Qualities Of a Good Leader...?

[Teufel]

I think the most important thing leaders need is to have good character with strong values. Warfare gets real messy sometimes and you may have to make morally difficult decisions in time constrained environments. Your subordinates will often execute these orders on your behalf and it is imperative that you maintain their trust and confidence in your ability to weigh mission requirements against their physical and mental well being. Do you shoot the teenager holding the weapon? Was that a VBIED or just a panicked taxi driver? Do you drop an air strike into the population center to suppress the mortar operating there? There are no easy answers to any of these questions and you won't have a lot of time to weigh your options. It's easier to do this if you, and your people, do your best to keep your moral compass pointed north and hold on to your values as the world deteriorates around you. This will also help your subordinates work through the aftermath of complicated scenarios and process any associated guilt.

 

[Topkick]

think the most important thing leaders need is to have good character with strong values.

Command climate and unit culture are important factors, for sure. I've seen rogue leaders and it usually permeates a unit. Leading by example works in many ways.

 

[compforce]

I ran across this article and thought about this thread. I agree with virtually all of this. A Leadership Sketch

1. Leaders are goal-oriented visionaries. They see far. They go first. They paint a picture of a better world and show us how to get there.
2. Leaders have their finger on the pulse. They understand the problems we are experiencing. They understand it logically and emotionally. They understand our pain, our fears, and desires.
3. Leaders are deeply involved in the work. They ask people what is going on and they help them find the way. They set goals and constraints but not detailed solutions. They value deep and open discussion.
4. Leaders understand what we need and they explain how we can get it. They have a solution and a plan that makes sense, that seems achievable. A plan that is broad and high level, that can change as the need arises.
5. Leaders make good decisions that solve problems. When they make poor decisions and don’t solve problems they lose support.
6. Leaders share the benefits of success with their people, fulfilling the promises they have made to them. Leaders are accountable to their people.
7. Leaders align us and unite us. They bring us together for a common purpose to achieve a worthwhile goal.
8. Leaders inspire us with stories of villains and heroes, a dark present and a bright future, of obstacles to overcome and a plan to overcome them.
9. Leaders ask for power, authority, and resources to achieve the goal and we give it to them because we want them to help us get to a better future.
10. Leaders often start as thought leaders with no authority or resources. They gain followers and then those followers give them authority and resources.
11. Leaders negotiate with powerful groups on behalf of their team. The team trusts the leader to represent their interests and to make the right decisions for them. Stakeholders trust the leader to be true to their word.
12. Leaders know that they don’t know all the answers. They explore the situation. They ask for advice. They listen to people. They conduct experiments and scout ahead.
13. Leaders know they can’t do everything themselves. They ask other people to help. They recruit people, inspire them, listen to them, and delegate to them.
14. Leaders inspire those who report to them to be leaders. They explain the situation and the mission and they ask their people to develop a plan to achieve it.
15. Leaders teach other people how to be leaders. They ask people to describe the problem, the solution, and the outcome and to ask for the power and resources they need to achieve it. They grow the leaders that will replace them in the future.
16. Leaders give their people the authority and resources they need to achieve the goal they have agreed to achieve.
17. Leaders trust people to make decisions quickly based on local factors. They know the world is uncertain and constantly changing and the people on the ground are in the best position to make the right decision to achieve the goal.
18. Leaders help people to organize themselves to solve problems. They coach, mentor, train, and support people. They understand and improve group dynamics. They make others better people.
19. Leaders can be appointed or they can arise naturally. Sometimes those who are appointed to leadership positions are unable or unwilling to lead. Sometimes those who are not in an official position are the real leaders.
20. Leaders have followers. If they don’t have followers they are not a leader.
21. The best leaders are good organizers. They understand structure, stability, tradeoffs, processes, tools, and budgets. They make good decisions that people want to follow.
22. Leadership is learned from role models. They may be parents, community leaders, or managers.
23. Leaders demonstrate the behavior they are asking for from others. Leaders lose our trust when their words and actions diverge.
24. Some people know how to be leaders when they enter the workforce others learn it from mentors, from books, and through trial and error.
25. Leaders define the leadership model of their organization through their words and deeds.
26. Leaders lose our support and their authority when their plans fail and they make the situation worse. This is a good thing. Leaders should be replaced when they have outlived their purpose to the group or the organization

 

[Topkick]

Good leaders are always good managers, but good managers are not always good leaders.

Since retiring from the Army, my experience in the civilian sector has been that morale and welfare are of little or no concern to management. Professional development is minimal. The attitude out here is " if you don't like it, leave." Turnover rates are high.

You don't know what you got til its gone. I really miss working with good officers and NCOs.

