“Don’t mess with the Commander…”.
What does it mean to be respected? Some leaders coach and mentor. Some simply lead by example. It’s a blended approach normally. A few lead by fear and intimidation. How do you want the “commander” sentence to be finished when it is applied to you?
– “Don’t mess with the Commander. He really knows his stuff.”
Or
– “Don’t mess with the Commander. He’ll tear you a new one…”
Here’s the basic scenario – common to both questions below. Mission success against a complex enemy is dependent upon a number of variables and judgment calls by a leader who has to grapple with few facts, several assumptions and confusing uncertainty. The Commander is the leader. His leadership style is well known. He is leading an element with varied levels of experience, age, educational background and civilian acquired skill sets. As well, all are duty MOS qualified. Time is critically short. Based upon the threat, a wrong decision may spell absolute catastrophe.
SCENARIO ONE: The commander’s leadership style produced a theme among subordinates, “give up on doing it right; just do whatever it takes to get this by the commander”. Seemingly, anyone who questions the commander is punished severely. He has been personally successful by many standards, as he has been promoted quickly through the ranks and has attended all the right schools and held all the right assignments. However, any who have served under this commander and have gone on to be successful, merely did what it took to survive their time with him. Today, a young staff officer sees a pattern in enemy behavior. “How can the commander not see this?” thinks the staff officer. “Doesn’t the commander know this already?”. The staff officer has to decide if he’s going to tell the commander about this “obvious” element of information. He initially decides not to. It’s decision time. It’s happening. The commander is taking the wrong decision. Time is up. Will the staff officer speak up?
SCENARIO TWO: The commander’s leadership credentials, experience and displayed knowledge are well-respected. He’s what everyone is looking for in a leader. He has a proven record of success and every unit he has led has been successful. Many junior leaders he has mentored over the years have gone on to lead successful units. Today, a young staff officer sees a pattern in enemy behavior. “How can such a smart leader not see this?” thinks the staff officer. “Doesn’t the commander know this already?”. The staff officer has to decide if he’s going to tell the commander about this “obvious” element of information. He initially decides not to. It’s decision time. It’s happening. The commander is taking the wrong decision. Time is up. Will the staff officer speak up?
What do you think? How can a leadership style impact decision making, information flow, course of action development? How do you approach each of the scenarios if you were the staff officer? A toxic environment might spell mission failure in the long run. Not everything has to be as critical or complex as a combat situation, but, rather, the reputation is built in day-to-day interactions. Reflect on your own style. Do you coach, mentor and lead by example? Are you approachable enough to get the critical information you need? I look forward to a respectful dialog.
COL Hagler
I believe the staff officer has a duty to say something. There is only one all knowing entity in the universe as far as I know, so one should never suspect that someone knows everything. That being said, we should constantly strive to see the logic and correctness of our leaders’ decisions before we go off trying to correct our leaders, no matter how gracious or obstinate they may be. Sometimes the big picture is not too easy to see when you are on the ground but either way, the approach should be the same as the overall goal is the same: Victory.
First, present this new evidence or information as if you suspect the leader already has it. “Sir/Ma’am, I was looking at your plan and I’m just following up to make sure this information got to you. I thought this might change the plan.” This gives the leader an “out” and allows them to change their mind without looking indecisive.
Once the covert correction fails, it is time for overt action. You need to ensure you are reading this information correctly by bouncing it off a couple of people without looking like you are second guessing the commander. This is best done by going to peers and asking them what they would change with this information if they had to change something. If 2 or 3 of you agree on an alternate COA then it is time to go to the commander again behind a closed door and explain that you believe a better COA would be option B. This would be the appropriate time to bring up any applicable regulations, FM’s, INTSUMs, or laws concerning this action. The movie Crimson Tide comes to mind because there are laws governing the release of nukes. If no applicable AR or law exists, you can only support your chain of command at this point and simply insist that this information be pushed to the field as a probability for soldiers on the ground to watch for. If there is an AR or law governing such action, it is the duty of the person to go higher with this situation. A good method here is to let the commander know what you intend to do and keep the conversation/disagreement between yourself, the commander and the next higher authority. This will subvert any more dissention in the ranks and ensure a healthy team with one goal.
I hold my subordinates to this and they probably don’t realize it. Often, I will not consider their opinion very heavily based on their first comment. But they understand it is ok to come to me a second time or completely disagree and push the issue. Upon them pushing the issue a second time or refusing my dismissal, I know that I must consider their opinion. We will then take as much time as allowed to discuss it and come to a conclusion. If I change or modify my plan based on my subordinate’s idea, and I know it will be well received by the unit, I will often ensure to point out the change in plan and give credit to the subordinate that brought it up.
