Is our concept of strong leadership wrong?

A good leader knows when to lead from the front, knows how to form a team, look at the team, find the strengths, weaknesses and get the team to work to complete the mission. The Leader knows what words need to be said, knows when to give answers and when to make the members of the team dig for their own answers. The Leader knows how to train his next in line to take his place because everyone is replaceable. The Leader doesn't need to toot his own horn because the team will see, feel and know what a good leader is and how the feeling is to successfully complete a mission, no matter the size. This is the LEADER.

I think the mistake is lumping everyone wearing stripes or shiny rank into the "leader" pile. Most aren't. There are tons of personnel who, by virtue of position, are managers and supervisors. And this is OK. The Army NEEDS managers and supervisors. They are just as important, if not more so, than front line leaders. Leaders get the immediate job done, but managers and supervisors take care of the big picture, and worry about the thousands of other things that have to happen while leaders are slogging away.

All are necessary...

It all depends on the level of leadership. A squad (military) or team (civilian) should usually be led from the front, but as we move to higher levels of command the balance shifts more to the rear, where multiple squads, teams, companies, battalions etc. can be managed.

A sergeant or lieutenant leading the charge is usually doing the right thing. A general leading the charge is usually just plain stupid.

This question can be varied. A leader who is successfully capable of leading in the front will very well be a strong leader. The issue is the problems you will face while in the heat of the situation. It seems that an effective leader leads from the rear because they can make rash decisions without being in the fire.

I personally like to lead in the middle. Know how things work and be involved, but also take step back to assess the situation when I need to.

Leadership, good leadership, strong leadership, can't be reduced to one metaphor, one simple bromide. If it were that simple, everyone would be a leader. Obviously, everyone can't. Look at President Obama...

The epitome of "leading from the front" is CAPT Kirk of Star Trek fame. He takes his senior staff away from everything to work a nitnoid problem while leaving massively more important stuff behind. Great for TV and dreamers. The great leaders know where to be at any given time. So when you have a 4 Star with a huge theater, they tend to gravitate to what gets them the best situational awareness and command/control/intel. If they don't, the need for more assumptions tend to creep in, thus elevating the risk of something going into the dumper. Don't forget about the second tier. They need to be able to get to that 4 Star too.

Leading from the front isn't always literal although it sometimes is. When you lead from the front it means you are visible, you set the example provide the right amount of leadership at the right time.

When you are a combat leader (smaller unit) you do lead from the front literally. The Marines put a premium on leading from the front. This is how you motivate and inspire. It is how you know the ground truth without a doubt (because you are there). This goes all the way to battalion level in most cases. Leaders at every level (NCO's, Junior Officers, Company Commanders, Battalion Commanders etc) are visible and are in the fight with their men. Some of this depends on how a unit is deployed as well. These days we have a lot of FOBS and smaller units go out and the CP stays back. That has not (and will not) always be the case.

There are plenty of rear area officers/NCO's etc that are not leading a combat unit that are in the rear.

Some of this depends on how you define rear area. To a grunt, the mortar men 100 yards behind them can be rear area.

To me, a leader must first know how to follow. Then they need to transition from a follower to leader by leading by example. That is leading from the front. Once they are a competent leader and have the respect of their people. They can start leading from the back by enabling other followers to transition to leaders. Giving those followers the potential to become leaders. I think in today's military, people are trying to advance to the higher ranks without knowing what they are doing. So there is no transition period and the "leaders" in those higher ranks don't actually know what they are doing or have the respect of those who they are suppose to lead. I also don't care too much for the "lead from the front". I prefer "lead by example". By leading by example, you are showing those under you the right, correct, or expected way things are to be done. It also shows that you are not afraid to get dirty doing the things that those below you are being asked to do. I use to go out and help my E-2s, E-3s, and E-4s with various work and I would also work with them on some of the tasks that needed to be done. By doing this I had the respect of those under me.

There is a difference between direct and strategic leadership. Depending on the role you have, front, back or a combination may be better.

In reference to why some strong leaders lead "from the back," I believe it had to do with communications and security. Ike and McArthur lead from the back for those reasons. There wasn't the instant and secure satellite communications that we have today. Conversely, ship captains and wing commanders (O-6 & 7) are right there with the troops. How well they make sure their charges are prepared and motivated will determine how well they prosecute their mission.