Posted on Dec 22, 2015
Did the Army make a big mistake in leadership mentoring and should we take a step back?
59.8K
182
87
36
36
0
The following is a letter I'd like to get to SMA Dailey. What do you think?:
The army made a big mistake in doing away with the Specialists ranks above SPC4 - not everyone is a leader. During my career and I a guessing in yours as well, we've both seen soldiers put in leadership positions who didn't belong and because of it the mission might not have failed, but it wasn't completed to the best it could have been. I saw it constantly in my career where soldiers weren't taken care of, counseling wasn't done, NCOs went home early, soldiers left to complete a mission without the proper supervision. Why do these things happen? - because those in charge don't care enough, don't have the natural leadership traits, are thinking about their own self first, and the list goes on. These are not the traits of a good leader.
As a SSG I took over a 12B squad. In my first couple days with the squad I had every soldier in for an interview and did a formal counseling. This one SPC was a little scared to be "given a formal counseling" because his idea of it was something bad. I explained to him this was the army's way of letting the soldiers know what we as leaders expected from the troops. He was shocked - he told me his former SQD LDR had never had any kind of counseling with him and neither had his team leader - NOW I WAS SHOCKED! When I brought in my two team leaders (together), they both told me they'd received one counseling for their NCOER, but were never told to counsel their teams, it was as if counseling was just a hoop to jump. I ask how their team members were to know what was expected of them, I received looks, but no answers. This is a clear leadership problem, a leader who didn't know what he was doing.
Yes, I know you can use the above example as clearly a lack of duties and responsibilities from the top down, yes it is, but this was something I knew! I'd never really had that much leadership training, but I also knew if someone isn't clearly defined in their job, then how can you give them a negative rating?
My entire career has been Reserve, but I had also been in leadership positions in my civilian job. I have been a ranch foreman with the responsibility of approx 75 head of horse & mules. I was responsible for setting of multiple hunting camps, insuring everything was in ready for customers. I had several people working for me and I had to let them know what I expected of them because we worked alone much of the time.
As a kid in Boy Scouts I was made Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol leader, I never asked for it, but I was put in those jobs, maybe because I have an aggressive personality. Through school it was, "Dawson, take over here". Leadership positions have been thrust upon me my entire military career as well. Many times I didn't know what I was doing, but I understood how to lead, and this was the key.
Yes we can try to make leaders. We can send them to school we can tell them how to do things, and we can put them in training leadership positions, but ultimately it falls back on the natural leadership traits which good leader have. In 1995 I was deployed to OJE. While down range I was promoted to SFC. About half way through the deployment the unit Commander came to me and asked me to take over the SNCO position of the unit (held by an E8). I replied there were two more SFCs with so much more TIG/TIS than me, I was brand new, but the Commander came back with, yes, but you are a leader. The only way I took the position was I spoke with the two other SFCs and got their support, thus I took the job.
SMA, you've spent a lot of time on uniforms and such, but I really think the rank structure needs attention. Yes we got a lot of smart soldiers today, they know their jobs, but it takes a real leader to bring these soldiers together to get the job done. I was just on the "Rally Point" forum where a SSG brought up a question, "Should his whole squad get a UCMJ action because they failed to complete the mission?" I replied to the SSG, maybe he needs to relook his leadership skills because if the whole squad failed, then he failed as well.
We've got units today in which NCOs are the majority of enlisted. We tried the "green tab" but it got lost in the shuffle. What soldiers look at is the rank. If everyone is an NCO then where is the respect for the NCO leader? It's almost like giving a trophy to every kid, winner or loser just for showing up. With the cut backs in spending we need to be good stewards of our resources. Leaders are resources! Those who are leaders need to be hard stripes and put in those positions. Followers need to have the Specialists ranks or maybe "T" Sergeants, I believe this would take undue pressure from those non-leaders and let them focus better on their jobs. Just think SMA, what if you had a platoon of nothing but 1LTs?
