LEADERSHIP
EFFECTS ~ January 2011
Singular
perspective in the mind of any leader will lead him to fail. If uncorrected, it
will pass to the others around him and the organization will follow.
Leadership has
been defined in a number of ways, but the end result should always be to the
benefit of one another, our Soldiers, our military, and our country. Leadership
as defined by the Army, uses phrases such as “influencing others” and
“providing purpose, direction and motivation.”[i]
This is still
true, but the focus of a leader should be on the effects of his or her
leadership. Further, if leaders do not grasp the “human aspect” of leading, how
can the organization improve? A number of us may overlook the cause and effect
of leadership or the lack thereof. Poor leadership or leadership “in part” will
not result in just failure alone when the cost paid for the lack of leadership
may be another human life.
Leaders at
every level should agree that there are two elements that make up any
mission-oriented organization, those who follow during mission execution and
the select few who lead them. Both are required to achieve any task that places
the organization in a tactical advantage over another or to restore security.
Failure by either will leave the unit with an incomplete task and lack of
sufficient support to accomplish it to the fullest benefit of the organization.
From our
perspective, the odds will not be in favor of those left to deal with the
failure of any leader or subordinate. Most of the failures of subordinates can
be traced to their leaders. However, after a leader has implemented every
measure of instruction and attention that can be given, a subordinate may still
make the wrong choice. He or she is, in fact, just as human as their leaders,
and that Soldiers’ free will may not always sway to do what is right.
Regardless of the origin of the fault, we as leaders accept responsibility for
what our subordinates do right and wrong. This approach to leading helps
leaders to focus even further on their subordinates. The Army is the one
institution in which the leader accepts the fault for what their subordinates
fail to do. There is no blame. With regard to ethical decisions, there may be
an unseen flaw within the subordinate’s moral judgment and character. As
leaders, we spend time guiding subordinates both during training and after
hours with regard to their personal actions and choices. We remind them that
poor choices can lead to adverse actions which will be detrimental to their
privileges and rank. How often do we convey to our subordinates the “effects”
that their actions can have on others in the organization? How can we as
leaders become more efficient in identifying the start of potential issues if
the leader is not involved in the personal lives of their subordinates?
Rank has never
been a requirement to lead. Rank never compels a Soldier to push himself beyond
the limitations of his mind. Determined young Specialists can take charge and
lead if they have been under sound leaders during the first part of their
tenure in the military. Many of us have seen this. Rank is needed, but it is
nothing more than a visual hierarchy that displays a level of authority that an
individual leader has been entrusted with, not entitled to, for his or her
position of duty. It is visible within the organization at every level. Our
character must be balanced with regard to the rank that we hold and the rank
that we advance to.
At one end of
the extreme, if we are not balanced in character, we run the risk of abusing
our authority. Worse yet, at the other end, we fail to provide for our
subordinates in training or human needs.
Human needs go
beyond those that are required to survive in the physical body. All leaders
should have learned this as they advanced up through their respective positions
of authority, or so we think. Avoiding the mistake of promoting individuals
with poor character or weak leadership ability is perhaps the one fact that
causes leaders to have reservations about a Soldier being promoted to the rank
of Sergeant based on time in service alone. Serious consideration needs to be
taken when selecting subordinates for promotions. If we receive a leader who
was promoted in this manner, all we can do is take what is there and make it
better. In so doing, there are two points that leaders need to keep in mind
when assessing incoming leaders who will either be our subordinates leaders,
peers and Senior Leaders. First, the leader has no insight as to the methods of
their training and mentorship. Poor leaders create more poor leaders, and bad
habits carry from one to another. Every leader has faults and may fall short in
some aspect of his duties, but it’s the leaders who choose to address these
issues who become leaders of genuine character and look beyond “self” seeking
to improve. Second, even if a leader has been instructed in the requirements of
basic human needs, it is still not evidence that this leader is in practice of
executing the correct actions of leadership.
