Force Multipliers

 

What separates exceptional organizations from average ones isn’t that people work harder. It’s that one person, one decision, or one improvement changes everything else.

Activity and effectiveness aren’t the same thing. The better question is this: Where will one investment make the greatest difference?

Sometimes it’s technology. Sometimes it’s a process. More often, it’s a person others overlooked. Once you start looking for force multipliers, you begin seeing them everywhere.

The names in the following stories have been changed.

One of the first people who taught me what a force multiplier looked like was an engineer I’ll call Bob.

Before I interviewed him, I was advised not to hire him because English wasn’t his first language. I ignored the advice, and we interviewed anyway. After a panel interview, everyone reached the same conclusion. He was technically gifted, thoughtful under pressure, and unusually collaborative.

I was told a second time not to hire him. I respectfully disagreed. I remember saying, “If we don’t hire him, someone else will.”

The issue was never Bob’s ability. It was whether we were willing to slow down long enough to listen before judging him by an accent. Hiring him remains one of the best decisions I ever made.

Every conversation brought a fresh perspective, and every significant issue became a team effort until it was resolved.

Bob made everyone around him better.

Another engineer taught me an equally important lesson. I’ll call him John.

John spoke slowly. He greeted everyone with “Boss” because that was his way of showing respect. He rarely said more than necessary, and because of that, some people underestimated him almost immediately.

One morning I was instructed to terminate him because he “didn’t seem smart enough” and wasn’t in the office at eight a.m.

What no one realized was that John had worked until two o’clock that morning, preventing a significant network issue from becoming a major outage. He had called me during the night so we could work through the problem together. He wasn’t absent; he was recovering after protecting the organization while everyone else slept.

John wasn’t exceptional because he was technically gifted. He had remarkable judgment. He knew when to act, when to ask for help, and when something deserved immediate attention.

That experience reinforced something I’ve never forgotten. Leaders can’t confuse style with substance. Some of the greatest force multipliers don’t look like force multipliers until you give them the opportunity to demonstrate what they’re capable of.

Force multipliers aren’t always people. Sometimes they’re created by giving people a voice.

At one organization, we made what many considered a controversial governance change. Every major steering committee would include at least three engineers, and those engineers had veto authority.

Some worried it would slow decisions. It did exactly the opposite. The people closest to the work finally had a voice. Architects caught design flaws. Operations identified implementation issues. Engineers challenged assumptions before they became expensive mistakes. Meetings became shorter. Projects moved faster. Rework dropped dramatically—not because we held more meetings, but because the right people were helping shape decisions before they became expensive.

One of my teams spent nearly eight hours every week preparing slide decks. By introducing AI into the process, we reduced that effort to roughly three hours. The real benefit wasn’t the five hours we saved. Those five hours became time to solve problems, meet with stakeholders, improve solutions, and create value no AI could deliver.

I’ve learned that sometimes the multiplier isn’t innovation at all. Sometimes it’s discipline.

One individual consistently challenged every initiative. He questioned every proposal and often frustrated the rest of the team. Many viewed him as an obstacle. I saw someone who cared deeply about getting the right answer. Instead of minimizing his influence, I recommended he lead the steering committee.

Once responsible for balancing everyone’s priorities instead of defending only his own, his skepticism became one of the organization’s greatest strengths. He still asked difficult questions, but now those questions improved enterprise decisions instead of slowing them down.

Sometime later, another engineer on my team had become increasingly frustrated. His day-to-day responsibilities no longer challenged him, but through several conversations I learned he had independently earned three ITIL certifications because he was fascinated by process improvement and finding better ways for engineers to work.

Rather than asking him to continue work that had become routine, I challenged him to think bigger. I asked him to help us rethink our IT governance—how decisions were made, how technology aligned with business objectives, and where frameworks like ITIL could have the greatest impact. I wanted him to help shape how the organization operated—not simply implement processes.

