Originally published on Forbes.com

George Custer was an American military general known for dashing action. During the Civil War, he earned the admiration of his peers because of his bravery and willingness to take risks. George Marshall was an American military general known for being methodical, thoughtful and disciplined. After WWII, he earned the respect of the entire world, and particularly of Europeans, because of the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt major portions of European infrastructure.

Why do I bring up these two leaders? I find that they serve as archetypes of two very different leadership models. For the past 23 years, I’ve worked with hundreds of leaders of professional service firms. I’ve noticed the tendencies among a wide-ranging group of professionals from all walks of life. It seems to me that no matter how they were raised, how much success they’ve had or how hard they’ve struggled, they are constantly choosing, often unconsciously, between two approaches to leadership:

• Ready-fire-aim.
• Ready-aim-fire.

George Custer was a ready-fire-aim type of leader. In the end, this cost him his own life and the lives of his men. The battle of Little Big Horn is a classic example of underestimating the odds. Custer surmised that his small fighting force would somehow be able to defeat a much larger opposing force of Native American fighters. Call it arrogance. Call it racism. Call it poor judgment.

George Marshall is an example of ready-aim-fire. His methodical and painstaking approach to rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure of Europe actually took many years to complete. It required coordination and the development of clarity-of-purpose with many different types of professionals, many of whom were not military: architects, engineers, builders and financiers. But in the end, his planning and steadfast commitment to completing the mission blessed the lives of millions of people.

So when you think about these two leadership models, where do you lean? Are you more of a ready-fire-aim type of leader or a ready-aim-fire leader? Here’s why I ask. The leadership model you lean toward will likely be an indicator of your outcomes.

Not An Either-Or Proposition

I don’t want to give the impression that a person of action, like Custer, is always wrong. There are many situations in business where we don’t have to know all the details to take bold action. In fact, nearly every client I’ve worked with has operated with blind spots, imperfect information and faulty assumptions. Even so, they managed to produce some outstanding results. But it’s the tendency I want to foreground.

If your tendency is to make decisive action your default, the tool you most frequently reach for in your bag, it’s probably only a matter of time before this catches up with you. I’ve seen it time and time again. Leaders who make decisions based on gut instinct and who ignore information and counselors who could help them make better decisions sooner or later get hurt—and usually, the people on their teams get hurt too.

Over the years, I’ve heard leaders say things like “I could make that decision blindfolded” or “are we engaged in analysis-paralysis here?” Their point is usually that they want to get on with it. Make a decision and go. There’s no time to wait.

In my experience, that’s rarely true. Over the last several months, I’ve spent time thinking through costly decisions my clients and other mid-size service firms I know about have made. Those decisions did not work out. People suffered. Jobs were lost. Careers were damaged. Investments went down the drain.

As I analyze the post-mortem decision-making from these situations, I’m struck by one overarching impression. No action would have been better than the action they chose. So why did they do it? Because they had a tendency toward ready-fire-aim. Their preferred leadership model failed them.

The Methodical Character

One of the primary reasons I think some leaders lean toward ready-fire-aim is because it’s sexy. Custer was dashing and full of bravado. The newspapers loved him. Stories were written about him. I think it’s safe to say that he believed in his own methodology.

But Marshall was very different. This is well documented in a great book by NY Times columnist David L. Brooks called The Road To Character. Brooks devotes an entire chapter to Marshall. He describes how Marshall could have been the leader of the D-Day invasion—instead of Eisenhower—if only Marshall would have asked for it.

Marshall refused to do that. He believed his record as a leader spoke for itself. If the powers that be chose him to lead the D-Day invasion, that was fine with him. But if they chose others, he respected that decision, too. He wouldn’t compromise his integrity, his disciplined character, by overstepping his bounds. He knew he was a capable leader and that was enough for him.

His character, his moral judgment and his sense of integrity shaped the decisions he made once WWII was over. He knew that the seeds of WWII were planted at the end of WWI. It was his calculus that the best way to prevent WWIII was to rebuild Europe, including nations that the U.S. deemed enemies during the war.

The Marshall Plan, at the end of the day, was about logistics, not military tactics. It was the boring stuff of getting people, materials and locations aligned and prepared to do hard work. There were no brave heroics. There was a lot of quiet planning and execution of those plans. But the results speak for themselves.

So which type of leader are you: ready-fire-aim or ready-aim-fire? As I reflect on the leaders I’ve worked with who’ve had the greatest long-term success, without a doubt, they were ready-aim-fire people. Most of the leaders who leaned toward ready-fire-aim ended up sowing chaos amongst the ranks. Some even went out of business.

As leaders, we all have tendencies. But we can improve our outcomes by carefully reflecting on the leadership models we prize. A bit of reflection might just help you win more consistently.

About The Author

Randy Shattuck is a seasoned entrepreneur who works hand-in-hand with senior leaders of mid-size professional service firms to grow revenues, acquire clients, open new markets, increase profits and effectively position their brands.