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
0
0
0
Regardless of the area, they all need some form of leadership or management. Just because certain jobs require more advanced skills does not mean that the field is void of leadership.
The real problem is that there is a division within pay grades, soft and hard ranks. The Army needs to address the problem of not treating their enlisted personnel on an equally even level as its officers. An officer over a technical field is still an officer, which has received proper leadership training. The Army needs to do the same with its enlisted personnel.
I guess the real problem with this leadership issue is a lack of good leadership at the top for way too long!
(By the way, after I left the Marines a Cpl, I joined the Army Reserves in one of those technical fields and was reduced to a specialist and then was made to follow orders from junior personnel with the hard rank. Of course, I generally do not talk about being in the Army.)
The real problem is that there is a division within pay grades, soft and hard ranks. The Army needs to address the problem of not treating their enlisted personnel on an equally even level as its officers. An officer over a technical field is still an officer, which has received proper leadership training. The Army needs to do the same with its enlisted personnel.
I guess the real problem with this leadership issue is a lack of good leadership at the top for way too long!
(By the way, after I left the Marines a Cpl, I joined the Army Reserves in one of those technical fields and was reduced to a specialist and then was made to follow orders from junior personnel with the hard rank. Of course, I generally do not talk about being in the Army.)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Your personal experiences are a testimonial to this issue and do I see merit for suggesting that the Specialist ranks return back to our formations....as I read through the many responses to your question, it is clear to see that the common denominator is the lack or quality of leadership within our Army. Not to open a new can of worms, but it was SGT Bergdahl who stated that the main reason he left his post was due to poor leadership.
I have a daughter in the military and she just went over three years and is a Specialist. She has served overseas in Korea and just returned from Qatar on a nine month deployment...as she tells it, her experiences have not been very positive in dealing with Sergeants. As an example, during her first assignment, her Platoon Sergeant made several advances towards her in which she had to get intervention from the 1SG and Commander. By the way, he was married.
My observation on the issue is this: because of the GWOT, and the immediate need to produce leaders at all levels during a time of war, we have sacrificed or compromised certain standards which in the past have served us well in the proper selection, training and promoting of the best qualified Soldiers. The current mindset of young Soldiers is that the rank of Sergeant is just a pay grade with no meaning or commitment to the title.
Now that we are considered a Garrison army once again, it is clear to see that during this past decade plus of war, we have not been very successful in producing the quality and caliber of leaders that lead our formations today. The Army recently re-blued a system on how we produce quality leaders and maybe in the future will reconsider the Specialist ranks as a viable option to those who wish to be "Specialist" and not leaders.
I have a daughter in the military and she just went over three years and is a Specialist. She has served overseas in Korea and just returned from Qatar on a nine month deployment...as she tells it, her experiences have not been very positive in dealing with Sergeants. As an example, during her first assignment, her Platoon Sergeant made several advances towards her in which she had to get intervention from the 1SG and Commander. By the way, he was married.
My observation on the issue is this: because of the GWOT, and the immediate need to produce leaders at all levels during a time of war, we have sacrificed or compromised certain standards which in the past have served us well in the proper selection, training and promoting of the best qualified Soldiers. The current mindset of young Soldiers is that the rank of Sergeant is just a pay grade with no meaning or commitment to the title.
Now that we are considered a Garrison army once again, it is clear to see that during this past decade plus of war, we have not been very successful in producing the quality and caliber of leaders that lead our formations today. The Army recently re-blued a system on how we produce quality leaders and maybe in the future will reconsider the Specialist ranks as a viable option to those who wish to be "Specialist" and not leaders.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Having been in Aviation for 10 years, my NCOs have become near and dear to my heart. I have seen no less than a dozen top performers leave the Army because they can't get leadership time. These are guys that maintain the fleet, never miss a mission, and save lives through perfection every day in the air. I absolutely agree we need to bring back T ranks in technical specialties. I have seen some great platoon Sergeants that can't crew an aircraft. A lot of people can't do both, and when we lose a soldier who is instrumental to the mission because they were too good at crewing to lose him/her to a leadership spot, then the Army has failed.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The loss of the Specialist ranks has caused the technical side to be decimated. I left the service over that issue. Up for E-6, planned on staying a specialist. Was told that no I was to be promoted as Staff Sargent. My response was no I did not want to move into command and got out. My question now is, Will the Army begin to move back to the technical rank. I hope so, but my input would not be appreciated
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Army made its Big Mistake (capitals because it deserves a title) when it started WARRANTING promotions to NCO ranks. Get recommended, which was pretty darned easy, and answer questions in front of a board along with meeting BASIC requirements and bam, you are a NCO. Now you have bunch of whippersnappers who think that they can grow in to the job... WRONG.