What started as an engineer looking for a new opportunity became a broader transformation in how we governed technology. He found work that inspired him. The organization found a leader.

The greatest force multiplier I’ve ever experienced wasn’t a person, a process, or a technology. It was culture.

On one program, a junior engineer made a mistake that briefly disrupted network connectivity for an entire headquarters building.

Leadership immediately wanted a name.

I refused.
The team owned the mistake.
The team owned the solution.

Sometime later, another significant outage occurred. Once again, fingers immediately pointed toward the network team. Instead of assigning blame, we investigated. The root cause turned out to be a DevOps change.

I contacted the leader privately—not to identify someone to blame, but to understand what happened and how we could prevent it from happening again. We focused on corrective actions and stronger guardrails instead of blame. 

Gradually, something changed. People stopped hiding mistakes. Instead of waiting for investigations, they stepped forward.

“This was our change.”
“Here’s what happened.”
“Here’s the fix.”
“And here’s what we’re changing so it doesn’t happen again.”

Accountability replaced blame. Problems surfaced earlier. Solutions arrived faster. Trust became a force multiplier.

When I walk into an organization today, I’m still asking the same question:
Where will one investment make the greatest difference?

Sometimes it’s a person.
Sometimes it’s giving the right people a voice.
Sometimes it’s technology used well.
Sometimes it’s a culture built on trust.

The answer rarely begins with asking people to work harder.
It begins by recognizing the force multipliers that make everyone better.

– Tim

The Last Two Across the Finish Line

 

Many years ago, I attended the Ranger Indoctrination Program (RIP), which is now known as the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program (RASP).

One of the events was a five-mile run that had to be completed within a strict time limit. It was designed to create stress and accelerate attrition. 

About halfway through, I caught up to another candidate who was struggling and out of breath. He was in good physical condition, muscular and built more like a bodybuilder than a runner. He wasn’t a quitter, but this event just wasn’t his strength. I had a choice to keep my pace and finish comfortably, or slow down and help him. I slowed down and stayed with him. We spent the rest of the run pushing each other to finish. By the time we approached the finish line, everyone else had already crossed. Several candidates had already been dropped for not making it in time. The Black Hats (what our instructors were called) saw us coming from a distance. We were the last two across the finish line. And they informed us that we'd both passed. We’d moved on to the next round.

At the time, I didn’t think much about the decision, as during Infantry Basic Training, Advanced Individual Training, and RIP, one lesson was endlessly repeated: 

Never leave your buddy behind.

As you could probably guess at this point, this story isn’t really about running or about my experience as a Rippie. It’s about a lesson that has stayed with me for more than thirty years.

And I’ve seen the same principle apply in business: Some of the best teams I’ve been part of were built by people willing to invest time and energy in helping others succeed, even when there was no immediate benefit to themselves. Likewise, many of the best leaders I’ve worked with understood that their job wasn’t to win alone. It was to help the team cross the finish line together.

Words Carry Weight

 

Years ago, when I was serving in the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard), a few of us had gone out to Murphy’s in Old Town Alexandria after payday. When we returned later that night, another soldier stopped me outside our barracks.

“Hey Gabaree!”

He asked why I was there. I assumed he meant why I was out that late and told him I was probably a little too inebriated and needed to go sleep it off.

He stopped me again.

“No. Why are you HERE?”

He meant, “Why I was in the Old Guard?”

At the time, the question felt oddly philosophical for the middle of the night after a few drinks, but I shrugged and answered honestly. I told him it was an honor to help provide funeral honors for families who had lost someone in service to our country. That it mattered to make every detail as perfect as possible so families knew their loved one was respected and honored properly.

Months later, that same soldier stopped me in a hallway and thanked me.

I was confused until he explained that the night we spoke, he had been planning to go AWOL. He was leaving for good and trying to decide whether any of what we were doing mattered. Something about that conversation changed his mind.

I’ve thought about that moment many times over the years.

