Qualities Of a Good Leader...?

[Devildoc]

That's the other part, "Trust but Verify". Leaders inspire people to step up and do their best, but they spot check to make sure it is really meeting expectations. If you are truly leading, your direct subordinates will actively reach for new heights, hopefully by leading THEIR subordinates.

Of the three leadership styles you cited, authoritative breeds resentment and is easily the worst. It's also the most common in the military simply because there is such a focus on rank. Look up leading via power vs influence. Leading by influence is possible in the military, but it takes practice. Participative doesn't fit the military culture. Delegative is the best as long as you delegate the authority equal to the responsibility. If you delegate responsibility without the authority to get it done, you are setting them up for failure, which is a failure of your own.

ETA: Here's a good set of crib notes on Power vs Influence in Leadership Research Guides: Team Dynamics: Dealing with Power and Influence

Participative is kinda counter to the military model, but it can be done. You have to have the right 'style' to practice it, and like a lot of the styles it's not one-size-fits-all.

The best leaders are chameleons and can change to meet the requirements of the people and mission, effortlessly flowing in between "styles." But I have seen great leaders who made terrible managers, and vice versa.

 

[Cookie_]

Participative is kinda counter to the military model, but it can be done.

This isn't quite a participative leadership style, but it masks as one; asking people to do a task.

I've found that whether I was in the military, on the ambulance (very short stint tbh), or in the prison, I could get compliance more often than not with a "can you do xyz for me" or "I need you to take care of xyz".

Idk why, but it seems to trick that part of the brain that wants to challenge authority or ask "why".

The added benefit is that when I'm more explicitly delegative, or the few situations I need to be authoritative, it gives more of a sense a seriousness to my orders.

 

[Devildoc]

This isn't quite a participative leadership style, but it masks as one; asking people to do a task.

I've found that whether I was in the military, on the ambulance (very short stint tbh), or in the prison, I could get compliance more often than not with a "can you do xyz for me" or "I need you to take care of xyz".

Idk why, but it seems to trick that part of the brain that wants to challenge authority or ask "why".

The added benefit is that when I'm more explicitly delegative, or the few situations I need to be authoritative, it gives more of a sense a seriousness to my orders.

To the latter, I fully agree.

I have always been a fan of tact and being thoughtful in how you 'order' or 'ask.' I mean, can I just 'order' someone to do something? Yep. But often at a cost.

The other thing about this that bugs me is the hypocrisy of the military in that we're adults and hold people accountable, but treat them like toddlers ("because I said so, that's why"). The military does many, many things well, but as an institution it doesn't know anything about adult learning theory, then looks surprised when PVC. Jones decides to not re-up because everyone treated him and his 130 IQ like a window-licker.

 

[Locksteady]

The other thing about this that bugs me is the hypocrisy of the military in that we're adults and hold people accountable, but treat them like toddlers ("because I said so, that's why").

To the contrary, I never understood the resistance (particularly by lower enlisted personnel) to this logic or excuse, considering how boot/Basic was designed to condition us to immediately and unquestioningly comply with direct orders. I also didn't expect that sort of doublethink ("you're adults now/because I said so!") towards lower enlisted personnel to change very much after training, and Big Navy did not disappoint.

The military does many, many things well, but as an institution it doesn't know anything about adult learning theory, then looks surprised when PVC. Jones decides to not re-up because everyone treated him and his 130 IQ like a window-licker.

I think due to the size and structure of the branches that any fundamental changes like this have to occur at the platoon/division level by self-motivated mid-level leaders who are invested in their individual servicemembers. The few I knew who worked this way did it in spite of things were being run at the command level.

 

[Topkick]

Jones decides to not re-up because everyone treated him and his 130 IQ like a window-licker.

Sometimes, Jones lets his IQ of 130 get in the way of common sense.

 

[Devildoc]

Sometimes, Jones lets his IQ of 130 get in the way of common sense.

