as a military officer i can tell you that my "go-to" soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines are the men and women who can either understand what i'm saying or smart en

as a military officer i can tell you that my "go-to" soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines are the men and women who can either understand what i'm saying or smart enough to ask questions when they don't. once they understand the task and the bounds of my authority, they go out and execute to the fullest extent possible, returning only when the task is either finished, or taken as far as they can take it without additional assistance (which is why they're coming back to me). those who become "go-to" personnel must learn to be confident in their own judgement, and be willing to take calculated risks. as the officer, it is up to me to trust them to execute my vision, and when they make a mistake, know that the blame will be placed on me, and me alone -- since they were following my orders. i find that failures of execution are as often failures of leadership (mine, most likely). when things go wrong, i often find myself asking subordinates if i have explained myself enough -- and then i circle back with them and try to clear up any misconceptions they had so they can go out and execute my vision. this tool has proven effective in tech as well. i am developing a product right now, and spent the last 72 hours sitting with our coding team. two days later, they sent me a revised mock-up, and it became clear that they had internalized some, but not all of my guidance. and so i had to go back once again and try to explain in a different way. an old english teacher of mine once said that good writing was like looking at footprints left in concrete, whereas bad writing was like looking at footprints in the sand. with the former, you can see exactly where the person is coming from, where they went, where they are going. the latter you can only see intermittent prints -- the rest is lost to the aether. hope that helps!