Words carry weight. Most of the time, we do not realize when someone is searching for meaning, encouragement, or simply a reason to keep going. We are usually caught up in our own world and do not always realize how much impact a few words can have.

I’m thankful that conversation went the way it did. If I had answered differently, things might have turned out very differently for him.

It became a reminder to me to be mindful of what we say. Sometimes a few words can change the direction of someone’s life.

Tim

Three Moments That Shaped My Leadership Philosophy

Three experiences across my career fundamentally shaped how I think about leadership. One reinforced that accountability always flows upward. Another revealed how gatekeeping limits organizations. The third demonstrated what happens when leaders create space for people to contribute beyond their job descriptions. Together, they continue to influence how I lead today.

Accountability Flows Up

When I was an enlisted soldier, our Executive Officer was known for keeping distance from those he viewed as beneath him. He rarely asked for help and tended to dismiss contributions that came from lower ranks.. One evening, as he prepared to attend a congressional dinner, his dress uniform was not properly pressed, and his brass was not shined. It would have reflected poorly on him and on our unit. 

I knocked on his open door and offered to help him press his dress blues and shine his brass. The offer was not received well. He took offense at the idea that an E4 would offer assistance and viewed it as a challenge to his authority. I was ordered to do push-ups and told I would be recommended for a summary Article 15 for insubordination.

The next day, I was called into the Commanding Officer’s office. Present were the CO, the XO, the First Sergeant, my Platoon Leader, Platoon Sergeant, and Squad Leader. The CO ordered push-ups. Two hundred each. Everyone in the room. Including himself and the XO.

Afterward, the CO explained the reasoning: 

If a problem reaches the CO without being resolved, leadership has already failed. Accountability does not stop at rank. It compounds as authority increases.

The Commanding Officer made it clear that leadership should never use authority to protect pride or avoid embarrassment.

That moment clarified something fundamental for me. Leadership means leading from the front and owning the environment you create. When problems reach the surface, leaders should first examine the environment they created before assigning blame elsewhere.  And sometimes individuals serve an important role by demonstrating what leadership should not look like.

Gatekeeping Limits Organizations

Years later, in a civilian organization, a peer shared his frustration with me. He served as a senior director for community outreach. He was effective in his role and deeply committed to the mission. Outside of work, on his own time, he had earned a PhD in organizational management.

There was no clear path for him to grow beyond his position.

At the time, I was leading several process improvement initiatives and saw an opportunity to leverage his expertise. I raised the idea with the CEO. The response was immediate and firm. I was told that I would not be authorized to matrix resources from other departments. Organizational management was her responsibility. If I needed assistance, I should come directly to her.

What stood out was not the decision itself, but its effect.

The organization already possessed expertise that could have advanced the mission, yet that capability remained unused because collaboration across organizational boundaries was discouraged.

Over time, I have seen this pattern repeat. Organizations rarely suffer from having too much talent. They suffer when existing talent is prevented from contributing. It limits them. When leaders confine people to narrow roles, they reduce institutional capacity. When problem-solving is centralized instead of shared, bottlenecks form. When potential is measured only by current titles, organizations quietly train their people to stop bringing their best ideas forward.

Creating Space for Capability

In another role, we were facing a growing attrition problem. Engineering teams were working excessive hours week after week. Burnout was setting in, morale was slipping, and we were beginning to lose people we could not easily replace.

One of my managers, whose formal role was in network engineering, approached me with a proposal. He suggested that we step back and revamp our processes. His idea was to document what was working, identify what was not, and put practical guardrails in place so engineers could focus on meaningful work without constant interruption, while still leaving room for innovation.

What the organization had never fully leveraged was that he had earned several ITIL certifications on his own. He had the training and the perspective, but had never been given the opportunity to apply it.

The proposal aligned well with a broader roadmap we were building. But even without that alignment, I would have approved it. It was a thoughtful solution to a real problem and a chance for someone to contribute beyond a job description.

