23 Dec 2025, Singapore: Designing a leadership operating program is not hard; the hardest is getting the leadership and your people managers to buy in and put it into practice. Listed below is a framework and elements for a Leadership Operating Model (LOM).
- Leadership Philosophy
- Leader's Intent
- Back-brief
- Red Teaming
- Tactical Pause
- After Action Review (AAR)
For details of Leadership Philosophy, please click the hyperlink: Leadership Philosophy for Engagement
Module 2: Leader's Intent
Leader’s intent (often written as leader’s intent or command intent) is a clear, concise statement that explains what needs to be achieved and why, without prescribing exactly how to do it. It gives people the decision-making compass they need when conditions change.
A leader’s intent describes the desired end state, the purpose behind it, and the key boundaries—so others can act independently and intelligently.
In short:
- What success looks like
- Why it matters
- What must or must not be violated
Leader’s intent originates from mission command in the military, especially the German concept of Auftragstaktik, and has since been adopted in:
- Executive leadership
- Agile and product organizations
- Crisis management
- High-reliability teams (aviation, healthcare, energy)
The 3 Essential Elements of Leader’s Intent
- Purpose (Why) - Why are we doing this? What problem are we solving?
Example: “To protect customer trust during a service disruption.”
- End State (What success looks like) - What conditions must exist when we are successful?
Example: “Customers are informed within 30 minutes, systems are stabilized, and no data is compromised.”
- Boundaries & Constraints (What must not happen) - Non-negotiables, risks to avoid, or principles to uphold.
Example: “Do not expose personal data. Do not speculate externally.”
What Leader’s Intent Is Not
|
Leader’s
Intent |
Not
Leader’s Intent |
|
Outcome focused |
Task checklist |
|
Enable autonomy |
Micro-management |
|
Stable amid change |
Overly detailed instructions |
|
Principle driven |
Role-specific SOPs |
Why Leader’s Intent Matters (Especially in 2025)
In today’s environment — volatile markets, AI-assisted work, hybrid teams—leaders cannot be present for every decision.
Leader’s intent:
- Enables speed with alignment
- Reduces decision paralysis
- Empowers frontline judgment
- Scales leadership beyond hierarchy
High-performing organizations increasingly combine leader’s intent with:
- Objective and Key Results
- Agile ways of working
- High-performance team models
- Crisis and change leadership frameworks
Practical Business Examples
Strategy: “Shift 30% of revenue to recurring services within 18 months to stabilize cash flow—without degrading customer experience.”
People Leadership: “Develop internal successors for critical roles while maintaining delivery continuity.”
Transformation: “Adopt AI to eliminate low-value work, not to reduce headcount.”
Below is a Simple Leader’s Intent Template
- Purpose:
- End State:
- Boundaries / Non-negotiables:
You can fit a strong leader’s intent into 3–5 sentences.
Common Failure Modes
- Too vague (“Do your best”)
- Too detailed (turns into a plan)
- Not reinforced in decisions
- Contradicted by leader's behavior
If leaders override decisions that align with the stated intent, the intent is immediately compromised.
Summary: Leader’s intent aligns independent action by making the purpose, success criteria, and boundaries unmistakably clear.
Module 3 Back-Brief
A back-brief is a two-way
alignment technique where the person receiving a task or intent briefs
it back - in their own words - to confirm shared understanding before
execution.
A back-brief ensures people understand what to do, why it matters, and how success will be judged - before work begins.
Its purpose is clarity, alignment, and risk reduction, not evaluation.
Where Back-Brief Comes From: Back-briefing originates from mission command practices in the military and is now widely used in:
- Executive leadership
- Crisis and incident response
- Healthcare and aviation
- Project and transformation programs
- High-reliability teams
What a Good Back-Brief Includes
|
Element |
What to Listen For |
|
Purpose |
Do they understand why? |
|
End State |
Is success described the same way? |
|
Approach |
Is the plan logical and feasible? |
|
Risks & Assumptions |
Are blind spots surfaced? |
|
Decision Authority |
Do they know what they can decide
independently? |
What Back-Brief Is Not
- ❌ A presentation for approval
- ❌ A loyalty test
- ❌ A detailed execution plan review
- ❌ Micromanagement
Practical Business Examples
Strategy Execution: “Tell me how you understand our objective and how your team will approach it.”
Crisis Response: “Walk me through what you’ll do in the first 60 minutes and what decisions you’ll escalate.”
People Leadership: “How will you balance speed with employee trust in this rollout?”
Simple Back-Brief Template
- Our understanding of the intent:
- What success looks like:
- Our approach:
- Key risks/assumptions:
- Decisions we’ll make vs escalate:
Summary: A back-brief ensures alignment by having
teams explain the mission back—so misunderstandings surface before they become
failures.
Module 4 Red Teaming
Red Teaming is a structured, adversarial
thinking practice where an independent group (the Red Team)
deliberately challenges plans, assumptions, decisions, and strategies by
thinking like an opponent, critic, or failure mode.
It is the disciplined act of stress-testing decisions by intentionally adopting an opposing or skeptical perspective.
Its goal is not to be negative,
but to surface blind spots, risks, and unintended consequences before they
cause real damage.
Red Teaming asks:
- What are we missing?
- How could this fail?
- How might someone exploit this?
- What assumptions are we treating as facts?
