BACK TO LESSONS
The Prologue: 10 Years of Team of Teams
September 10, 2025
Authored by Stan McChrystal
Fifteen years ago, when we founded McChrystal Group, we did not begin with a business plan or a theory. We began with scars.
The lessons we carried out of the crucible of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) were not academic constructs but instead the result of hard, painful trial and error. At JSOC, failure meant lives lost. That pressure forced us to reexamine everything we thought we knew about leadership and the way organizations function.
Now, nearly 20 years since those experiences, leaders face different battlefields in the form of disruption from generative artificial intelligence, geopolitical instability, economic volatility, and much more. But the pressure is just as real. A supply chain breakdown, a cybersecurity breach, or a failed organizational initiative can be just as existential for an enterprise as a failed operation was for JSOC. The environments are different, but the lessons we carry with us are eerily similar to those that leaders face today in their organizations.
When we turned those experiences at JSOC into Team of Teams ten years ago, we were not offering a framework. We were articulating principles—trust, common purpose, shared consciousness, empowered execution—that had emerged from experience. They were messy, hard-won insights forged in the chaos of war. And yet, they resonated. Executives, educators, healthcare leaders, and technologists saw in them a mirror of their own challenges. There’s a fine line between championing a philosophy and selling a product. At McChrystal Group, we’ve wrestled with that duality—are we advisors helping solve problems, or advocates for a new way of leading? The truth is, we are both.
That tension has kept us honest. When we lean too far toward advocacy, we risk sounding like zealots, insisting that every challenge has a Team of Teams answer. When we lean too far toward consulting, we risk diluting the principles into just another management fad. The real work has been finding balance: applying the philosophy with humility, tailoring it to each organization’s unique context, and resisting the urge to force-fit solutions.
What we’ve learned is that leaders don’t want dogma—they want clarity. They don’t want a prescription—they want a partner who helps them adapt principles to their own realities. That is where Team of Teams has been most powerful: not as a rigid playbook, but as a compass guiding leaders through complexity.
Applying Our Hard-Earned Lessons
In the early 2000s, we faced an enemy – Al Qaeda in Iraq – that was decentralized, agile, and lethal. Our traditional command structure, built for industrial-age warfare, was too slow and too siloed. We had the best people, the best technology, and the best intentions, but we were still losing.
What do you do when you’re losing?
You change.
So we broke down barriers, flattened hierarchies, and built a culture of radical transparency. Many things that at the time felt antithetical to how we had learned to do things. As a result, we created what later came to be known as a “team of teams” – a network where information flowed freely and decisions were pushed to those closest to the challenge at hand.
Now, of course, hindsight is 20/20. To be sure, that change wasn’t easy. It required humility, vulnerability, and a willingness to relinquish control. But it worked. And when I retired, I knew those lessons weren’t confined to the battlefield. Complexity, speed, and interdependence were, and in many ways still are, reshaping every sector.
That same shift, from siloed structures to adaptive networks, is now the defining challenge for every organization. Whether you’re leading a hospital, a financial institution, or a government agency, the pressures are different, but the solution is the same: adaptability through connection.
The Challenge of ‘Doing’
If Team of Teams was the spark, McChrystal Group was the firewood. We set out to help organizations apply the principles we had lived. But we quickly learned that understanding a concept is not the same as implementing it. Executives would nod vigorously during our presentations, then ask, “So what’s the framework?” And we’d have to say, “There isn’t one.”
That answer was both liberating and frustrating. Team of Teams is not a checklist. It’s a mindset. It’s about cultivating trust, building shared consciousness, and empowering people to act. But those things are hard to measure, and harder to mandate. Trust grows when leaders show up consistently and follow through. Empowerment thrives when teams are given responsibility—and the confidence that their choices matter.
We’ve seen organizations struggle with this. Some try to implement Team of Teams like a Six Sigma program. Others embrace the spirit but falter in execution. The most successful are those who treat it not as a project, but as a philosophy. They understand that becoming a team of teams is a journey with continuous changes, tweaks, updates, and reassessments necessary.
New Nuances, Same Principles
Over the past decade, the world has changed and layered new complexities onto old challenges. And yet, the principles of Team of Teams remain valid, perhaps more so now than ever.
But these principles have taken on new nuances.
What has changed is the environment. These principles were relevant when applied to a network of servicemembers in Iraq. They are even more relevant today in a highly matrixed, geographically dispersed, and increasingly specialized workforce. In a world where expertise is fragmented across continents and functions, where teams rarely sit in the same room, trust and shared consciousness are the glue. Empowered execution is the only way to move at the speed complexity demands.
Once an Eagle, Always Evolving
When I first read the book Once an Eagle, a 1968 novel depicting the careers of two Army officers through long careers in uniform, I saw the lead character, Nebraska farm-boy turned Medal of Honor hero Sam Damon as the ideal leader. He was humble, principled, and selfless. Over time, my perspective shifted. I began to see the limitations of his worldview, the rigidity of his moral compass. I still admire him, but I no longer idolize him. Leadership is not about being right. It’s about being effective. And effectiveness requires adaptability.
For leaders, this distinction is crucial. You won’t be remembered for never wavering. Quite the contrary in my experience. Leaders will be remembered for helping their teams adapt when the ground shifted beneath them.
That evolution mirrors our journey with Team of Teams. We still believe in the principles. But we’ve learned that they can be applied differently, and often in amazing ways we never envisioned. We’ve seen how they play out in different contexts, with different constraints. We’ve learned that there is no one-size-fits-all. And we’ve embraced the complexity.
From Montgomery to McChrystal
I often think about the 1955-56 Montgomery Bus Boycott not only as a civil rights milestone, but as a case study in decentralized leadership. There was no single commander. There was a network of pastors, activists, and citizens, each playing a role. They shared a vision, trusted each other, and acted with purpose – and did so over 382 difficult days. That’s a team of teams.
The lesson is clear: leadership is not about control. It’s about connection. It’s about creating an environment where people can contribute, collaborate, and thrive.
That’s what we’ve tried to do at McChrystal Group. And that’s what Team of Teams is ultimately about.
For today’s leaders, the same truth applies. Obviously, no leader can be everywhere or know everything. But they can set the conditions for connection with simple yet elusive core tenets, such as clarity of purpose, transparency of information, and trust in execution. Those connections start with you. If you don’t model them, your organization won’t live them.
Looking Ahead
As we mark the tenth anniversary of Team of Teams, we’re honoring the organizations that have embraced the principles, wrestled with the challenges, and built cultures of trust and adaptability. We’re acknowledging the complexity—and the beauty—of human collaboration.
And we’re preparing for what’s next.
In the coming months, we’ll be releasing a series of follow-on essays that explore the evolution of Team of Teams. These will delve into the nuances we’ve discovered, the mistakes we’ve made, and the insights we’ve gained. It will be honest, at times messy, and hopefully useful.
Writing this, I am reminded once again that Team of Teams was never a theory nor a framework. It was a necessity – and it remains one. In every field, in every organization, the leaders who embrace these truths will endure. Those who cling to the illusion of control will not.
Join the 11-Week Leadership Unlocked Series
Lessons and Live Sessions, delivered weekly.