 

[Marauder06]

I need a good platoon sergeant to follow me around the rest of my life.

 

[Totentanz]

Good leaders are always good managers, but good managers are not always good leaders.

Since retiring from the Army, my experience in the civilian sector has been that morale and welfare are of little or no concern to management. Professional development is minimal. The attitude out here is " if you don't like it, leave." Turnover rates are high.

You don't know what you got til its gone. I really miss working with good officers and NCOs.

I would disagree that leadership automatically confers management skills. They may develop with experience, but I've met people with the requisite skills for leading others but no idea how to manage schedules, assets etc. Leadership and management are two separate skillsets that can exist (or fail to do so) independently of each other.

The civilian world largely does not focus on building leaders the way the military does. There are some people who have a natural talent for it, some who are former military (and developed it there), and some who just happen to have had great experiences or mentors, but an actual effective leadership development program is rare. More frequently whoever is the technical expert in [field] gets put in charge (and not always someone who wants to take the lead), and that may change if somebody shows talent for managing processes. Some develop through experience and some... just don't. It also doesn't necessarily get you promoted so positive outcomes don't always propagate up the chain over time.

 

[Topkick]

would disagree that leadership automatically confers management skills

Agreed, but I think the point is a good leader always seeks to master the skills of management, while the opposite is not always true.

If you are not trying to improve your management skills, then are you really a good leader?

 

[Devildoc]

Good leaders are always good managers, but good managers are not always good leaders.

Since retiring from the Army, my experience in the civilian sector has been that morale and welfare are of little or no concern to management. Professional development is minimal. The attitude out here is " if you don't like it, leave." Turnover rates are high.

Where I work they are big into professional development. The organization also throws around the terms 'leadership' and 'management' synonymously, which makes me a bit nutty. We are trying hard as hell to retain and we have created some niche roles where people can be like junior NCOs, either in real leadership positions, or more technical positions. The organization still doesn't 'get it' but they are trying.

I would disagree that leadership automatically confers management skills. They may develop with experience, but I've met people with the requisite skills for leading others but no idea how to manage schedules, assets etc. Leadership and management are two separate skillsets that can exist (or fail to do so) independently of each other.

The civilian world largely does not focus on building leaders the way the military does. There are some people who have a natural talent for it, some who are former military (and developed it there), and some who just happen to have had great experiences or mentors, but an actual effective leadership development program is rare. More frequently whoever is the technical expert in [field] gets put in charge (and not always someone who wants to take the lead), and that may change if somebody shows talent for managing processes. Some develop through experience and some... just don't. It also doesn't necessarily get you promoted so positive outcomes don't always propagate up the chain over time.

When I was a manager of an ICU and had 75ish direct reports, they put me into the 4-day 'guide to management' program for all new managers/leaders. Over the four days there might have been a 3-hour lecture on principles of leadership; the rest of the time was about spreadsheets and budgets, managing payroll, etc. Some managers were also great leaders; so were great managers, but had an awful work culture because of lack of leadership. Some were absolutely horrible leaders, yelled a lot, just no bueno, but senior leadership liked them because they met the management metrics.

 

[Topkick]

I'm not so much referring to titles. In fact, I respectfully tell my boss often that I don't like being referred to as a Manager...because I like to think of myself as a leader. Some "Managers" are actually leaders who carry the title of manager.

 

[Totentanz]

Where I work they are big into professional development. The organization also throws around the terms 'leadership' and 'management' synonymously, which makes me a bit nutty. We are trying hard as hell to retain and we have created some niche roles where people can be like junior NCOs, either in real leadership positions, or more technical positions. The organization still doesn't 'get it' but they are trying.



When I was a manager of an ICU and had 75ish direct reports, they put me into the 4-day 'guide to management' program for all new managers/leaders. Over the four days there might have been a 3-hour lecture on principles of leadership; the rest of the time was about spreadsheets and budgets, managing payroll, etc. Some managers were also great leaders; so were great managers, but had an awful work culture because of lack of leadership. Some were absolutely horrible leaders, yelled a lot, just no bueno, but senior leadership liked them because they met the management metrics.

I almost rolled this into the above post but felt like I was getting diarrhea of the keyboard - for most "corporate" environments, the combination of 'hard workers' and 'effectively managed' (in many cases that is synonymous with 'efficiently managed') is both a good enough solution and a bit more reliable predictor of output. Investing in leadership is both costly and (do I dare say it) unreliable. Selecting and training leaders is difficult and results can be all over the place, and turnover means that the company may never benefit from doing much beyond hiring an expert to put on a 4 day program*. Otherwise they can get most of what they need out of finding people within their ranks who understand their processes and have decent management skills and workers who do well (hopefully VERY well) at their individual contributions.