The leader
development process for subordinate leaders and Soldiers is not to be taken
with a “half-hearted” approach. One Army perspective states: “During this
leader development process, the responsibility for a leader’s complete
development is mutually shared by the leaders of the Army Education System,
Commanders, and Leaders in the field, and the leaders themselves.”[ii]
Instructors in
the Army Education System are in place to develop “line leaders” to better the
organization. One unavoidable fact is that instructors are only with their
respective student leaders for the duration of the developmental course. Course
curriculum “highlights” the “job aspect” of their responsibilities and many
leaders end up getting pushed through the course, keeping to the weekly
schedule so long as all attendees receive passing scores on their exams.
Instructors cannot fully evaluate leaders with regard to their ability to grasp
and understand the “human considerations” in leading and developing their
subordinate leaders and subordinates. Leaders on the line spend a good deal of
their time involved daily with their Soldiers, but if the line leaders did not
have the proper mentorship during their development, they will not be “in tune”
with the human side of subordinate development. Many leaders in the Infantry
often face the “taboo” designation as being a “Joe Lover” when other leaders
witness the care for the well-being of subordinates. I agree that there needs
to be a balance, but all leaders need to be attentive to the emotional and
other human needs of their Soldiers. Neglect or failure to provide opportunity
to resolve issues affecting emotional needs will allow doubt to enter the minds
of subordinates causing instability in their emotional well-being. Issues left
undone will foster an unfocused mind during the execution of missions. A
subordinate who is not focused on the mission will prove to be detrimental to
himself and those around him, which can result in the loss of life. The efforts
of an unfocused Soldier provide nothing more than a void in security. He or she
is of no use to the organization in their present state.
Leadership has
focused mostly on compelling our subordinates to execute missions that affect
those within the organization at every level as well as the host nation in
which the organization operates. This is still both true and necessary for
achieving the mission as set forth by the intent of any Commander. With regard
to our history of leadership, mission accomplishment was a top priority
regardless of the effects in human costs and subordinate needs. Today we recognize
that care for the human side of our Soldiers is a fundamental requirement for
the operation of a successful organization. It should never be to a point where
subordinates become soft or fall short in standards, but there needs to be a
balance between the two. Mission accomplishment is still top priority, but we
cannot ignore the human side.
On today’s
front, leadership often involves directing and continually encouraging
subordinates to execute tasks that would normally be against any human will if
given a choice because it places them in danger. For this reason, Soldiers and
Leaders need to understand that being a Soldier is not just a “job” and should
never be considered just a career. In truth, it is a profession that requires a
great deal of personal conviction. We chose our profession and we also chose to
lead well, in part or not at all. Whatever measure of effort we put into our
leadership, it will be visible through our actions and the performance of our
subordinates. Leading Soldiers will always have results and consequences.
Choices in leadership will always have effects. Good or bad.
How do we
accomplish the task of leading subordinates in the execution of missions that
could result in the loss of life? Further, how can we grasp the reality of both
our will and that of our Soldiers to strive for mission success during which
it’s execution we’re acutely aware that it could be our lives that are lost? We
as leaders must also be prepared to both witness and deal with the loss of
those that we serve with as leaders and those with whom we lead. We’ll also
deal with the emotional effects of our remaining subordinates that will be
brought on by the death of a peer. I want to pose two questions for thought and
a genuine inward reflection for all of us as leaders. This is the only time
that “self” needs to come first; when assessing one’s character as a leader.
What if that loss of life was due to the failure on our part to lead
effectively? Do you really think Soldiers will be unaware of our part in this
failure? This is reason for absolute personal conviction within every Soldier. Most
especially those in the ranks of the Infantry and Combat Arms, but all Soldiers
facing adversity and genuine risk of death fit this category.
