The Army Has Lost The Art Of Leadership; What Say You?

SFC A.M. Drake — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 21:49:32 -0500

The Army Has Lost The Art Of Leadership

Army “leaders” have grown too comfortable choosing the easy wrong over the hard right.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on Combat CombatCavScout’s personal blog.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to a sad conclusion: As an Army, we have lost the art of leadership.

It’s something that has been boiling in the back of my head for a long time now, but I feel that it’s finally time for me to give up hope. You see, I heard something a few days ago that really struck me. I was in a meeting —- one of the ones we like to hold in the Army to talk about all the administrative things we should be doing, but aren’t, like soldier awards and evaluations and what not — and the sergeant major said something to the group of commanders and staff that made my ears perk up.

“How do you expect to lead these soldiers if you’re not doing things like getting your hair cut or going to PT?”

The unit command sergeant major — a man charged with taking care of hundreds of soldiers — just reduced the entire concept of leadership to a haircut and a PT score. I mean, that’s certainly part of it. You can’t ask soldiers to do things you’re not willing to do. But it’s only a part.

Of course, I readily dismissed his diatribe, because it’s something I hear all the time. It always irks me, but it’s an attitude I’ve come to expect, especially from senior leaders. And then, today, I realized that the biggest part of the problem was not that the sergeant major’s definition of leadership was derivative and lacking. It’s that we as Army leaders have grown to accept it.

You see, the “haircut” definition of leadership — the one harped on by nearly every command sergeant major I’ve ever known — is leader-centric. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s a problem. Leadership shouldn’t focus on what I can do about me. It should be focused on how well I take care of my soldiers. I can shave my head bald and score a 400 out of 300 on my PT test, but that doesn’t mean I can lead soldiers. If I can’t help them take care of their problems, if I can’t get them to believe in the mission, if I can’t get them to come together as a group to accomplish a task, then does it really matter how quickly I can run two miles? Or how short my hair is?

In my opinion: No.

We as leaders have come to believe that leadership is all about us, but it’s not. Leadership is about being a servant to those you lead. If a commander can run five miles in 30 minutes, but has to kick 15 soldiers out of the Army because they failed their Army physical fitness test, he or she has failed as a leader. You need to understand that the world doesn’t begin and end at your own personnel file. If you think a soldier is more likely to follow you because you have a high-and-tight haircut, rather than because you show that you’re willing and able to take care of those under your charge, you have lost your way.

At that very same meeting, the commanders reviewed the PT failures and overweight soldiers in their company. And when they announced the number of soldiers they were going to kick out because of these failings, several had a noticeable undertone of pride in their voices, as if they were happy to be doing what needed to be done to cleanse the Army of the ne’er-do-wells in their formations. Not a single one seemed ashamed that they were in the position of having to chapter out these young American men and women who had signed a contract to serve their country with the explicit understanding that those above them might ask them to lay down their lives in defense of their nation. If you’re a commander, and 10 different soldiers in your formation have failed their PT tests or become overweight, you need to understand that there is a good chance that the single common denominator in that equation is your command team.

A brief aside: I once knew an analyst who likely could have qualified for a Mensa membership. The guy could rattle off not only facts, but solid strategic-level analysis (you know, that thing we paid him for) about any country in Central Asia and put it in a white paper with a pretty ribbon on top that you could submit to any number of journals. The kid’s problem was that he was coming up a little short on his PT tests. He was an E-4 who the Army had spent probably millions of dollars to train, equip, feed, deploy, and pay for his four-year-long stint. And during his sole deployment, when his noncommissioned officer in charge wasn’t hobbled by a command team more concerned about haircuts than real leadership, he passed his PT test with room to spare. But once he got home, and had to attend regular unit PT, he soon began to fail again. He was placed in a “remedial PT program,” which included all of those soldiers who were physically broken in some way (and thus unable to actually train), told he wasn’t allowed to PT outside of remedial PT, and then swiftly booted from the service after he failed a second PT test.

This kid, who was amazing at his job, was given no leadership whatsoever. He was failed by the Army. And the Army failed itself. How many of our budget woes could we cure if we would just apply some real goddamned leadership to problems instead of taking the easy way out and kicking out soldiers whom we have already spent so much money on, just to turn around and spend more money on replacing them? I would pose this question to all potential commanders: If you bought a house, remodeled it, invested in it, and started shaping it into what you wanted it to be, would you turn around and sell it the first time the heater went out?