The army made a big mistake in doing away with the Specialists ranks above SPC4 - not everyone is a leader. During my career and I a guessing in yours as well, we've both seen soldiers put in leadership positions who didn't belong and because of it the mission might not have failed, but it wasn't completed to the best it could have been. I saw it constantly in my career where soldiers weren't taken care of, counseling wasn't done, NCOs went home early, soldiers left to complete a mission without the proper supervision. Why do these things happen? - because those in charge don't care enough, don't have the natural leadership traits, are thinking about their own self first, and the list goes on. These are not the traits of a good leader.
As a SSG I took over a 12B squad. In my first couple days with the squad I had every soldier in for an interview and did a formal counseling. This one SPC was a little scared to be "given a formal counseling" because his idea of it was something bad. I explained to him this was the army's way of letting the soldiers know what we as leaders expected from the troops. He was shocked - he told me his former SQD LDR had never had any kind of counseling with him and neither had his team leader - NOW I WAS SHOCKED! When I brought in my two team leaders (together), they both told me they'd received one counseling for their NCOER, but were never told to counsel their teams, it was as if counseling was just a hoop to jump. I ask how their team members were to know what was expected of them, I received looks, but no answers. This is a clear leadership problem, a leader who didn't know what he was doing.
Yes, I know you can use the above example as clearly a lack of duties and responsibilities from the top down, yes it is, but this was something I knew! I'd never really had that much leadership training, but I also knew if someone isn't clearly defined in their job, then how can you give them a negative rating?
My entire career has been Reserve, but I had also been in leadership positions in my civilian job. I have been a ranch foreman with the responsibility of approx 75 head of horse & mules. I was responsible for setting of multiple hunting camps, insuring everything was in ready for customers. I had several people working for me and I had to let them know what I expected of them because we worked alone much of the time.
As a kid in Boy Scouts I was made Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol leader, I never asked for it, but I was put in those jobs, maybe because I have an aggressive personality. Through school it was, "Dawson, take over here". Leadership positions have been thrust upon me my entire military career as well. Many times I didn't know what I was doing, but I understood how to lead, and this was the key.
Yes we can try to make leaders. We can send them to school we can tell them how to do things, and we can put them in training leadership positions, but ultimately it falls back on the natural leadership traits which good leader have. In 1995 I was deployed to OJE. While down range I was promoted to SFC. About half way through the deployment the unit Commander came to me and asked me to take over the SNCO position of the unit (held by an E8). I replied there were two more SFCs with so much more TIG/TIS than me, I was brand new, but the Commander came back with, yes, but you are a leader. The only way I took the position was I spoke with the two other SFCs and got their support, thus I took the job.
SMA, you've spent a lot of time on uniforms and such, but I really think the rank structure needs attention. Yes we got a lot of smart soldiers today, they know their jobs, but it takes a real leader to bring these soldiers together to get the job done. I was just on the "Rally Point" forum where a SSG brought up a question, "Should his whole squad get a UCMJ action because they failed to complete the mission?" I replied to the SSG, maybe he needs to relook his leadership skills because if the whole squad failed, then he failed as well.
We've got units today in which NCOs are the majority of enlisted. We tried the "green tab" but it got lost in the shuffle. What soldiers look at is the rank. If everyone is an NCO then where is the respect for the NCO leader? It's almost like giving a trophy to every kid, winner or loser just for showing up. With the cut backs in spending we need to be good stewards of our resources. Leaders are resources! Those who are leaders need to be hard stripes and put in those positions. Followers need to have the Specialists ranks or maybe "T" Sergeants, I believe this would take undue pressure from those non-leaders and let them focus better on their jobs. Just think SMA, what if you had a platoon of nothing but 1LTs?
Posted in these groups: 
Leadership
Leadership
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 33
2
2
0
Very well put. I've been out a long time, but even back then there were very few senior specialists. They had already eliminated SP6. (though I had one as a ward leader at the hospital at Fort Ord). In those specialist fields, you need specialist leadership skills.
(2)
(0)
MSG Dennis Lane
"In those specialist fields, you need specialist leadership skills."
I have been out for a long time as well, and your point is well taken. The SP6's I knew WERE leaders, and were respected in their fields. They were medical.