With regard to
personal conviction, if Soldiers and Leaders do not have within themselves a
sense of duty and belonging to each other, their unit and Nation, they do not
possess genuine personal conviction. Conviction and belief in the preservation
of the well-being of our subordinates and one another are the traits of
selfless service. These traits are present within the character of only a few.
Most new Soldiers use the military as a “test bed” for figuring out their lives
and what they want. Leaders have the responsibility to instruct their Soldiers
on the importance of selfless service. Further, while it’s ok for them to figure
out their lives in the Army, leaders must help them grasp the reality that the
effects of their choices have much more “gravity” when the organization as a
whole must deal with the outcome. All Soldiers must understand that our purpose
is greater than ourselves and we must implement sound judgment in every
decision that we make both on and off duty. This personal conviction motivates
these Soldiers and Leaders to give of themselves. When Soldiers see their peers
wounded and regrettably at times their death, it will cause them to appeal in
action on behalf of those around them that have fallen.
The decision to
step forward and take this action is the ultimate form of selfless service.
This kind of selfless service happens often within our ranks. Our appreciation
to one another for such actions is evident, but seen only by those who endured
with us.
In one previous
unit, our Battalion Commander made it clear that there must be a complete “buy
in” in the unit mission and the Commander’s intent for that unit to succeed.
Perhaps this instruction came from higher. I agree if the cause is just and
there is no violation of moral character or ethics during mission execution.
This applies to both tasks within the organization or any act carried out among
the populous of the host country. In the countries we operate, there will be
those of a mindset that follow extremist beliefs that justify the deaths of
their own people. This will make it difficult for Soldiers to execute a
Commander’s intent without individuals of this mind-set feeling as if the
Americans are violating their morals and ethics. Their beliefs are not only
contrary to good civil order, but also the entitlement of every human being to
dwell peacefully. Our efforts are generally an “effect” of good leadership
during the execution of operations that preserve the human entitlement of
peace. Peace that at times cannot exist without selfless service and sacrifice
for those who are unaware what is given for them. It is a basic human need.
When viewed from the perspective of humanity, freedom can no longer be
restricted within the boundaries of our country.
Each and every
one of us should reflect inward and ask ourselves, “Am I here just for a career
or just to be a Soldier and Leader?” If the answer is “just a career” you have
no purpose within the ranks of the Infantry or any branch of the Military
service. If a Leader or Soldier is only interested in a career alone or the
pay, their first thought will be for “self” rather than “others”. During
training and actual missions, the benefit of others and the organization will
not be first in their minds. If leaders think this way, what will be the
outcome of their decisions? Soldiers and Leaders of this character will never
be willing to give of themselves or only give enough if there is some personal
gain to be attained. Such gains could be the possibility for advancement in
rank or to produce a “false perception” of one’s character in an effort to look
good in the presence of superiors and not living sound leadership daily.
True leadership
serves a higher purpose and benefits those above and below us. Leaders focused
on “self” do not see the results of the implementation of good leadership. The
end-state is the efficient execution of any task. Tasks or missions executed
more efficiently will result in less chance of fratricide and the unintentional
killing or wounding of civilians. All of which will affect the organization at
every level. Genuine leadership is often thankless and any leader not driven by
a “career” must understand that the best leadership often goes unseen, even by
those that they lead. Subordinates are usually unaware of the sacrifices that
leaders make on their behalf. Sacrifice of time, sleep or food. The list can go
on. I am comfortable with this, because the daily tasks that need to be carried
out are done so efficiently. This creates an environment with less stress. The
“machine” runs smoothly. An atmosphere with less stress on subordinates keeps
their minds clear and focused when it comes time to execute missions that have
a high level of stress and personal threat. The same holds true for tending to
the needs of Soldiers with regard to spiritual and emotional needs. For this
reason, it’s necessary for leaders to be involved in the lives of their
subordinates. Even simply stopping by the barracks during the week-end for a
brief check on their Soldiers is important. At the time the subordinate may
feel as if their leader is intruding, but usually it is appreciated even if the
subordinate never expresses it.
