Do you believe that leading Signal/comms servicemembers requires a different approach from leading other servicemembers? Why, or why not?

2016-02-12T22:53:31-05:00

EDIT: Generalized the question to refer to all services.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2016 11:14 PM

2016-02-12T23:14:20-05:00

It shouldn't but for many Leaders, it does. Why? Many Signaleers at some point make a conscious or unconscious decision to become a specialist in one or few fields or generalists. Put any number of Signaleers of any rank or MOS and everyone knows a deal of information that no one else does - especially true of 25Us. When Senior stripes or brass "directed" instead of seeking my input on situations or TTPs that affected my lane and how others would view me as a SME, I had a problem and a decision to make - speak up, do as told, and/or do what I think is best. IT advances and therefore policies change. You're not going to know it all. But if you enable competent Signaleers and take note of their strengths and weaknesses, your job as a Leader and decision maker gets a bit easier. Many Leaders, especially NCOs, forget why the NCO Creed states "STRIVE to remain technically and tactically proficient." My leadership style says everyone deserves to be heard as long as it comes with tact and respect. Slave driving subordinate Signaleers many times mean you're not doing your part by utilizing and communicating with your SMEs. That can directly affect your leadership ability and respect received from these SMEs. There's more than one way to give someone the F U.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 12 at 2016 11:21 PM

2016-02-12T23:21:00-05:00

No. They are Soldiers aren't they?

Response by LTC John Shaw made Feb 13 at 2016 12:09 AM

2016-02-13T00:09:59-05:00

Yes, you need to set the expectations that they must be great soldiers and have great technology expertise. There is no room for an OR condition.
I am in Al Asad installing a network right now. I must be a soldier and technical expert or as an officer know enough to lead technical expertise.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2016 6:58 AM

2016-02-13T06:58:26-05:00

I wouldn't think that leading signal soldiers requires a different technique per se. There are many MOS where soldiers will have more technical knowledge of the field than an officer. But in any field, a leader wants to maximize the skills and experience of the soldiers. Each soldier is a different person with different personaalities. So a one size fits all leadership approach rarely works.

An analogy I read once about leadership compared a leader's skill set to a bag of golf clubs. Even though the objective of the game is always to get the ball in the hole, you don't carry 14 drivers or 14 7 irons around and use the same club for every situation. You use a different club depending on the situation. Sometimes you need to go full speed with a driver; sometimes a half swing with a wedge, or sometimes a delicate soft putt to just start the ball rolling.

Each soldier is a different situation as well. As a leader you have to assess the best way to inspire and motivate them to succeed. One may require a firm approach, another a subtle nudge, another a push to get going. but with all those styles, certain things remain constant. Treating your soldiers with respect; having personal integrity; showing you genuinely care about them and their well being; and seeking their input whenever possible.

An officer can't know everything. You're an officer, not an oracle. But that's not unique to the signal field. I think perhaps in your question is an implication that if your soldiers are highly technical that you have to treat them with kid gloves. But I would say that in any field, every soldier deserves and expects leaders that recognize their talents and contributions and makes them feel they are valuable members of the team.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2016 8:26 AM

2016-02-13T08:26:41-05:00

No, whether signal or finance, Soldiers are expected to master their craft, adhere to the regulations and set the example.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Feb 13 at 2016 9:01 AM

2016-02-13T09:01:15-05:00

I would think so. Different MOSs draw from different Social/Cultural backgrounds and what works for one probably won't work for another. No Insult Intended but the Methods for Leading say 1st Division on a Ship (Mostly Undesignated Seaman) to leading Cryptologic Technicians (Very Educated Technicians) in the Ships Signals Exploitation Spaces is and probably should be different.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2016 10:25 AM

2016-02-13T10:25:00-05:00

No. People are people, and Soldiers are Soldiers.
Because they are smarter than the average bear, you'll get a lot of questions that are a permutation of "why". If it benefits the task to explain why something needs doing or done a certain way, feel free to explain. But never waiver on the expectation that they will execute.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Feb 13 at 2016 1:05 PM

2016-02-13T13:05:46-05:00

OK the Navy guy will open up the conversation a bit. Seems everyone is "Soldier First". That would be true if specialized soldiers are grown and nurtured that way for which the Army types out there are the authority. In the Seabees, it's We Build, We Fight. Notice what comes first. Technical skills are pushed hardest while warfighting skills are focused on defensive vs. offensive use. Seabees are trained to defend themselves so they stay alive to go on and build the next thing.

