Give COAs, Not Ultimatums

No one likes to be threatened—physically, emotionally, or professionally. It’s bad leadership and bad business. Ultimatums are often disguised as choices, but in reality they present a single outcome at the expense of something significant. Do this or else.

If you report this safety violation, I’ll block your promotion.
If you don’t get those planes in the air, you’ll never fly again.
If you see a therapist, you’ll have to leave the military.

These are not choices; they are coercive pressure points. When leaders present only one dire option, resentment festers and relationships erode—sometimes permanently.

In almost every circumstance, there is more than one option. Even when the possible outcomes are similar, the path to that outcome matters—often more than the result itself. When leaders take the time to craft thoughtful courses of action at an individual level, they create space for ownership, dignity, and trust to thrive, even in undesirable or constrained environments.

Leaders must be consistent and transparent when presenting options. Just as staff sections are expected to present multiple courses of action during the Military Decision-Making Process, leaders should do the same when discussing career paths, disciplinary actions, or difficult decisions with service members. Providing options does not mean avoiding accountability; it means respecting autonomy while still accomplishing the mission.

Good leaders don’t corner people into compliance. They guide them toward commitment.

Ultimatums often signal a failure of imagination rather than strength. When leaders default to “this or else,” they communicate that they either don’t see alternatives or don’t care to explore them. In reality, most situations—especially those involving people—are complex and nuanced. Taking the time to identify multiple paths forward demonstrates competence, not weakness. It shows a leader understands both the mission and the human terrain required to accomplish it.

Providing options also shifts responsibility in a powerful way. When service members are given clear courses of action and allowed to participate in the decision, they move from passive compliance to active ownership. Even if the choice is difficult or constrained, being treated as a thinking adult builds buy-in. People are far more likely to commit to a decision they had a hand in shaping than one forced upon them under threat.

I recently spoke with two senior NCOs who defeatedly expressed how their new commander has yet to ask for their input or opinion on a variety of matters. When they both tried, at separate times, to repeatedly add their unsolicited feedback to the conversation just for the sake of being heard, their thoughts were dismissed and ignored. It was evident to me that both of these folks had lost gumption and initiative to achieve excellence. Even if their input was not part of the calculus, they both wanted to be heard and be seen as valued members of the team.

When leaders close the door to dialogue like this, they often believe they are preserving authority or enforcing standards. In reality, they are creating the very conditions that undermine them. There are times when leaders believe ultimatums are necessary to maintain discipline or standards. But discipline rooted in fear is brittle. It may produce short-term compliance, but it erodes trust and discourages initiative. Service members who fear punishment for speaking up, seeking help, or making honest mistakes will eventually stop doing all three. That silence is far more dangerous to readiness than a hard conversation ever could be.

Options also create psychological safety, which is essential for effective teams. When leaders openly discuss multiple paths and their trade-offs, they normalize critical thinking and candor. This environment allows service members to identify risks, admit limitations, and ask for support without fear of retaliation. Over time, this transparency strengthens decision-making and prevents small issues from becoming mission-ending failures.

Ultimately, leadership is not about controlling outcomes at all costs; it is about developing people who can operate independently and ethically when you are not there. Leaders who consistently offer options instead of ultimatums teach their teams how to think, not just how to obey. That investment pays dividends in trust, resilience, and long-term effectiveness—both for the mission and for the people tasked with carrying it out.