Sometimes. Often not. They are perceived as trouble makers because they question things, not always go-along-get-along.

 

[Devildoc]

To the contrary, I never understood the resistance (particularly by lower enlisted personnel) to this logic or excuse, considering how boot/Basic was designed to condition us to immediately and unquestioningly comply with direct orders. I also didn't expect that sort of doublethink ("you're adults now/because I said so!") towards lower enlisted personnel to change very much after training, and Big Navy did not disappoint.

I think due to the size and structure of the branches that any fundamental changes like this have to occur at the platoon/division level by self-motivated mid-level leaders who are invested in their individual servicemembers. The few I knew who worked this way did it in spite of things were being run at the command level.

A lot of that junior enlisted leadership is "I will do this because it was done to me; it must be the right way." I hated being a recipient of (and I never did) the "you're adults now/because I said so" thing.

Yeah, boot/basic is boot/basic, it has a specific goal and mission, but too often the boots get out and that whole (lack of education) philosophy attempts to get replicated at the A school, first unit, whatever. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

FWIW, my perspective of boot remains that it does not need to be fundamentally changed or have standards lowered; in fact, in some ways it needs to be tougher. Also FWIW, I was counseled for being 'that guy', and being a corpsman (who by nature bristles at authoritarianism on the green side) did not help.

 

[Locksteady]

FWIW, my perspective of boot remains that it does not need to be fundamentally changed or have standards lowered; in fact, in some ways it needs to be tougher. Also FWIW, I was counseled for being 'that guy', and being a corpsman (who by nature bristles at authoritarianism on the green side) did not help.

View attachment 41421

Ah, I feel this. Never change!

 

[Topkick]

Sometimes. Often not. They are perceived as trouble makers because they question things, not always go-along-get-along.

Agree, it was never a big issue but I've seen it more than once.

The Military (Army) is not and should not be a democracy. Leaders discuss plans with other experienced leaders in the planning process, prior to issuing orders. For example, a PL is advised by his NCOs. Jones gets paid to execute those orders. That doesn't mean disregard Jones' concerns because good input is good input and it creates buy in, but military decisions are often based on timeliness and SOPs.

ETA: Admittedly, my experience is 90% from conventional combat units and 10% from the ROTC environment. Basic training does carry over to those types of units. I have worked alongside an SF team briefly where I witnessed the team sergeant use the authorative style on occasion. I do realize its situational as we all come from different military backgrounds.

 

[Devildoc]

Agree, it was never a big issue but I've seen it more than once.

The Military (Army) is not and should not be a democracy. Leaders discuss plans with other experienced leaders in the planning process, prior to issuing orders. For example, a PL is advised by his NCOs. Jones gets paid to execute those orders. That doesn't mean disregard Jones' concerns because good input is good input and it creates buy in, but military decisions are often based on timeliness and SOPs.

ETA: Admittedly, my experience is 90% from conventional combat units and 10% from the ROTC environment. Basic training does carry over to those types of units. I have worked alongside an SF team briefly where I witnessed the team sergeant use the authorative style on occasion. I do realize its situational as we all come from different military backgrounds.

I know a 3rd Group ODA who is, um, dysfunctional, the 18A, 180, and team sgt have to be very authoritative. It's how they have to manage. Not what I would have expected from that level, but shows humans just gonna human.

Democracy, not at all. Nor do I advocate a coffee klatch or book club to discuss orders or ideas. I do think that in typical military fashion it's sometimes perceived as an all-or-nothing response, and good leaders can see and use both the leadership continuum and the personalities of the personnel to their advantage.

 

[Topkick]

Nor do I advocate a coffee klatch or book club to discuss orders or ideas.

We get to do this when we retire or ETS though.

 

[Gunz]

.

 

[Topkick]

Sometimes, Jones lets his IQ of 130 get in the way of common sense.

Just listened to @Marauder06 podcast on Hazard Ground. He talked about how West Point cadets should "understand the box before thinking outside of the box" and a lot of other leadership nuggets. Great podcast. I believe you can find the link in the podcast thread.