I've seen refined specialties tend to have a culture of their own and good personnel love the technical piece and may think the shooting piece is secondary. We don't throw supply types, mess specialists, etc. out there casually. So what's the best way to lead? You may not be an expert in IT (love Cousin It), but first you respect what they bring to the fight and understand what it takes for them to be successful. Then you work to optimize their soldier piece to best keep them alive. If your goal is to make them the equivalent of Ranger or Airborne, you're likely killing their mission, hence you're failing. We require some to focus solely on the trigger pulling piece and others to be dual hatted. The best i.e. Seal, Berets, etc. and a pile of "operators" are so talented they can do both exceptionally well. But they are at the short end of the bell curve (not too many available) and general forces need the fat part of the curve to maintain manning.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2016 1:06 PM

2016-02-13T13:06:10-05:00

Yes.
1) People that join the signal corps tend to be intelligent because there are minimum GT score requirements (already have college credit or degrees, quick book learners, use the Army to earn technical certifications, etc). Intelligent people tend to need to know the "why" behind executing orders, more often than others. They also tend to need more coaxing to stay in the military, because they can easily work elsewhere (government or civilian) and make more money. The signal corps needs inspirational leaders to provide Soldiers with the "why"s.
2) Technology changes so quickly. Leaders have to continually self-develop and self-educate to know their job and do it well. Soldiers expect leaders to have at least some technical competency.
3) Staff jobs are sometimes thankless jobs... Especially as an S6! Signaleers are often taken for granted when everything in the office or the TOC works right. But no comms equals a serious threat to survivability on the battlefield. Signal leaders must be able to articulate their importance and their need for resources through the best or worst times.
Why do I know these things? I live them. Pro Patria Vigilans!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 13 at 2016 3:18 PM

2016-02-13T15:18:07-05:00

The Killers are treated differently.

Response by PFC Alexander Oliveira made Feb 16 at 2016 2:30 PM

2016-02-16T14:30:22-05:00

Former 25B here.
Honestly we just need to be treated like humans, like anybody else. As soldiers we adhere to regulations and do our MOS as best we can. We don't need to be coddled or treated differently.
the only thing we need as signal soldiers is great leadership, I had NCOs that were both good and bad and guess which one I gave the most effort to? which ones I still keep in contact with even til today? but on the other hand most signal soldiers are of higher intelligence and because of it some may be socially awkward or inept. like I said. its all about treating us like humans. you get out what you put in right? same goes with how you treat those who work for you.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 7:16 PM

2016-03-30T19:16:48-04:00

I'm not sure grouping by branch makes any sense... there is a lot of difference between your average cable dog and your average satellite communications operator. Despite that you need to use the appropriate style of leadership for the mission and the soldiers you are leading. Always taking an authoritarian or a more collaborative approach to soldiers based solely on their branch or MOS isn't a good plan.

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 31 at 2016 5:59 AM

2016-03-31T05:59:48-04:00

On what basis would it need to be different? This sounds an awful lot like the old saw I heard all the time. "Leading _____ is different than leading infantry types, after all they are smarter and have more civilian opportunity than grunts.". If you want a solid answer, what do you feel is the difference between signals/comms personnel or their duties than ground combat, aviation, nuclear power, maintenance etc? Otherwise my response is no. Leadership is leadership.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 28 at 2018 11:20 PM

2018-11-28T23:20:55-05:00

Yes & No. Soldiers will be Soldiers and the mission will always happen, but depending on the situation you can get a good “return on investment” if you take a little bit of your time to explain the reason or importance to them.

We deal with COMSEC and Sensitive Items on a daily basis. Neither myself nor them will go to jail for some small error/mistake that could have been prevented due to an explanation. (Very drastic example, but applicable)

Response by CPT Peter Nesteruk made Sep 14 at 2020 8:02 PM

2020-09-14T20:02:04-04:00

anything mi is question mark . Simple mistake may care great consequence . To be fare anything in 35 cares a big chunk of trust in people that you work with

Response by 1LT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2020 10:40 AM

2020-11-20T10:40:49-05:00

Signal Soldiers are technical people that address technical problems in a fairly black/white fashion. Simply put, we are technicians.

A good Signal Soldier takes pride in his/her role and their equipment. What I have learned over the course of my short, roller-coaster of a career as a Signal Officer is that when leading signal/comms personnel, pay close attention to how your Soldiers take pride in their jobs and equipment. Do everything to nurture that spirit.

It comes in many forms: from a 25B Specialist trying to take the initiative and think outside the box on how to bring an outdated CPN to standard, to a more seasoned E5 or E6 having his/her gripes about how a RETRANS team "should" be run. Sometimes the best achievements and results have come from giving these types of individuals the benefit of the doubt and helping to provide them the opportunity to use their knowledge and pride to make decisions (assuming you have done a thorough risk assessment)!

This mindset has helped me build strong, long ladting bonds with my peers, and has made for some memorable accomplishments. Then again, I am National Guard, so some National Guard Signal Soldiers differ from the Reserves or Active Soldiers. Take it with a grain of salt.