is minimized, responsibility becomes diffused. Individual directors subconsciously assume someone else is paying attention. Meetings become procedural rather than analytical. Financial reports are accepted without scrutiny. Motions are approved without investigation. Important questions go unasked because members begin to believe their presence alone satisfies their obligation.

This environment creates the perfect conditions for institutional failure. In some organizations, passive boards allow one dominant individual to assume unchecked control because nobody else is sufficiently engaged to provide oversight. In others, no one truly understands the finances, contracts, or liabilities because nobody has taken the time to learn them. Either condition is dangerous. Effective governance requires active participation, informed decision-making, and the courage to ask difficult questions.

Another serious danger is the loss of institutional memory and heritage. Masonic halls and fraternal properties are often more than real estate. They are repositories of history, tradition, and identity accumulated across generations. Many were built through the sacrifice and labor of members long deceased. A careless or inattentive board can lose in a few years what took a century to build. Once sold, neglected beyond repair, or financially exhausted, such institutions are rarely recovered.

The “one meeting a month” attitude also distorts the moral dimension of fiduciary service. Trusteeship is not merely administrative; it is ethical stewardship. A trustee or director holds assets in trust not only for current members, but for future generations. The position demands prudence, diligence, preparation, and accountability. It requires individuals who understand that their role is custodial rather than ceremonial. To minimize that responsibility is to weaken the culture of stewardship upon which long-term institutional survival depends.

Healthy organizations understand this distinction. They do not recruit trustees by downplaying the seriousness of the office. Instead, they communicate both the honor and responsibility attached to the role. They seek directors who are willing to study reports, ask questions, develop expertise, and actively protect the institution’s future. They understand that good governance is not measured by meeting frequency, but by the quality of oversight exercised between meetings.

In truth, the monthly meeting is often the smallest part of the job. The real work of governance occurs in preparation, analysis, strategic thinking, oversight, and stewardship. Buildings do not preserve themselves. Investments do not protect themselves. Institutions do not survive automatically. They survive because responsible individuals understand that fiduciary duty is continuous.

The phrase “it’s only one meeting a month” therefore represents more than a misunderstanding of time commitment. It reflects a misunderstanding of leadership itself. And when that mindset becomes embedded in an organization’s culture, decline is rarely far behind.

A wiser philosophy would recognize the true nature of fiduciary service:

The meeting may occur once a month, but the responsibility exists every day.

Senior Leaders Discuss Recruiting STEM Candidates Into Special Ops

May 19, 2026 | By Matthew Olay, Pentagon News |

During a panel discussion at the Special Operations Forces Week 2026 convention in Tampa, Florida, today, a pair of senior SOF leaders discussed how to bring more recruits with science, technology, engineering and mathematics backgrounds into SOF formations.

Navy Adm. Frank M. Bradley, commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, and Marine Corps Gen. Francis L. Donovan, commander of U.S. Southern Command, discussed the topic during a panel discussion on SOF integration into the joint force.

When asked how to attract more SOF recruits with STEM backgrounds, Bradley said the best way to gain such talent is to challenge those individuals.

"You have to provide challenges for people who are STEM-oriented to solve, [and] the good thing is the world's providing plenty of those [challenges] for us. … I don't have to create new challenges to attract STEM-oriented professionals who want to fight and use their intellect to solve those problems, [because the problems] are abundant," Bradley said.

He elaborated that the SOF community is currently going through a transformation that is focused on modernization aimed at establishing operational test and evaluation elements within SOF formations that are capable of working with engineers and acquisition professionals to solve difficult problems through both technical means and creative approaches.  

Bradley also spoke about the need to introduce children to STEM-related subjects early.

"We need to realize that tomorrow's recruits coming into the military are sitting at your kitchen tables. And so, if you want more recruits in the future who are STEM-oriented in the military, we need to give our families an opportunity to be exposed and inculcated with an interest in [STEM]," Bradley explained. 

As one example of how to get children to take on such an interest, Bradley spoke about the military's partnership with Congress and key policymakers to invest STEM outreach dollars into academic institutions with high-quality STEM cultivation programs. 

"[We can] focus [families] on our counterpart force concentration centers to help those families to have opportunity for robot camps, drone camps, coding camps — anything to do with introducing that interest at a very young age — so that, as we all aspire to, we can make the next generation smarter and better than ourselves," Bradley said.

Donovan weighed in on the topic, noting the importance of future service members needing to maintain a balance between being heavily STEM-oriented and also warrior-centric.

"I think there's a split point here we have to make sure that we're very aware of. … We want a place for everyone," Donovan explained in reference to finding such a balance. 

"Because I still think whether it's SOF or conventional forces, we have to have young Americans that … when the chips are down, they leave that ramp in the back of a [military vehicle] and move into the hardest day of their lives; and they need teammates from the left and right that [also] have the grit to see the mission done," he continued.

Donovan added that, while he views STEM and advanced technologies as value-added to the force, military technology should never fully replace humans.

"We can never … step away from the fact that, anytime we talk about autonomous systems, I'm never ever saying that there's not going to be a human included. … Because someone still has to place their foot on a piece of ground to declare victory, and that will never go away," he said.