Caring for the
well-being of subordinates does not stop after the unit gets back from the
field, refit is complete, and everyone is on their way after the safety brief.
A subordinate’s problems become the problems of their leaders all the way up
through the Chain of Command and NCO Support Channel. Don’t ignore it or expect
that the Soldier knows how to best deal with the issue. When deployed, if a
subordinate learns that they have lost their spouse either to death or even if
it’s a fidelity issue, their mind will not be clear during missions. It would
be wise to leave this Soldier off of a few patrols in conjunction with seeing
the Chaplin and other elements within the military that are present to help
service men and women deal with problems.
Leadership is
never executed for the recognition of “self” by higher leaders. Leadership is
any action on my part to train and move my subordinates, conveying to them that
this action must be executed for a greater good that affects their lives as
well as others. It is more important than ourselves, and requires our genuine
attention if it is to be successful. If we fail those who follow us may fail,
leaving the task undone. Every action we perform and every decision we make as
leaders will have an effect on someone. This is why knowing the “definition” of
leadership is not leadership. Our actions, decisions and our example are what
“cause” the desired “effects” needed for a successful organization.
Our country was
founded on an unwavering belief in God and self-sacrifice for the whole rather
than “self”. Our history reflects that we have a great nation, so I am inclined
to believe that their belief in God and selfless actions were just. Regardless
of belief in faith, race or ethnicity, leadership is required to succeed. Human
needs are the same for all. Self-sacrifice will be demanded of any nation that
expects to prosper and preserve the freedoms of its populace or the freedom of
other nations who cannot stand for themselves against an oppressor that deprives
them of such basic human entitlements. Leaders should never forget that even
though his or her selfless service goes unseen, there is always someone looking
for our faults as leaders. It will either be someone who only has the intention
to point out our faults simply to correct and develop us or it very well may be
a leader who is focused on “self” and looks for fault only for the
gratification of holding their authority over you. Regardless of which, if we
maintain our character and hold ourselves responsible for our duties, they will
find very little to point out. But, this requires genuine leadership, daily
selfless actions and the ability to look inwardly at our own character. When
there is fault, do not let pride prevent the correction of your actions and
character. If we are not cautious, we as leaders can become more concerned
about how we look with regard to our Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) and
Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER) rather than taking care of
our subordinates and the greater good of the organization. If we do not conduct
an occasional “self-check”, a leader can develop a “power trip” or an attitude
of “self” rather than executing good leadership. Subordinate leaders and
Soldiers will see through it as well. This is often seen in a few newly
promoted leaders advancing to a higher level of responsibility. Leaders should
always be humble enough to remind themselves that the Army is still a “human
organization”.
That being
said, we as leaders can make mistakes. We must never let anything prevent us
from addressing our short comings. We all must understand that no matter how
high in the Chain of Command or NCO Support Channel we advance to, we can still
learn more, improve and develop ourselves. The truth is never tasteful when it
is not in our favor.
One simple
example is choosing the “easy wrong” over the “hard right” or being guilty of
choosing “self” over the benefit of those around us. It happens more than we
may think. It is still a truth that will eventually be seen, revealing our
intent. We need to correct whatever prevents the truth from being in our favor.
The majority of Leaders are of genuine character, but being human it’s always
good to check our own character, giving our “moral compass” a quick shake to be
certain that we’re on the right path regarding our leadership and that “self”
comes last. The Seven Army Values are a good corner-stone if we as Soldiers and
Leaders practice the values rather than just committing them to memory. If all
Soldiers and Leaders choose to serve others rather than “self”, the
organization as a whole will be in good care. The choice of “self” will never
need to be addressed because your peers and leaders will see to your well-being
and you theirs.
SSG David Allen
Hickman
C CO, 2nd BN, 11th IN RGT
C CO, 2nd BN, 11th IN RGT
No comments:
Post a Comment