Why 'Red Teaming' ... exists to counter human and organizational biases, such as:
- Groupthink
- Confirmation bias
- Authority bias
- Overconfidence
- “Success trap” thinking
When teams agree too quickly, Red Teams
slow down decisions just enough to make them safer and smarter.
Core Characteristics of Red Teaming
|
Aspect |
Description |
|
Adversarial |
Intentionally challenges the dominant
view |
|
Independent |
Separate from the decision owners |
|
Evidence-based |
Uses logic, data, scenarios—not
opinions |
|
Constructive |
Focused on improving outcomes, not
blame |
|
Time-bound |
Designed to sharpen decisions, not
stall them |
Typical Red Team Questions
- What assumptions must be true for this to work?
- What would cause this to fail spectacularly?
- How could competitors, regulators, customers, or attackers exploit this?
- What incentives could distort behavior?
- What second- and third-order effects are likely?
What Red Teaming Is Not
- ❌ Personal criticism
- ❌ Endless debate
- ❌ Decision veto power
- ❌ “Devil’s advocate” improvisation
True Red Teaming is methodical, sanctioned, and respected.
Common Red Teaming Techniques
- Assumption mapping
- Pre-mortems (“It failed—why?”)
- Scenario inversion
- Stakeholder role-play
- Kill-criteria definition
- Stress-testing KPIs
Summary: Red Teaming improves decision quality by deliberately challenging assumptions before reality does it for you.
Module 5 Tactical Pause
A tactical pause is a deliberate,
short stop in action taken to reassess the situation, validate assumptions,
and decide the next best move—before continuing execution.
It is intentional, time-boxed, and
purpose-driven, not hesitation.
A tactical pause creates thinking time in the middle of action so teams can adapt intelligently rather than push blindly forward.
Why Tactical Pauses Matter
In fast-moving, high-pressure
environments, teams tend to:
- Default to the original plan even when conditions change
- Miss weak signals
- Accumulate small errors into big failures
A tactical pause interrupts momentum
just enough to restore situational awareness.
When to Use a Tactical Pause
Typical triggers include:
- New or conflicting information emerges
- Outcomes deviate from expectations
- Risk level increases unexpectedly
- Decisions feel rushed or emotionally charged
- Multiple teams are no longer aligned
If uncertainty rises faster than
clarity, it’s time to pause.
What Happens During a Tactical Pause
A good tactical pause answers four
fast questions:
- What
has changed? (Facts, signals, constraints)
- What
still holds true? (Intent, priorities, non-negotiables)
- What
are the risks if we continue as planned? (Downside, exposure, second-order effects)
- What
is the next best action now? (Continue, adapt, escalate, or stop)
What a Tactical Pause Is Not
- ❌ Indecision
- ❌ Over-analysis
- ❌ Loss of urgency
- ❌ A full review or post-mortem
It is brief, focused, and
forward-looking.
Practical Business Examples
Crisis Management: “Pause—new customer data contradicts our assumption. Let’s reassess messaging before we proceed.”
Strategy Execution: “Market response is weaker than expected. Tactical pause to revisit pricing and positioning.”
People Leadership: “Engagement dropped after the announcement. Pause before Phase 2 to adjust our approach.”
Simple Tactical Pause Script - Pause declared.
- What changed?
- What risks increased?
- What option best serves our intent right now?
- Decision: continue/adapt/stop/escalate.
Module 6 After Action Review (AAR)
After Action Review (AAR)
is a structured review process used to analyze and learn from experiences,
typically after a project, event or significant activity. It's a powerful tool
for teams and organizations to:
- Reflect on what happened
- Identify what went well and what didn't
- Document lessons learned
- Develop action plans for improvement
AARs aim to:
- Enhance performance
- Foster a culture of continuous learning
- Improve decision-making
- Increase accountability
The AAR process typically involves:
- What was supposed to happen?
- What actually happened?
- What went well?
- What didn't go well?
- What can we improve?
AARs are widely used in various industries, including military, healthcare, business and project management.
After Action Review (AAR) Template:
Event/Project Name: [Insert event/project name]Date: [Insert date]
Leadership Team: [Insert names and titles]
What was supposed to happen?
- Briefly describe the objectives, goals and expected outcomes of the event/project.
- Outline the leadership operating model's role in supporting the event/project.
What actually happened?
- Describe the actual events, decisions and outcomes.
- Highlight any deviations from the planned objectives.
What went well?
- Identify the strengths and successes of the leadership operating model.
- Document the effective practices, processes and decisions that contributed to the successes.
What didn't go well?
- Identify the challenges, weaknesses and areas for improvement.
- Analyze the root causes of any issues or setbacks.
What can we improve?
- Develop action plans to address the areas for improvement.
- Identify opportunities to refine the leadership operating model, processes and practices.
Lessons Learned:
- Document the key takeaways and insights from the AAR.
- Highlight any changes to be made to the leadership operating model, policies or procedures.
Action Plan:
- Outline the specific actions to be taken, the responsible individuals, and timelines.
- Establish metrics to measure progress and effectiveness.
Recommendations:
- Provide recommendations for future improvements to the leadership operating model.
- Identify opportunities for scaling successful practices across the organization.
References
LinkedIn.com: Upgrade Your Leadership Operating Model
Mckinsey: A New Operating Model for People Management
+++ The End +++