We moved forward.

The impact was immediate and lasting. Processes improved. Rework declined. Engineering teams regained focus. Attrition slowed. Just as importantly, that manager grew. He became part of the solution, gained confidence, and expanded his role within the organization. Others noticed as well, up and down the leadership chain, from the CEO to the engineering teams. The success helped shift the culture. Staying in one’s lane mattered less than contributing to shared outcomes.

What stood out was not the framework itself, but the outcome of creating space for capability to surface. The organization benefited, the team benefited, and the individual benefited.

The Common Thread

In each of these situations, leadership either failed or succeeded for the same reason. Whether ego took precedence over responsibility, or responsibility created room for others to contribute.

Looking back, these experiences taught me that leadership is less about authority than stewardship. Authority can direct people, but stewardship develops them. The leaders I continue to admire are those who create environments where accountability is shared, expertise is welcomed regardless of title, and success is measured by organizational outcomes rather than personal control. 

Every organization already contains more potential than it fully utilizes. One of leadership’s greatest responsibilities is creating the conditions where that potential can emerge.

Leadership Does Not Require an Org Chart

One of the most important leadership lessons I’ve learned is that leadership is not granted by a title.

It is demonstrated through action.

Organizations often associate leadership with authority, reporting structures, or formal responsibility. Those things certainly matter, but they are not what make people choose to follow someone.

Leadership is ultimately measured by influence—by the ability to help others grow, solve problems, and move forward together.

Leadership Is a Daily Choice

Some of the strongest leaders I have known exercised influence without formal authority.

They mentored new employees.

Shared knowledge freely.

Made introductions that helped someone else’s career.

Offered thoughtful feedback.

Recognized potential in people before others saw it.

None of those actions required permission.

They simply required a willingness to serve.

Influence Exists Everywhere

Leadership opportunities appear far more often than most people realize.

Helping a colleague navigate a difficult decision.

Connecting two people who could benefit from knowing each other.

Sharing lessons learned from a challenging project.

Volunteering professional expertise within the community.

Taking time to coach someone earlier in their career.

These moments rarely receive recognition.

They often create the greatest long-term impact.

Growth Is Part of Leadership

Every season of a career offers opportunities to learn.

Some periods involve building organizations.

Others involve developing new skills, expanding professional networks, reflecting on experience, or exploring different perspectives.

Growth is not something leaders pause until circumstances become ideal.

It is part of leadership itself.

Leaders who continue learning remain better prepared to help others when new opportunities emerge.

Service Builds Credibility

Leadership rooted in service creates trust.

People remember those who invested in them without expecting immediate return.

Organizations remember leaders who shared credit, developed talent, and strengthened teams rather than protecting personal status.

Those habits build credibility that extends well beyond any individual role or organization.

Leadership Is Portable

Titles change.

Organizations change.

Responsibilities evolve.

The ability to influence, encourage, teach, and develop others travels with you.

That may be the most enduring form of leadership.

When leaders focus less on position and more on contribution, they discover that opportunities to serve exist in every stage of a career.

Leadership is not defined by where you sit on an organizational chart.

It is defined by the positive impact you leave on the people around you.

What Crafting Espresso Taught Me About Developing Teams

Outside of technology, one of my favorite hobbies is making espresso.

Good espresso is remarkably unforgiving. Small adjustments to the beans, grind size, water temperature, or extraction time can dramatically change the result. At first glance, it seems like a hobby built around precision.

The longer I’ve practiced it, however, the more I’ve realized it is actually about understanding potential.

Every coffee bean is different.

The goal isn’t to force every bean to behave the same way.

The goal is to understand what allows each one to perform at its best.

I’ve come to believe leadership works much the same way.

Great Teams Are Not Built from Identical People

Technology organizations often focus on finding the “perfect” candidate.

In reality, high-performing teams are built by combining people with different experiences, perspectives, and strengths.

