"Historically, the MI Corp does not produce good leaders." The previous quote is from an MI COl. I tend to agree. Do you agree and why?

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:10:01 -0400

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2016 11:12 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:12:09 -0400

I disagree. Met some good and I've LITERALLY met the worst.

Response by CSM Chuck Stafford made Jul 12 at 2016 11:38 AM

CSM Chuck Stafford — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:38:45 -0400

I've met and served with both good and bad in the MI Corps. Leaders who focus their units on providing the "INT" to the warfighter tend to be good. Afterall, the intel Soldiers volunteered to be intel Soldiers. Those leaders who focus primarily on tactical skills and keeping their stats competitive with their combat arm peers in a BCT tend to be on the other end. Know your BRAND and be unequivocally the best at it. The intel footprint is far larger than that of a kinetic weapon. "Always Out Front"

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jul 12 at 2016 12:30 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:30:20 -0400

I can only speak to how MI leaders worked with units and SM outside of thier specific unit, as I have never been IN a unit led by a MI commander.
My general opinion is, while those MI leaders may be extraordinary in their career fields specific to tasks required to the field discipline. I quite often found them lacking in ability to function alongside, in charge of other SM's or units outside of the command. I do not have an opinion as to why that is.... just an observation that tasks that should be handled by subordinates were not allowed to be so, takes and missions that were simple, routine and basic in nature planed and / or ignored to failure. Missions that were complex and in need experience and consideration by leaders that had a wide breadth of experience of on the ground task, mission accomplishment were often planned in a vacuum and then struggled or failed due to logistical or planning considerations that while physically possible, not realistically capable of being done in the environment conditions and unit capability.
An example.
"we will move the detachment personal and equipment by organic assets only starting at 0800"
Coming to this plan by way of researching number of vehicles, equipment pieces and personnel assigned the unit, mapping the distance and "likely" avarage speed for the route selected.
Never taking into consideration how many vehicles were in a "up" status
How many operators were available considering deployed strength, injury and illness, leave status, pax cross level to another unit.
Not understanding moving from a FOB to a distant PB is not JUST a matter of computing distance in miles and dividing by a "known" speed
Never considering the towed pieces of equipment weight, size and requirements vs on hand vehicles and trained drivers.
Failure to consider tactical cross loading
And I cold go on with the issues that arose once that particular "plan" was brought out into the light of day, 48 hours prior to execution. ..and it took 47.9999 hours to change, adapt, configure "his" plan to a workable one... The mission was accomplished, but in no part due to teh planning in a vacuum done by a MI leader that had the rang and authority of dity position, but not did not have the knowledge required....or even the knowledge and experience to understand he did not have it, and find someone that did.

Response by LTC Matthew Robinson made Jul 12 at 2016 12:32 PM

LTC Matthew Robinson — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:32:40 -0400

I would question the veracity of the comment. What data set does the good COL draw from? In my time I met both good and bad leaders from all branches. Perhaps, the lack of leadership opportunities in various branches skews the results. I was fortunate to serve in a variety of positions that entailed direct leadership. All that time is the leader gave me many opportunities to learn from those around me. As a remote-site OIC, I spent four years leading soldiers with very little interference from above. Distance kept many superiors far away. I had to learn to solve problems with the assets on hand. I made many mistakes that they never knew about. I had a great group of NCOs who used AAR's to help me get better as a soldier, a leader, and an officer.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 12 at 2016 12:56 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:56:58 -0400

Border line here, met some that were real good at their jobs, and met some that couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag with a map and a hole to go out.

Response by MSG Pat Colby made Jul 12 at 2016 1:16 PM

MSG Pat Colby — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 13:16:50 -0400

Knew many MI Branch Officers and lots liked to overthink things. They stayed out of my way and I returned the favor. Only worked alongside one MAJ that was MI. Most times he was on his game. When he wasn't, I was on it. He actually knew when to step back and let an NCO do their job.

Response by CW5 Andrew J. Foreman made Jul 12 at 2016 4:27 PM

CW5 Andrew J. Foreman — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:27:15 -0400

Not sure where you get the fact that MI Corps has poor leaders. Very general comment considering how large that branch is.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2016 6:47 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:47:45 -0400

I've had plenty of "leaders" from other branches that I wouldn't cross the street to piss on if they were on fire. Branch has nothing to do with it. If PT is an individual effort, then taking the time to develop yourself into someone that your subordinates can respect most assuredly is. Sadly, a lot of people with rank don't take that time. They fall into the role of someone who gets to tell others what to do based on the virtue of their rank.

There is enough bad leadership in the Army right now that I'm seeing E-7's and Captains just throw in the towel and get out than deal with the shenanigans their leaders are engaging in.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2016 7:06 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:06:25 -0400

I disagree. My greatest leaders were MI. Although I also had great leaders in Signal, I think Signal has more low quality leadership (lacking military bearing), Quartermaster and Infantry probably have the highest rate of toxic/abusive leadership. Just my two cents worth. I have no data or facts to back up my perceptions.