 

[Marauder06]

Just listened to @Marauder06 podcast on Hazard Ground. He talked about how West Points cadets should "understand the box before thinking outside of the box" and a lot of other leadership nuggets. Great podcast. I believe you can find the link in the podcast thread.

Thanks for the shout-out brother. "Someone with a writing style similar to mine" wrote an article on that topic a few years back for The Havok Journal, and so did someone else whose name may be familiar to some on this site.

Two things that frustrate me when novices talk about "thinking outside the box." 1: they are largely ignorant of the profession in general and have no idea about what "the box is" to begin with, and 2: "disciplined initiative" is explicitly part of Mission Command. So if you're taking initiative (which is usually what "thinking outside the box" is), you are inherently INSIDE the box, because that's what we expect you to do.

Innovation and initiative are key components of our success as leaders. You know what DOESN'T contribute? People not bothering to learn the basics and having to put themselves, and more importantly their units, through "re-inventing the wheel" all the time.

 

[Topkick]

Thanks for the shout-out brother. "Someone with a writing style similar to mine" wrote an article on that topic a few years back for The Havok Journal, and so did someone else whose name may be familiar to some on this site.

Two things that frustrate me when novices talk about "thinking outside the box." 1: they are largely ignorant of the profession in general and have no idea about what "the box is" to begin with, and 2: "disciplined initiative" is explicitly part of Mission Command. So if you're taking initiative (which is usually what "thinking outside the box" is), you are inherently INSIDE the box, because that's what we expect you to do.

Innovation and initiative are key components of our success as leaders. You know what DOESN'T contribute? People not bothering to learn the basics and having to put themselves, and more importantly their units, through "re-inventing the wheel" all the time.

I always tried to convey to my ROTC cadets to not "go in with guns ablazin". You'll loose your NCOs. I've seen this more than once. Learn the SOPs in place and then change, fix, improve. Listen to your NCOs and include them and you'll create buy-in rather than resentment.

 

[Devildoc]

I always tried to convey to my ROTC cadets to not "go in with guns ablazin". You'll loose your NCOs. I've seen this more than once. Learn the SOPs in place and then change, fix, improve. Listen to your NCOs and include them and you'll create buy-in rather than resentment.

We had a new PL, straight from his MOS training. The platoon sergeant called a leadership meeting/meet-and-greet, and tactfully told him that the platoon leadership had something like 60 years of experience, and that before he goes off on any Gung Ho leadership he should take a minute to consider leveraging his assets. The guy listened, turned out to be OK.

 

[Topkick]

We had a new PL, straight from his MOS training. The platoon sergeant called a leadership meeting/meet-and-greet, and tactfully told him that the platoon leadership had something like 60 years of experience, and that before he goes off on any Gung Ho leadership he should take a minute to consider leveraging his assets. The guy listened, turned out to be OK.

The PL/PSG relationship works great when both understand it. Both have to swallow some pride, work together, and stay in their respective lanes. As designed, most CO/1SG relationships work great because they've figured this out.

 

[Gunz]

I don’t know how many posts on this forum discuss newbie PL/NCO relationships and interactions, but there must be enough to fill a volume. Most hit the same theme, the new PL’s willingness to listen to his platoon Sgt and NCOs and not be in a rush to exercise command in an unfamiliar and new environment.

If there isn’t already, there should be classes on this topic in every OCS and military academy: EDIT — how about, “Dynamics of Intra-Platoon Partnership of Young Officer and Experienced NCO”

 

[irish greg]

Communication is a Hallmark of a good leader. Being able to give clear intent and giving subordinates the ability to complete the mission. ADP 6-0 gives a good read on best practices for a mission command organizations.

I agree with the above, gotta be adaptive to your formation, whether it's high performing or underperforming determines how involved you are as a leader.

 

[Marine0311]

@Teufel