Favorite leadership style: Loud or Soft spoken?

<p>Personally I prefer a mixture of both methods of delivery.&nbsp; Being "loud" is required at times.&nbsp; I believe that if you are "loud" all the time, people may tend to "tune you out."&nbsp; Thoughts tend to lean towards "if this guy/gal yells about everything, how do I know what is important?" </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Same train of thought applies to being "soft spoken."&nbsp; I&nbsp;make it a habit to&nbsp;never confuse&nbsp;being "soft spoken" with being weak, but sometimes that is how it is perceived.&nbsp;&nbsp;The thoughts may lean towards "doesn't this guy/gal get ever fired up over anything?"</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But you can get your point across without getting "loud."&nbsp; A&nbsp;slow, deliberate&nbsp;"lean in" with words that only your indented audience can hear goes a long way.&nbsp; That is a favorite course of action of mine&nbsp;during those instances where&nbsp;that style is&nbsp;warranted.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>BLUF is that each&nbsp;method of delivery&nbsp;has its place, use and level of effectiveness.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><font color="#000000">There are a numerous Leadership styles
in the military.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Each individual Leader
has to determine which to use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Leadership,
IAW manuals and regulations is the approach in which we as Leaders provide our
subordinates with purpose, direction and motivation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>As seen by our subordinates, Leadership includes
the total pattern of explicit and implicit action of Leaders. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></font></font></font></span></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>A Leader can choose to be authoritarian,
democratic or even delegative in their style (soft or loud). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Although Leaders can be soft or loud, bad Leaders
tend to stick with the one style of autocratic; loud. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>You must know each and every subordinate, what
works with one will not necessarily work for the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>At times, you can be loud in getting your
point across other times merely speaking to your subordinates in a respectful manner
will get your message through. <o:p></o:p></font></font></font></span></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><font size="3"><font face="Calibri"><font color="#000000"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>A great Leader uses both styles and knows when
to implement them; it all depends on the situation on the personnel involved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>A great example of authoritarian Leadership
style would be for a new subordinate learning a new job.</font><font color="#000000"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><span style="color: black;">The Leader is
competent and a good coach/mentor. The subordinate is motivated to learn a new
skill. The situation is a new environment for them.<o:p></o:p></span></font></font></font></span></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="background: white;"><span style='color: black; line-height: 135%; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;'>There is a difference
in ways Leaders approach their subordinates. Positive Leaders use rewards, such
as education, incentives, etc. to motivate their subordinates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Negative Leaders emphasize penalties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The negative approach has a place in a Leader's
collection of tools in certain situations; however, it must be used carefully
due to its devoid of benefits on esprit de corps. <o:p></o:p></span></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="background: white;"><span style='color: black; line-height: 135%; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;'>Negative Leaders act
domineering and superior with people. They believe the only way to get things
done is through being loud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>They believe
their authority is increased by frightening everyone into higher levels of
productivity. Yet, what normally happens when this approach is used wrongly is
that morale falls, which leads to lower productivity. <o:p></o:p></span></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="background: white;"><span style='color: black; line-height: 135%; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;'>Most Leaders do not
strictly use one or another, but are somewhere on a continuum ranging from
extremely positive to extremely negative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;
</span>Leaders who continuously work out of the negative are bosses, while
those who primarily work out of the positive are considered great Leaders<o:p></o:p></span></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri"></font></font></font></span>&nbsp;</p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Reference:<o:p></o:p></font></font></font></span></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; line-height: normal;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html<o:p></o:p></font></font></font></span></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">

</font>

I am currently a Company Commander and the one thing I have learned is your troops don't want their commanders to yell.  I think they lose confidence in them when they see them lose control of their emotions.  I keep it steady and direct but authoritative.  Having said that, when I was an XO I did yell at times but it was still rare and when I did they knew I meant business and got in gear.  If you have a solid leadership style most soldiers will respond well and when they let you down they will know they have disappointed you without you having to yell.  I think that gets through to them better than screaming does.

I've gotten the best results from being soft-spoken and telling the Soldier that I'm not angry just really disappointed. 

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

My favorite is a mixture of both, loud during pt, in front of formations and calm and soft spoken in a one on one situation

I started out attempting to be the hard-ass kind of leader. When I was first promoted to corporal I was (almost) into Afghanistan, in a male dominated field and tried to be taller then I am (not hard, I am five feet tall !). Obama was not yet elected President, so the troop strength was not as big as it would later get. I don't make a good hard-ass. I am just an ass when I try that one.

As I both matured and changed jobs to something more equal, gender-wise I backed off...a lot. I learned (like a toddler) to use my words lol. I learned to actually sit down with my young Marines and really listen to them. Lead by example, and when my example was shit (PT), I was honest and up front about it. I also never hid much of anything about my life. I wasn't exactly an open book (some things I still don't find appropriate to share), but if something was relevant, I would share. I also learned something I think a lot of leaders never learn, own up to your subordinates when you do them wrong. As long as you always do your best and keep trying to do better, and they can trust that, you will find a hard time going wrong.

Now, I was a Marine, so even in the Intel field there were some people this did not work with, but I was fortunate to work with a team of other NCOs that had interlocking styles of leadership and we always could pick up the Marines that maybe someone else didn't work well with. I also learned something a lot of leaders never learn, or maybe just admit: you will NEVER be a perfect leader, and there are some people you will NEVER click with. It is OK to call in a buddy to help when needed. Some people will never respect you no matter what you do or how awesome, or shitty a leader you are. That is OK.

Now don't get me wrong, I still chewed some ass through-out my career, but I learned when and how to do it. Sometimes the point is just the shock value, so I really tried to use the ass chewing only in extreme cases.

I think a combination of both is effective. As dynamic leaders, we have to choose based on the situation at hand. The important thing to remember is not to talk down to, or demean your Soldiers. That is when you lose them.

I haven't officially made it to the NCO ranks yet but, when I do get there my only plan is be a standard bearer but, also be fair and understanding. Sometimes being soft is required where as you might also have to be loud. Every Soldier and situation requires a different tone and approach. It's my job as a leader to learn what works with my guys and gals effectively; learning who they are and what gets them motivated to achieve mission goals as individuals and as a team.

I also have learned in my short time in the Army but, life experience that people just want to know the reason behind why you are asking them to do things. Orders can be given easily; "Hey you over there" but, can you convey the order and your Soldiers know you have done everything to cut out the stupid or given at least a little push back to protect them from doing absolutely retarded shit.

I had this CSM in my last unit that when he gave an order we knew he did his best to eliminate meaningless political bs from the order and what was left was just the down and dirty "this is what we got".

Something I have also learned is sometimes there isn't going to be a valid reason. If your Soldiers know that you too are not above it and you just get in there and do it with your guys and gals that earns a ton of respect. They will feel like you actually are a part of them as much as they are a part of you.

I agree with both...I say there is a place and time for Loud and Soft spoken leadership styles depending on the situation.  Another favorite leadership approach that I utilize is "Reward in public and punish in private".