I hold firm to the belief that the best leadership training a leader can get is children. Subordinates are just like children, no matter the rank. They should love you and actually fear you at times. Just like many of us when we were children. We loved our parents despite their flaws and we feared their rebuke or disappointment.
For those without children, you simply live without fear and always lean in favor of your soldiers. When it is time to work, work them hard. When it is not time to work, let them do whatever they want without breaking any rules. If you can still accomplish the mission and focus on taking care of your soldiers, the rest (promotions, leadership positions and awards) will come all by themselves.
Sir,
The difference of leadership style affects the way in which the staff will convey the information and develop the different courses of action. Every leader has different requirements, and taking the leader’s requirements into consideration while conducting mission planning is important to ensure the staff provides the leader with the correct information. The staff will tune-in to what types of questions their leader asks and the type of information for which s/he looks in the decision briefs in order to make an informed decision. In reference to your two scenarios, approaching the leader with the “lead by fear” style will be different that approaching the “lead by example” leader. Ultimately, I would ensure the Commander had considered the intel in his/her decision, I would just execute differently based on the leadership style of the Commander. I would emphasize the benefit it would provide the “lead by fear” Commander, from my point of view, if he were to choose COA 2 based upon the observed intel, unless there was something I was missing from my vantage point which he knew would counter the effects of the intel. I would be less formal, while still respectful, with the “lead by example” Commander and ask if the intel was relevant to the outcome of the chosen COA, or would the intel be better addressed by COA 2. It is all in how the question is asked. The staff’s job is to ensure the Commander is successful, and that the Commander’s intent is understood and achieved through the staff functions. If I fail to ensure the Commander is successful, then I fail the Commander, and that can potentially put lives at risk. I would be as non-confrontational as possible with the “lead by fear” Commander and attempt to plant the idea as if s/he had originally thought of it. I would be more of a coachee/student with the “lead by example” Commander to ask if my observations had any relevance. All the while, doing this alone with each Commander, when time/situation allows, is much better as it will reduce the risk of appearing to sharp-shoot the Commander in front of the staff. These are two types I have found successful when dealing with these two different leadership styles. When an error occurs, I am much less interested in WHO was at fault as I am WHAT was at fault. Assigning blame seldom will solve a problem, but identifying the problem and then developing the solution to the problem is what moves the organization forward and accomplishes our mission. Holding people accountable for their actions are necessary in order to maintain discipline, and I do hold people, including myself, accountable for actions, but my first priority is to solve the problem. I find that by doing this, I am better able to coach and mentor my subordinates, and this also creates a more open environment which allows them to be more comfortable to approach me when they have a better way to accomplish the mission. Whenever possible, I include them in the planning process, and let them know why I did not (when possible) choose their recommendation (if I did not) to let them know their input is valuable.
I agree with 90% of the above. Truly good methods. I only caution the use of certain words or phrases. While I believe the correct intent is there, when you said, “The staff’s job is to ensure the Commander is successful, and that the Commander’s intent is understood and achieved through the staff functions. If I fail to ensure the Commander is successful, then I fail the Commander…” I caution my soldiers in being more dedicated to me than to the unit or organization. Everything we do affects the organization and mission. We should really never worry abour failing a commander. Instead, worry about failing the mission or the organization as a whole. The success of your commander follows that wheather they like it or not.
Absolutely concur… I’ve studied the remarks and while there is often a linkage between a successful commander and a successful organization, mission accomplishment is always paramount. I never set out to be remembered as a great commander… I’m more interested in being remembered as commanding a great unit! That puts things in perspective for me. You?
COL Hagler and SFC Walling,
Great valid point, and I should have been more clear in my wording. When saying that if I fail to ensure the Commander is successful I fail the Commander, that could perhaps be better expresses as if I fail to ensure the Commander accomplishes the mission, then I fail the Commander and the organization as a whole. That is why I added that it potentially puts lives at risk, meaning that if I fail to ensure the Commander is successful in accomplishing the organization’s mission, then the Soldiers’ whose lives depend on the organization accomplishing its mission could be in danger.
I figured that is what you were saying, Sir. But I felt it important to point out what/how we say things. Simply because oters that listen will often listen to ONLY what you say and not what you mean. I run into this with lower enlisted. They are eager to be like their succesful leaders, and often miss the intent if I am not careful with my words on a consistant basis.