Some excel at solving complex technical problems.

Others communicate exceptionally well with customers.

Some thrive under pressure.

Others quietly improve processes that make everyone around them more effective.

Leadership begins by recognizing those differences rather than trying to eliminate them.

Development Requires Intentional Investment

Coffee does not become exceptional by accident.

Neither do people.

The strongest leaders invest time in coaching, mentoring, and creating opportunities for others to grow. Sometimes that means technical development. Sometimes it means giving someone responsibility before they feel completely ready. Often it simply means believing in someone’s potential before they believe in it themselves.

People usually rise to expectations that are supported with trust and opportunity.

Leaders Create the Environment

An espresso machine cannot compensate for poor beans.

Likewise, talented people often struggle in environments where priorities are unclear, collaboration is discouraged, or leadership creates unnecessary obstacles.

One of the most important responsibilities of leadership is creating conditions where people can succeed.

That includes clear expectations, psychological safety, meaningful feedback, and the freedom to solve problems rather than simply execute instructions.

When those conditions exist, performance improves naturally.

The Best Leaders Serve the Team

The phrase servant leadership is sometimes misunderstood.

It does not mean lowering standards or avoiding accountability.

It means recognizing that a leader’s responsibility is to help others perform at their highest level.

Leaders remove obstacles.

They develop capability.

They create opportunities.

They recognize potential that others may overlook.

The success of the team becomes the measure of the leader.

Excellence Is Never Finished

One of the reasons I enjoy making espresso is that there is always something to improve.

A slightly different grind.

A better extraction.

A new bean.

Leadership follows the same path.

No team is ever truly finished developing.

No leader is ever finished learning.

Both improve through curiosity, patience, thoughtful refinement, and the willingness to keep making small adjustments over time.

The goal is never perfection.

It is creating an environment where people—and the organization—continue getting better.

Building High-Performing Technology Teams

Technology organizations succeed because of people.

Infrastructure, cloud platforms, cybersecurity tools, automation, and artificial intelligence all matter. But none of them consistently create value without capable teams making sound decisions every day.

Looking back over my career, the strongest technology organizations I have been part of shared several characteristics. They were not defined by the newest technology or the largest budgets. They were defined by leadership, trust, accountability, and a commitment to developing people.

Create Clarity Before Accountability

People perform best when expectations are clear.

That means more than assigning work. Teams should understand why the work matters, how success will be measured, how it supports broader business objectives, and where they have the authority to make decisions.

When priorities continually shift or responsibilities are unclear, even highly capable teams struggle.

Good leadership creates clarity before demanding accountability.

Develop People, Not Just Systems

Technology evolves continuously.

The most valuable investment leaders can make is developing people who can adapt with it.

That includes technical training, certainly, but also communication, business understanding, decision-making, and leadership skills.

Many of the strongest contributors I have worked with grew because someone gave them an opportunity to solve a larger problem—not because they were assigned another routine task.

Organizations benefit when leaders actively create those opportunities.

Trust Produces Better Decisions

Technology work depends on judgment.

Engineers solve problems that cannot always be anticipated through procedures or documentation alone.

Leaders who build trust encourage people to raise concerns early, challenge assumptions respectfully, and share ideas without fear of criticism.

The result is not simply better morale.

It is better decision-making.

Remove Obstacles, Don’t Create Them

Leadership is not measured by how many decisions require executive approval.

It is measured by how effectively leaders enable their teams to execute.

That means eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy, clarifying priorities, resolving conflicts quickly, and ensuring teams have the tools, information, and authority needed to succeed.

The best leaders spend as much time removing obstacles as assigning work.

Build Teams That Learn

Technology organizations improve through continuous learning.

Projects succeed.

Projects fail.

Incidents occur.

New technologies emerge.

Each experience provides an opportunity to strengthen the organization.

High-performing teams conduct thoughtful retrospectives, document lessons learned, improve processes, and share knowledge across the organization.

