47
47
0
A civilian might think the Military has the best leaders and most service members would even agree. Having been in the Military for nearly 10 years, I’d concede it does and it doesn’t. I once thought that being strong equated to being autocratic and being aggressive was the key to get people to follow you. However, I learned that that was certainly not the case. It took someone who had no service experience to teach me more about leadership and troop welfare (taking care of your employees) than I learned from every leadership PME in the last 10 years. I wanted to find a way to reward all these lessons he taught me, so I could think of no better way than to nominate my boss Ryan Callahan for an ESGR Patriot Award.
If the last 10 years in the military have taught me anything, it’s that no one is perfect and you will never be perfect. In the Marines, we strive for perfection. As an Infantryman, we expect nothing less than perfection; especially in combat. Before my first combat deployment, my leaders would often tell me to “be strong, aggressive, forceful and to show little to no weakness to subordinates,” essentially telling me to be autocratic at all times. Right then and there I realized that was how I wanted to be because I respected the leaders above me who had this mentality. When I received my first group of junior Marines, I
maintained my past leaders “autocratic at all times” style of leadership. I shortly realized using fear as a tool to lead was consequently causing my subordinates moral/work ethic to drop. This was the first time I realized I needed to figure out another style of leadership.
After my EAS, I started working as an intern for RallyPoint. This was my first real civilian job. I didn’t know much about tech or social media and was not very good at writing emails. Let me put it this way, I was very fortunate to have people believe in me when I started working in the civilian world. One of the people who believed in me from the start was Ryan, who later became my supervisor. Ryan was patient with me and understood that I wasn’t very tech-savvy.
He taught me about tech systems, writing engaging topics/descriptions, emails, and the works. Ryan also demonstrated a democratic leadership style that allowed me to think through things and be creative. In all my years in the Military, a leader never said “good job” or “nice work.” But at RallyPoint, I would constantly receive recognition for my work. This wasn’t something I was used to. Why did this style of leadership work and make me want to work harder? I was completely taken back and it changed my perspective about Leadership. I later deployed again for 1 year and spent 8 months in the Pacific as a jungle warfare instructor. I had limited internet and phone access there, but when I did have communication capabilities, Ryan would reach out to check on me and see how I was doing. RallyPoint was also kind enough to send me a care package which, as most service members know, opening one takes you back to Christmas morning when you were a kid. I couldn’t thank him enough for all his hard work and dedication he’s put towards the company and as my supervisor.
As a way to give back to Ryan’s teachings and mentorship, I nominated him for an ESGR Patriot award: http://rly.pt/2O4tRdv. The award is for, as Quoted by ESGR “an employee serving in the National Guard or Reserve, or the spouse of a Guard or Reserve member, may nominate individual supervisors and bosses for support provided directly to the nominating Service member and his or her family. The Patriot Award reflects the efforts made to support citizen warriors through a wide-range of measures including flexible schedules, time off prior to and after deployment, caring for families, and granting leaves of absence if needed. Patriot Awards are awarded to individual supervisors, not to an entire staff or organization as a whole.” On February 26, 2021 Ryan Callahan received the award via a virtual conference call with the RallyPoint team. I continue to learn and prosper everyday in my career, both at RallyPoint and in the Military due to Ryan’s teachings. I appreciate everyone for helping me make this happen
If the last 10 years in the military have taught me anything, it’s that no one is perfect and you will never be perfect. In the Marines, we strive for perfection. As an Infantryman, we expect nothing less than perfection; especially in combat. Before my first combat deployment, my leaders would often tell me to “be strong, aggressive, forceful and to show little to no weakness to subordinates,” essentially telling me to be autocratic at all times. Right then and there I realized that was how I wanted to be because I respected the leaders above me who had this mentality. When I received my first group of junior Marines, I
maintained my past leaders “autocratic at all times” style of leadership. I shortly realized using fear as a tool to lead was consequently causing my subordinates moral/work ethic to drop. This was the first time I realized I needed to figure out another style of leadership.
After my EAS, I started working as an intern for RallyPoint. This was my first real civilian job. I didn’t know much about tech or social media and was not very good at writing emails. Let me put it this way, I was very fortunate to have people believe in me when I started working in the civilian world. One of the people who believed in me from the start was Ryan, who later became my supervisor. Ryan was patient with me and understood that I wasn’t very tech-savvy.