I have been out for a long time as well, and your point is well taken. The SP6's I knew WERE leaders, and were respected in their fields. They were medical.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
These NCO's that are referred to as not leaders should be dealt with withing the established protocols, such as relief for cause, reduction boards, etc. My opinion is that we as leaders have witnessed the poor leadership you are referencing to but yet they fall through the cracks or write their own performance evaluations, to fix this accountability must begin at the highest level, ensuring raters rate, not the individual themselves, we perform under a broken system, example an E-6 can't make the E-7 list but yet is qualified to be selected as a Warrant Officer who will now lead leaders. I do not believe the Corporal or tech sergeant is the answer, the answer is in ensuring everyone executes accordingly and if not remove from those roles with the system that is already in place but rately used
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SGM Dawson, Your argument is valid, except that it isn't the rank structure that needs work, it is leadership training. You are a natural leader, as your comments prove. That doesn't mean you are smarter or better than the average guy, it just means that when it comes to leading people, you "get it." Leadership can be taught. I have done it, as a vetted and qualified leadership trainer, in the military and in the civilian sector. Your example of what it means to "counsel" a subordinate is exactly on point, and the difference between a good leader and a leader that is less effective.
I joined the Army in 1966, and knew some SP5 and SP6. I believe the decision to do away with those ranks was about the same time the Army implemented the "up or out" policy. No more were there to be careerists who never rose above E-4. I remember some guys physically crying -- yes, real liquid tears -- because they would have to take E-5 or leave the service. "I'm a truck driver. I'm a good truck driver. That's all I ever want to do." But the Army was saying, "If we are going to promote people to these pay grades (E-5 and above), we have the RIGHT to DEMAND that they be leaders." If that is true, then it is the Army's responsibility to develop these people to be leaders. If a team leader or a squad leader isn't counselling the team members (positive, negative, or simply setting mutual expectations) -- and DOCUMENTING it -- then that is a failure of leadership. And that failure goes to the top. If there is a team leader who isn't counselling, there is a CSM who isn't doing his or her job.
I joined the Army in 1966, and knew some SP5 and SP6. I believe the decision to do away with those ranks was about the same time the Army implemented the "up or out" policy. No more were there to be careerists who never rose above E-4. I remember some guys physically crying -- yes, real liquid tears -- because they would have to take E-5 or leave the service. "I'm a truck driver. I'm a good truck driver. That's all I ever want to do." But the Army was saying, "If we are going to promote people to these pay grades (E-5 and above), we have the RIGHT to DEMAND that they be leaders." If that is true, then it is the Army's responsibility to develop these people to be leaders. If a team leader or a squad leader isn't counselling the team members (positive, negative, or simply setting mutual expectations) -- and DOCUMENTING it -- then that is a failure of leadership. And that failure goes to the top. If there is a team leader who isn't counselling, there is a CSM who isn't doing his or her job.
(1)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
MSG Dennis Lane Great post and good points. I agree leadership can be taught, but there are many who just don't get the finer points of being a leader and don't have that inner drive. I believe it is the inner drive which makes the difference between a leader and a great leader.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes, I believe that the Specialist structure especially at E5 and above in today's Army should be used more in non combat roles. I served two years in Germany and Vietnam in the 60's. I seen alot of Sp5s, Sp6's, and so on then and not alot of Sgt's above the E5 grade. A Sgt grade should be in a leadership NCO category. Just my opinion..
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Maybe if we quit promoting people at the cyclic rate and actually promote soldiers who deserve it, we wouldn't have this problem. The mentors don't know how to mentor, because some of them too we just given the rank and not brought up properly..