Wrong because the continued molding of a soldier into a NCO is different than the Marine Corps and others who expect long termers to be leaders. What happens (at least in my experience) is that the culture is one where senior NCOs are resentful (right or wrong) and they throw the new NCOs under the bus. Mentorship does not happen in a constructive manner. Thanks to the pass 'em through the mill attitude of the Army, quite a few of the newer NCOs ended up being punks anyway and deserved a browbeating but the overwhelming amount of them changed the culture to one of a den of thieves and do nothings... so it goes down hill from there.
To answer the question about switching the rank structure to specialist ranks again, under the current mindset, YES, it was a mistake. If you want to encourage good soldiers to be good leaders then you have to give them something to be proud of.
Support and encourage MERIT in leadership! Demand morality and character. Let the Army values be the dominant culture.. not "Im'a get MINE".
God bless all those of good intent. You are up against a lot.
Wrong because the continued molding of a soldier into a NCO is different than the Marine Corps and others who expect long termers to be leaders. What happens (at least in my experience) is that the culture is one where senior NCOs are resentful (right or wrong) and they throw the new NCOs under the bus. Mentorship does not happen in a constructive manner. Thanks to the pass 'em through the mill attitude of the Army, quite a few of the newer NCOs ended up being punks anyway and deserved a browbeating but the overwhelming amount of them changed the culture to one of a den of thieves and do nothings... so it goes down hill from there.
To answer the question about switching the rank structure to specialist ranks again, under the current mindset, YES, it was a mistake. If you want to encourage good soldiers to be good leaders then you have to give them something to be proud of.
Support and encourage MERIT in leadership! Demand morality and character. Let the Army values be the dominant culture.. not "Im'a get MINE".
God bless all those of good intent. You are up against a lot.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I'm a private but shouldn't WLC and ALC courses like that weed bad leaders out? Maybe we should have higher standards.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
SPC (Join to see) I'll probably wish I had a helmet, flack vet on after this answer to you, but here is goes: You can train a monkey to do just about anything, just as most soldiers can be trained to pass a course(do they still give you three tries to pass?). But a leader has something more inside. A natural leader can look at a situation, assess it and run with the ball. A good leader can read his/her soldiers, know how to use their strengths and improve their weaknesses to complete the mission. A leader, after completing his/her assigned task will not sit around waiting to be told what to do, he/she will find something to do, help others without being told, think ahead how to improve or get the job done better. A leader, once assigned a task, even if he/she doesn't know how to complete the task, will use all assets available to him/her to complete the mission. Many of these traits can't be taught(oh, I guess in a way they can), but they come easy to a natural leader.
As your career progresses you will hopefully come under a natural leader and you will notice the difference. He/she is that person who takes the extra time with soldiers, will make you dig for your own answers, but at the same time will not let you fail. He/she will always have your back even when a task that has been assigned to you seem so over whelming, yet this person will know how to get YOU to figure out the answer instead of giving you the answer.
As your career progresses you will hopefully come under a natural leader and you will notice the difference. He/she is that person who takes the extra time with soldiers, will make you dig for your own answers, but at the same time will not let you fail. He/she will always have your back even when a task that has been assigned to you seem so over whelming, yet this person will know how to get YOU to figure out the answer instead of giving you the answer.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
My thoughts are they all have their place be it leaders, followers and technicians.
I wore the SP6 rank not SP5; remember the SP7s and career CPL & CPTs
At the time there were only a handful of MOSs authorized the SP6 technician rank
We were like a select group with less than 10 throughout the Brigade.
Our Infantry BDE CSM hated that he could do nothing. So I always loved that fact.
I wore the SP6 rank not SP5; remember the SP7s and career CPL & CPTs
At the time there were only a handful of MOSs authorized the SP6 technician rank
We were like a select group with less than 10 throughout the Brigade.
Our Infantry BDE CSM hated that he could do nothing. So I always loved that fact.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The promotion system is broken. There is a lot of good ol boy promotions out there. There needs to be a system in place that takes job skills into account. I am a 25U, I worked with a 25U SFC that created more problems down range because he didn't know his MOS. If your the Division Radio NCO and have soldiers underneath your leadership then you better know what your doing. When your told by the leader to get with the FSR as your solution for everything then the machine breaks down. Soldiers these days are using time in service and time in grade minimums as the point of promotion. As soon as those numbers align its time to advance. Doesn't matter if they are ready or not. We need to fix this to start fixing the problem.
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
SGT (Join to see) Back in the day, I remember taking a SQT(skill qual test). It was, if I remember right taken ever second year. Yea a good score on it was critical to promotion.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
With every new stripe there is more added responsibility to mentor our subordinates. If they fail, then we fail as leaders. Promotions aren't about meant selfishness but about selflessness. Give your soldiers what they need to complete the mission and your evaluations will write themselves. Often what is needed is discipline, but discipline starts with you. Be the change you want to see.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google