He taught me about tech systems, writing engaging topics/descriptions, emails, and the works. Ryan also demonstrated a democratic leadership style that allowed me to think through things and be creative. In all my years in the Military, a leader never said “good job” or “nice work.” But at RallyPoint, I would constantly receive recognition for my work. This wasn’t something I was used to. Why did this style of leadership work and make me want to work harder? I was completely taken back and it changed my perspective about Leadership. I later deployed again for 1 year and spent 8 months in the Pacific as a jungle warfare instructor. I had limited internet and phone access there, but when I did have communication capabilities, Ryan would reach out to check on me and see how I was doing. RallyPoint was also kind enough to send me a care package which, as most service members know, opening one takes you back to Christmas morning when you were a kid. I couldn’t thank him enough for all his hard work and dedication he’s put towards the company and as my supervisor.
As a way to give back to Ryan’s teachings and mentorship, I nominated him for an ESGR Patriot award: http://rly.pt/2O4tRdv. The award is for, as Quoted by ESGR “an employee serving in the National Guard or Reserve, or the spouse of a Guard or Reserve member, may nominate individual supervisors and bosses for support provided directly to the nominating Service member and his or her family. The Patriot Award reflects the efforts made to support citizen warriors through a wide-range of measures including flexible schedules, time off prior to and after deployment, caring for families, and granting leaves of absence if needed. Patriot Awards are awarded to individual supervisors, not to an entire staff or organization as a whole.” On February 26, 2021 Ryan Callahan received the award via a virtual conference call with the RallyPoint team. I continue to learn and prosper everyday in my career, both at RallyPoint and in the Military due to Ryan’s teachings. I appreciate everyone for helping me make this happen
Leadership
Transition
Employment
Awards
RallyPoint
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 11
8
8
0
Leadership is situational. A lot of depends on the situation and the amount of control you want and the authority you give to subordinate leaders. One needs to understand when to centralize and decentralize control.
- If my armor unit does a movement to contact then I want a lot of control.
- If something is seriously broken in the unit, mismanaged, there is a safety or moral issue, I want a lot of control.
- If I am commanding a finance unit then I will give a lot of authority or control to the NCOs.
I would like to say all the NCOs I worked with took care of the soldiers and the daily operations. When it came to the training calendar I might have the 50% solution and asked the NCOs to help me with the other 50%. If operations were going well, I would be pleased and the NCOs got the ball and ran with it. One of the commands I had was a Finance Detachment at Ft Riley. I said we will give world class support. I said that because earlier in my career I was the combat arms soldier who got muddy and needed help. I love the concept of world class. Somethings have to be world class. When the Finance Detachment accomplished that level of quality support, I did stuff that I told nobody why I did it.
I felt I had to reward them in a world class manner. I did it to say thank you and to build morale. I arranged helicopter rides for the soldiers. We played football every friday morning. I gave the NCOs dinner gift certificates to pass down to the soldiers who busted ass. A couple times after a 3 mile run I had hot chow and a bus waiting for us at the finish line, at the dam outside Ft Riley. The door prizes at the Christmas party were things soldiers wanted to win: TV, Boom Box, CD Player, it got cheaper. The soldiers and NCOs gave me their best, so I had to give them my best. That was only fair.
The soldiers rewarded the NCOs and me by reenlisting. None of them ETSed.
- If my armor unit does a movement to contact then I want a lot of control.
- If something is seriously broken in the unit, mismanaged, there is a safety or moral issue, I want a lot of control.
- If I am commanding a finance unit then I will give a lot of authority or control to the NCOs.
I would like to say all the NCOs I worked with took care of the soldiers and the daily operations. When it came to the training calendar I might have the 50% solution and asked the NCOs to help me with the other 50%. If operations were going well, I would be pleased and the NCOs got the ball and ran with it. One of the commands I had was a Finance Detachment at Ft Riley. I said we will give world class support. I said that because earlier in my career I was the combat arms soldier who got muddy and needed help. I love the concept of world class. Somethings have to be world class. When the Finance Detachment accomplished that level of quality support, I did stuff that I told nobody why I did it.
I felt I had to reward them in a world class manner. I did it to say thank you and to build morale. I arranged helicopter rides for the soldiers. We played football every friday morning. I gave the NCOs dinner gift certificates to pass down to the soldiers who busted ass. A couple times after a 3 mile run I had hot chow and a bus waiting for us at the finish line, at the dam outside Ft Riley. The door prizes at the Christmas party were things soldiers wanted to win: TV, Boom Box, CD Player, it got cheaper. The soldiers and NCOs gave me their best, so I had to give them my best. That was only fair.
The soldiers rewarded the NCOs and me by reenlisting. None of them ETSed.
(8)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Sir, with respect, I have to disagree for the most part.
Yes, the level of authority you push down is situational. But VERY few situations call for maintaining a large portion of the authority.
Even a movement to contact. Your subordinates need to be armed with mission and intent, because no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Your subordinate Commanders NEED to have the ability and authority to maneuver INSTANTLY without having to wait for orders. Yes, they should be in constant radio contact, giving you updates so that you can track the battle and adjust as necessary. But not empowering your subordinates is almost NEVER a good idea.