The War Department has invested in STEM in one form or another since 2005. Presently, the department's DOW STEM program mission is to "inspire, cultivate, and develop exceptional STEM talent through a continuum of opportunities to enrich our current and future Department of War workforce poised to tackle evolving defense technological challenges," according to the program's website.

The Silent Square of Leadership

Among the working tools of Freemasonry, few possess deeper symbolic meaning than the Square. It is the emblem of virtue, integrity, and moral conduct. Yet within the ritual itself lies a quieter lesson often overlooked. The Square, representing the Worshipful Master—the leader of the lodge—is placed first upon the altar and removed last when the work is complete. In that simple act, Freemasonry communicates one of the oldest truths of leadership: the leader is the first to arrive and the last to leave.

The symbolism is neither accidental nor decorative. It reflects an expectation that leadership is rooted not in privilege, but in service. The Master does not stand above the lodge as a ruler detached from labor. He stands responsible for it. Before the brethren arrive, he prepares the work. After they depart, his obligations remain. The Square stays because the duties of leadership continue long after recognition fades.

This principle closely parallels what modern scholars describe as servant leadership. Robert K. Greenleaf argued that the true leader is not defined by authority alone, but by a willingness to serve first. Greenleaf wrote:

“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.” (Greenleaf, 1970, p. 7)

Freemasonry expressed this concept symbolically long before it was formally named in academic literature. The Master’s role is not ceremonial prestige; it is enduring responsibility. The Square is placed first because leadership must begin before others are ready to labor. It is picked up last because leadership remains after others are finished.

History’s greatest military leaders often embraced this same philosophy. George Washington, perhaps the most recognized Masonic military leader in American history, understood that leadership depended upon visible personal conduct. He wrote:

“Example, whether it be good or bad, has a powerful influence.” (Washington, 1788/1939, Vol. 29, p. 492)

Washington’s words reveal why the Square occupies its symbolic position. Leadership is contagious. A leader’s discipline, punctuality, sacrifice, and composure spread throughout the organization just as quickly as laziness or indifference. If the Master arrives unprepared, the lodge becomes unprepared. If he approaches the work with seriousness and integrity, the brethren are far more likely to do the same. The Square is first because example must come before instruction.

General Douglas MacArthur echoed this same belief nearly two centuries later in his famous address to the cadets at West Point:

“The officer must set the example.” (MacArthur, 1962)

MacArthur’s statement was simple, but profound. Rank alone cannot inspire loyalty or excellence. Men follow conduct more willingly than commands. The officer who avoids hardship while expecting sacrifice from others eventually loses moral authority. The same principle applies within the lodge. The Worshipful Master cannot ask the brethren for dedication if he himself is absent from the labor. The Square remaining until the close of the lodge symbolizes that leadership does not retreat from responsibility when the work becomes inconvenient or exhausting.

Even among enlisted men turned battlefield heroes, the same lesson appears. Audie Murphy, the most decorated American combat soldier of the Second World War and a Freemason, became legendary not merely because of bravery, but because he consistently led from the front. Murphy stated plainly:

“You lead from the front.”

Though brief, the statement captures the ancient understanding shared by soldiers and Masons alike: true leadership is visible. The leader does not push others into danger while remaining safely behind. He stands where the burden is greatest. Within Freemasonry, this symbolism is reflected in the Master’s position at the head of the lodge, bearing responsibility for its harmony, instruction, and conduct.

The lesson of the Square also challenges many modern ideas about leadership. Contemporary culture often associates leadership with status, visibility, or personal advancement. Freemasonry teaches something different. The Square reminds us that leadership is often quiet, repetitive, and unnoticed. It is arriving before anyone else to prepare the lodge room. It is mentoring younger brethren after meetings have ended. It is ensuring harmony during disagreement. It is carrying responsibility even when no recognition follows.

The operative origins of the Square deepen this symbolism further. In stonemasonry, the square ensured that the structure being built would stand true. A wall improperly squared endangered the stability of the entire building. Likewise, weak or careless leadership threatens the moral stability of the lodge itself. The Master must therefore embody consistency, steadiness, and upright conduct so that the symbolic temple remains strong.

The ritual action of placing the Square first and removing it last therefore teaches a timeless principle. Leadership is not about occupying the highest seat. It is about bearing the longest burden.

The Square is silent, yet its lesson endures.

The leader arrives first.

The leader leaves last.

And between those moments, he sets the example by which all others labor.

References

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

MacArthur, D. (1962, May 12). Duty, honor, country. Address delivered to the Corps of Cadets, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY.

Murphy, A. Quoted in military leadership collections and biographical summaries of Murphy’s battlefield leadership.

Washington, G. (1939). The writings of George Washington (J. C. Fitzpatrick, Ed., Vol. 29). U.S. Government Printing Office. (Original work written 1788)

Bluffing Leadership: When Image Replaces Substance

There’s a moment at the poker table when everyone knows.

No one says it out loud. No chips are pushed yet. But the shift is there—subtle, quiet, unmistakable. The player who has been pushing hard, betting confidently, projecting control… has been read.