* curious if your program is internal or external (or contracted out) and the background of the folks running it.

 

[Devildoc]

I almost rolled this into the above post but felt like I was getting diarrhea of the keyboard - for most "corporate" environments, the combination of 'hard workers' and 'effectively managed' (in many cases that is synonymous with 'efficiently managed') is both a good enough solution and a bit more reliable predictor of output. Investing in leadership is both costly and (do I dare say it) unreliable. Selecting and training leaders is difficult and results can be all over the place, and turnover means that the company may never benefit from doing much beyond hiring an expert to put on a 4 day program*. Otherwise they can get most of what they need out of finding people within their ranks who understand their processes and have decent management skills and workers who do well (hopefully VERY well) at their individual contributions.



* curious if your program is internal or external (or contracted out) and the background of the folks running it.

Internal to Duke. The speakers are leaders (pun? No pun? You decide) in their areas; profs from the business school, law profs from the law school, etc.

 

[Topkick]

Otherwise they can get most of what they need out of finding people within their ranks who understand their processes and have decent management skills and workers who do well (hopefully VERY well) at their individual contributions.

MicroMANAGEMENT is often what drives this thinking. Corporation policy comes from the top. Execute those policies and keep your mouth shut, and you'll get to keep your job. If you don't agree (by sharing your ideas) with corporation policies, we'll find somebody who will. Not saying its ineffective, or that its all encompassing, its just not leadership.

 

[Devildoc]

I love my bosses, both my direct report and the Big Boss of my department (she's a VP for our organization). They decentralize leadership, allowing me/my peers to make decisions, backs us up, not punitive when we fuck up, and allows us to drive creativity.

Personal example: Big Boss, to me: "why don't we have any military medical people doing clinical here like they do at other hospitals?" Me: "I dunno, good question." Big Boss: "Make it happen. I will take care of senior leadership."

I am not alone. She is like this with all of this. She rewards initiative.

 

[Topkick]

I love my bosses, both my direct report and the Big Boss of my department (she's a VP for our organization). They decentralize leadership, allowing me/my peers to make decisions, backs us up, not punitive when we fuck up, and allows us to drive creativity.

Personal example: Big Boss, to me: "why don't we have any military medical people doing clinical here like they do at other hospitals?" Me: "I dunno, good question." Big Boss: "Make it happen. I will take care of senior leadership."

I am not alone. She is like this with all of this. She rewards initiative.

Sounds like a leader

 

[Totentanz]

MicroMANAGEMENT is often what drives this thinking. Corporation policy comes from the top. Execute those policies and keep your mouth shut, and you'll get to keep your job. If you don't agree (by sharing your ideas) with corporation policies, we'll find somebody who will. Not saying its ineffective, or that its all encompassing, its just not leadership.

It doesn't have to be at the micro level. You can absolutely generate issues if you do that, but generally, a guiding hand making sure that things keep moving the same direction and system A doesn't overflow its input into system B (and that downtime on system B is minimized by making sure that the maintenance shift schedule is optimized) is most of what the corporate world wants. That can either be micromanaged to hell, or it can simply have effective management oversight.

No, it's not leadership (at all)... but investing in building an effective leadership structure from scratch may or may not improve either system A or B and it will certainly increase costs.

 

[Topkick]

Many corporations only want results. Understandably, its all about selling their product and they are not interested in your morale or your life after you punch out. I led a team within a corporation, and it frustrated me when my hands were tied by corporate policy. But my primary job was to enforce their policies even when I had better solutions. Its a balancing act between being a "company man" and a leader.

 

[Marine0311]

I need a good platoon sergeant to follow me around the rest of my life.

I agree and I will.

 

[Marauder06]

Be-Know-Do for 2023:

Know: the operational environment, yourself, your organization, and the adversary
Be: a critical thinker
Do: lead authentically

 

[Topkick]

, it's not leadership (at all)... but investing in building an effective leadership structure from scratch may or may not improve either system A or B and it will certainly increase costs.

Most corporations are about command and control (managers), where leaders create environments in which subordinates can feel like they are invested, and their concerns and ideas are at least acknowledged.

Managers, especially at higher levels, don't care what you think, just that you do your fuckin' job. As a mid level manager (Civilian), I challenged myself every day to balancing support for the corporation while providing compassionate leadership to my team. Something I didn't see a lot of throughout the company and it always frustrated me. Worth noting, I held a team of 6 personnel together for about 7 years with no turnover in a usually high turnover company.

While in the Army, I declined to be considered for CSM more than once and retired because I didn't want to be away from the troops. In my experience, A lot of CSM's became company men (managers) and no longer genuinely cared for their troops. Not trying to sound righteous, just pointing out my personal view of management v. Leadership.