The more we empower our subordinates, the better we are able to develop them. But from a mission completion standpoint, it is even more important, because empowered subordinates have the ability to react to the unexpected quicker, smarter, and with more aggression (As Patton said, a good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week) than those who have to wait for orders or (worse) are afraid to act.
One of the biggest problems I saw before I retired, and I saw it getting progressively worse for about 12 years, (and probably longer, but I just wasn't paying attention before that) was higher echelon leaders with zero defects mentalities. BCs holding COs feet to the fire for each and every failure rather than using failures as a learning tool. Which in turn made COs micromanage their PLs to ensure that absolutely nothing could go wrong - and if it did, throwing PLs (or XOs) under the bus. We created a culture where leaders were afraid to fail. We created a culture where we micromanaged the smallest details. We created a culture where junior leaders weren't allowed to develop their leadership skills, weren't allowed to try new things, to innovate, to experiment with new concepts. I am not saying we should ever strive for failure, nor am I saying that we should REWARD failure. But we should not be afraid of it either - especially in garrison and training environments. That is WHY we train. We learn just as much, usually MORE - from failing as we do from succeeding. Especially if our success is built on micromanagement from above, and all we REALLY did was follow the exact instructions we were given without any thought put into planning or execution.
I may be misconstruing what you are saying, but IMHO centralizing control is a last resort.
Yes, the level of authority you push down is situational. But VERY few situations call for maintaining a large portion of the authority.
Even a movement to contact. Your subordinates need to be armed with mission and intent, because no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Your subordinate Commanders NEED to have the ability and authority to maneuver INSTANTLY without having to wait for orders. Yes, they should be in constant radio contact, giving you updates so that you can track the battle and adjust as necessary. But not empowering your subordinates is almost NEVER a good idea.
The more we empower our subordinates, the better we are able to develop them. But from a mission completion standpoint, it is even more important, because empowered subordinates have the ability to react to the unexpected quicker, smarter, and with more aggression (As Patton said, a good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week) than those who have to wait for orders or (worse) are afraid to act.
One of the biggest problems I saw before I retired, and I saw it getting progressively worse for about 12 years, (and probably longer, but I just wasn't paying attention before that) was higher echelon leaders with zero defects mentalities. BCs holding COs feet to the fire for each and every failure rather than using failures as a learning tool. Which in turn made COs micromanage their PLs to ensure that absolutely nothing could go wrong - and if it did, throwing PLs (or XOs) under the bus. We created a culture where leaders were afraid to fail. We created a culture where we micromanaged the smallest details. We created a culture where junior leaders weren't allowed to develop their leadership skills, weren't allowed to try new things, to innovate, to experiment with new concepts. I am not saying we should ever strive for failure, nor am I saying that we should REWARD failure. But we should not be afraid of it either - especially in garrison and training environments. That is WHY we train. We learn just as much, usually MORE - from failing as we do from succeeding. Especially if our success is built on micromanagement from above, and all we REALLY did was follow the exact instructions we were given without any thought put into planning or execution.
I may be misconstruing what you are saying, but IMHO centralizing control is a last resort.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
Of course in a movement in contact the PLs and PLSGTs will have control, but if I need to take control of the situation, then I will. Perhaps I should have worded it differently.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
However, I never said I want total control. Control can also mean that I know my subordinate leaders are doing the right things. The platoons will have autonomy with actions of the platoon leaders and SGTs according to the TACSOP, but I am the one who eventually will have to fight the three platoons. MAJ Ken Landgren
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
To those who say I want nearly absolute control on a movement to contact I say bullshit. I know what the SOPs are for each tank, therefore, each tank commander or tank section has the authority to act according to the SOPs, and that would be my expectation. However, there will be times when I have to make a decision like what do we do when we make contact. There will be decision points.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Well said, Tim. There are very few leaders I’ve worked with in the DoD and civilian world that care for their people and their development as much as Ryan Callahan does. Big salute for that ESGR award and to you SSgt Timothy Prevost for living the in the Jungle during most of 2020. Marines like you are the first thing I think of when I see the US flag flying high.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I think the military puts a premium on leadership, but few actually reach for that
(4)
(0)
CPT Earl George
Look at OER's for example. At the advance course at Ft Benning in 1975, my class was given a talk on OER scores based on where we came from to Benning for IOAC. The instructor said if you came from Germany, you probably had a high 150 OER if you were good. If you came from somewhere in the states an OER of 175-182 and you were good. If you came from the far east, a score of 115 was good. However many officers I served with had the impression you needed a perfect OER to keep up with your peers and be at least average.
(2)
(0)
SFC Melvin Brandenburg
CPT Earl George I think true leaders take the most risk while trying to help their subordinates grow
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google