Continuous improvement is not an initiative.

It becomes part of the culture.

Leadership Is Measured by the Team

One of the most important lessons I have learned is that leadership is not measured by individual expertise.

It is measured by the capability of the people around you.

The strongest leaders develop environments where individuals grow, collaboration becomes natural, accountability is shared, and success continues long after the leader has moved on.

Technology changes constantly.

Great leadership principles do not.

Organizations that invest in their people, encourage learning, and create trust consistently outperform organizations that rely solely on technical excellence.

Ultimately, technology leaders build more than systems.

They build teams capable of solving problems the organization has not yet encountered.

What Total Football Teaches Us About Adaptive Organizations

One of the most influential business articles I’ve ever read wasn’t really about manufacturing.

It was about adaptability.

While reading Making Mass Customization Work by B. Joseph Pine II, Bart Victor, and Andrew C. Boynton, I was reminded of an entirely different discipline: Total Football.

Originally developed and popularized by Ajax and the Dutch national team, Total Football challenged one of the fundamental assumptions of team sports. Instead of rigid positional responsibilities, every player understood the broader system. As one player advanced, another instinctively filled the space. The team remained balanced because everyone understood both their own role and how their role fit within the larger objective.

The lesson extends far beyond football.

Adaptability Creates Competitive Advantage

Organizations often define people by job titles.

Engineers engineer.

Project managers manage projects.

Security teams secure systems.

Operations teams operate infrastructure.

Specialization is important, but organizations become fragile when work depends too heavily on rigid organizational boundaries.

The most resilient organizations develop people who understand how the entire system works, not just their individual responsibilities.

When priorities change, customer needs evolve, or unexpected problems emerge, those organizations adapt far more effectively because people know how to collaborate beyond functional silos.

Every Team Needs Positional Flexibility

Positional flexibility does not mean everyone performs every job.

It means individuals understand enough about adjacent functions to contribute when circumstances require it.

I’ve consistently found that organizations perform better when engineers understand customer impact, project managers appreciate technical constraints, security teams participate early in architecture discussions, and infrastructure teams understand business priorities.

People remain specialists.

But they stop becoming isolated specialists.

Shared Awareness Is More Valuable Than Perfect Processes

Many organizations attempt to solve complexity by adding process.

Process certainly has value, but process alone rarely creates adaptability.

Shared awareness does.

Teams that communicate continuously, understand organizational priorities, and trust one another make better decisions even when situations change unexpectedly.

That principle explains why high-performing organizations often respond to disruption more effectively than organizations with more documentation or more rigid governance.

The difference is not process maturity.

It is collective understanding.

Leadership Creates the Conditions

Adaptive organizations do not emerge by accident.

Leaders create environments where collaboration is rewarded, information moves freely, and expertise is valued regardless of organizational boundaries.

That often requires cross-functional projects, rotational assignments, shared objectives, and deliberate investment in developing broader business understanding—not simply deeper technical specialization.

People become more valuable when they understand how their work enables everyone else’s success.

Technology Organizations Need This More Than Ever

Artificial intelligence, cloud platforms, cybersecurity, data engineering, enterprise architecture, and software delivery have become deeply interconnected.

No single discipline can solve today’s enterprise challenges independently.

Technology organizations increasingly succeed through coordinated expertise rather than isolated excellence.

The leaders who build adaptive organizations recognize that the goal is not to eliminate specialization. It is to create enough shared understanding that teams continue moving forward when priorities shift.

The Best Teams Think Like Systems

Total Football demonstrated that extraordinary teams are built on flexibility, trust, communication, and shared purpose.

The same is true for modern organizations.

Competitive advantage increasingly belongs to organizations that can learn faster, adapt sooner, and coordinate more effectively than their competitors.

That begins with leaders who build systems where people understand more than their own position—and recognize that the success of the organization depends on how well those positions work together.