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
From my time in the Army I have seen this go two different ways. There are technical fields that require E-5 and above to be SMEs and yet be leaders in soldier skills as well,this does not always work out well. I think that the Specialist rank, or equivalent should be employed for certain technical specialties with those in this area promoted based on skill aptitude rather than leadership abilities. As a specialist at an equivalent NCO rank, appropriate progression and teaching skills should be required and evaluated for progression. Naturally there are going to be those who are more apt to lead who may not be as proficient at the job skill but are more suited for the NCO ranks. All must still demonstrate basic soldier skills equivalent to the E grade but the requirement for promotion would vary by rank type. Probably complicates things unnecessarily but in this increasingly technical world, we have SNCOs who have little skill at the jobs which they are to oversee and be responsible for.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have had the same opinion on rank structure for years. Leaders are not instantly made just because they achieved the rank of NCO. There are many who should never make NCO. But they perform jobs well. Give them the specialist ranks with pay increases.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
You can train a soldier to shoot perfect marksmanship, max PT, etc. This does not make them a leader. Just like all managers are not leaders in the business world. All soldiers regardless of performance are not born leaders. It is a proven fact.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
SGT (Join to see) - This has been my thinking and why I posted the question. I like you have seen lots of good soldiers, who can do the job, but they're not leaders.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I have been in situations like that "Top" and have seen leaders do that to soldier's, they will not give the intial counseling for the soldier and the Nco's do not get informed of it neither , that is handed down form the top all the way down to the bottom of the totem pole. "Shit roles down hill" , piss poor leadership
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I can see how this can be beneficial in some cases but does it address the actual issue which seems to be more about not holding people accountable? No question there are individuals who are not the best at leading people but the first thing mentioned, the failure to counsel, is a compliance with regulation issue not inability to lead. Additionally, no question that making it to the level of SMA means that people along the way recognized your ability to get things done, hence the selection for the added responsibility, but does that automatically make the others useless? Additionally, let's talk about why we have people who are not able to fulfill the duties in those ranks. Promotions has become more about what's on paper as opposed to being about who's capable of truly leading people which has led to significant changes. Similar to the drastic steps the AF has implemented to attempt to correct the issue of evaluation, I truly understand the need to do something but is the answer celebrating mediocrity? Or is it pushing all towards excellence and beginning with simple compliance merged with leadership development? Don't get me wrong, I get giving others some incentive if they cannot make the cut to a certain extent but allowing for separate classification to allow for promotion does seem like "everyone gets a trophy" to me.
All that being said, I would like to see what the construct and legalese of that change would be. Any plan with proper planning and execution can work but the question is whether we're attacking the root cause or just symptoms.
All that being said, I would like to see what the construct and legalese of that change would be. Any plan with proper planning and execution can work but the question is whether we're attacking the root cause or just symptoms.
(1)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
One thing I have to disagree with is failure to counsel your squad, soldiers. This is a failure in a basic leadership trait of communication. If you fail to properly tell your soldiers what you expect of them, then how will they know what to do? Those who are leaders don't stand around waiting to be told what to do. They are those who are constantly seeking more, better, higher achievement. There are many out there who will only do exactly what is necessary to get the basic job done. The leader is the one who will use his/her own time to help advance others, isn't beyond getting their hands dirty, able to be progressive, self motivated. Some NCOs in leadership positions I've seen can't see ahead to think ahead. They don't know how to manage people, see what assets they got, how to put put the puzzle together to get the final picture. I'm not putting these people down, because many of these people are very knowledgeable in their MOS, especially in so many of the hi-tec stuff we got to day, but that knowledge doesn't always mean they got what it takes to pull the unit together to get the mission completed.
(2)
(0)
SMSgt (Join to see)
I understand your point of view and agree on part but my comment was regarding the Army requirement for counseling at certain intervals. The example listed was for people not giving proper counseling which I believe is a requirement by regulation, hence my concern of mistaking non-compliance with a regulation for lack of leadership ability.
As for the characteristics of a leader, I think what you're describing is the natural-born leader and discrediting the late bloomers who, while not the personality types that jump at every opportunity, are just as capable if given the proper leadership as an example to follow. Also, consider those people who have advanced to those position. Would they be there if their leadership was honest about their abilities? Why were they allowed to progress to the level they've reached? Most importantly, why were they allowed to remain at that level when unable to accomplish the tasks required?
As for the characteristics of a leader, I think what you're describing is the natural-born leader and discrediting the late bloomers who, while not the personality types that jump at every opportunity, are just as capable if given the proper leadership as an example to follow. Also, consider those people who have advanced to those position. Would they be there if their leadership was honest about their abilities? Why were they allowed to progress to the level they've reached? Most importantly, why were they allowed to remain at that level when unable to accomplish the tasks required?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Much as it pains me to admit it, the best thing I ever read about small unit leadership was not written by a Marine. I highly recommend "Small Unit Leadership: A Commonsense Approach..." By Col.Dandridge M. Malone USA, to anyone who thinks he may be in charge of more than his or her self at some time while they are in the service.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google