The bluff isn’t working anymore.

Leadership works the same way.

The problem is, most leaders don’t realize when they’ve crossed the line from strategy into habit—from calculated signal into constant performance. In poker, a bluff is a tool. In leadership, it becomes a crutch. And once that happens, the outcome is predictable. You might win a few hands. But eventually, you lose the table.

The Performance Trap

Bluffing leadership is not about outright deception. It’s more subtle than that.

It’s the leader who speaks with certainty they haven’t earned.
The leader who projects vision they haven’t fully formed.
The leader who substitutes confidence for competence—and hopes no one notices.

At first, it works.

People respond to confidence. Organizations often reward presence, decisiveness, and the appearance of control. But leadership is not a single hand—it’s a long game. And over time, followers begin to notice patterns. They don’t just listen to what you say; they watch what you do. They measure consistency. They compare words to outcomes.

And when those don’t align, credibility begins to erode.

You don’t lose trust in one moment. You lose it one bluff at a time.

The Limits of the Bluff

In poker, bluffing only works because of reputation. You can represent strength if others believe you’re capable of having it. But bluff too often, and the dynamic shifts. The same move that once commanded respect now invites challenge.

Leadership operates under the same rules.

Every action is a signal. Every decision communicates something. Leaders don’t just give direction—they create meaning. Through their behavior, their presence, and their follow-through, they tell the story of the organization.

But when that story is built on image rather than substance, people begin to read between the lines.

They see the hesitation behind the confidence.
They recognize the gaps behind the vision.
They feel the inconsistency behind the message.

And once they see it, they can’t unsee it.

Authenticity vs. Performance

Leadership theory calls this out more directly. Authentic leadership, at its core, is built on self-awareness, transparency, and alignment between values and actions. It demands that leaders know who they are, communicate honestly, and act consistently.

Bluffing leadership violates all three.

It replaces self-awareness with projection.
It substitutes transparency with impression management.
It trades consistency for short-term advantage.

The result is predictable: people disengage.

Not immediately. Not dramatically. But gradually. Trust doesn’t collapse overnight—it fades. And once it’s gone, no amount of charisma or authority can restore it quickly.

Because trust isn’t built on what you say. It’s built on what people experience.

The Charisma Illusion

Bluffing leadership often hides behind something that looks legitimate: charisma.

Transformational leadership theory emphasizes vision, inspiration, and influence. At its best, it mobilizes people toward something greater than themselves. But stripped of substance, it becomes something else entirely—a performance without foundation.

Vision becomes vague.
Inspiration becomes empty.
Motivation becomes manipulation.

The leader still speaks. The audience still listens. But the connection is gone.

People begin to comply instead of commit. They follow instructions, not purpose. They show up, but they don’t invest.

And the leader, sensing the shift, often doubles down—more communication, more projection, more effort to maintain the image. But that only accelerates the decline.

Because the problem was never communication.

The problem was credibility.

The Cost of Being “Read”

When a bluffing leader is exposed, the damage spreads quickly.

First, trust erodes.
Then, decision-making slows. People hesitate, question, second-guess.
Finally, culture begins to fracture.

Employees take their cues from leadership. If the leader performs, the organization learns to perform. Meetings become theater. Communication becomes scripted. Problems are hidden rather than solved.

What emerges is an organization that looks functional from the outside—but is hollow on the inside.

And by the time leadership realizes what’s happening, the cost is already high.

Turnover increases.
Initiative declines.
And the strongest people—the ones who see clearly—start to leave.

Why Leaders Bluff

Most leaders don’t start this way.

Bluffing leadership is rarely intentional. It’s usually driven by pressure.

The pressure to appear competent.
The pressure to have answers.
The pressure to lead without showing uncertainty.

Somewhere along the way, confidence becomes a requirement rather than a byproduct. Leaders begin to believe they must project certainty—even when they don’t feel it.

And so they bluff.

Not to deceive others—but to protect themselves.

But leadership doesn’t reward protection. It rewards clarity, consistency, and the ability to adapt. The moment a leader prioritizes image over substance, they begin trading long-term credibility for short-term comfort.

It’s a bad trade.

From Bluffing to Credibility

The alternative isn’t weakness. It’s discipline.

Real leaders build substance before they signal it. They prepare. They listen. They think. And when they speak, it carries weight—not because of how it sounds, but because of what stands behind it.

They align words with actions.
They follow through.
They admit when they’re wrong.

And perhaps most importantly, they develop their people instead of managing perception.

Because strong teams expose weak leaders—but they strengthen real ones.

Leadership is not about controlling how others see you. It’s about earning how they experience you.

The Table Always Knows

At the poker table, you can get away with a bluff—once, maybe twice.

But over time, the truth reveals itself. Patterns emerge. Players adjust. And eventually, you’re forced to show your hand.

Leadership is no different.

You can project confidence.
You can craft the message.
You can manage the moment.

But in the end, people will judge you on what you actually do.

Not what you say.
Not what you intend.
Not what you hope they believe.

Just the hand you play.

And the table always knows.