When I voiced concern about the way this soldier’s case was handled, I was told, “PT is an individual responsibility.” It was not the first time I have heard that, nor would it be the last. But it doesn’t matter how many times it’s said, it’s still bullshit. If PT was an individual responsibility, we wouldn’t form up at 0625 every morning and do it together. And if you try to sell unit PT as a way to “build unit cohesion and esprit de corps,” I will call bullshit again and challenge you to take a poll of how many soldiers actually enjoy standing in the freezing cold to go run in formation while they call the same old tired cadences they’ve been singing since basic training. Being in PT formation doesn’t make you happy, and it doesn’t make you a strong team. Being a strong team is what makes you happy to be in PT formation.

Additionally, if I accept that PT is an individual responsibility for a 19-year-old private first class, then I immediately demand that you stop inspecting his barracks room. Stop inspecting his vehicle before he goes on leave. Stop giving him safety briefings every Friday. Though I love soldiers, I will be the first to concede that you will not like the results of that particular experiment.

Stop enforcing a double standard. Either your soldiers are responsible adults able to care for themselves on an individual level, or they’re not. Don’t tell me he should be able to set up his own diet and exercise plan, but has to be checked to make sure he cleaned his room. You don’t get to be a leader only when it’s convenient.

Don’t get me wrong: I understand completely that there are soldiers who give up, who are beyond reaching. There’s no doubt that they exist, and sometimes we have to cut them rather than take precious resources away from those in our formations who want to succeed. But we as Army “leaders” have grown too comfortable choosing the easy wrong over the hard right, and blanket all those who present a challenge to us as examples of the former rather than entertain even the slightest possibility that they are the latter.

I don’t know why I seem to feel differently about this than so many of those around me. Maybe I’ve just lost all my blind hooah, but I have a hard time writing the words “Army leaders” without some kind of parenthetical disclaimer. I don’t know how we lost our way. The concepts of leadership that I learned in ROTC haven’t changed. You take care of your soldiers; you serve them. It’s pretty simple, but I feel like it’s beyond our grasp. And I don’t have an answer on how to get it back, to make the azimuth correction we so desperately need. All I know is that it breaks my heart every damn day.

The Army Has Lost The Art Of Leadership

Army “leaders” have grown too comfortable choosing the easy wrong over the hard right.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Nov 2 at 2015 9:50 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 21:50:29 -0500

Interesting. Thanks for sharing

Response by SGT David T. made Nov 2 at 2015 10:06 PM

SGT David T. — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 22:06:53 -0500

Until the Army comes to the realization that not everyone can be a leader and remove the up or out policies in place this will continue. Throw in the wars and people got promoted way too fast. Great leaders can be mentored and improved but there has to be something to start with: a block of clay if you will. Others would make great career specialists but forcing them to become NCOs makes them little more than dried up Play Doh. We all know that people aren't actually promoted on their merits, on their ability to motivate, lead and train Soldiers. They are promoted based upon how they look on paper. I know plenty of NCOs who look great on paper, done all the right things got the right schools and the right assignments but they cannot lead their way out of a urine soaked paper bag. Sorry if this ruffles anyone's feathers but it is the truth based on what I have observed and experienced.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 7:17 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:17:22 -0500

well ... Army never lost it ... they just choose to not prioritize it as important.

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Nov 3 at 2015 7:19 AM

SSG Michael Hartsfield — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 07:19:21 -0500

This is spot on.
The Army has lost the art of leadership because any art requires two things that the Army wastes more than it optimizes: Time and mentorship. It is my opinion that these two things are essential not only make more effective leaders but also to keep the ones you have.
If I may share...
I had the good fortune to be assigned to Charlie Battery, 3-319th AFAR, 82nd Airborne Division "back when Division was hard" (heh). The command team was one of the best in Division due in large part to the First Sergeant. He was a former CAG guy (or so the bard tells) and he was a Leader's Leader. He was forthright, demanding, and exacting but he also was approachable, affable, and knew each and every one of his Soldiers and cared about all of them. During his time as First Sergeant, there wasn't one DUI, missed movement, APFT failure, or anything that negatively spotlighted Charlie Battery and it was because of his leadership, his influence, and he mentored his subordinates so that they became effective leaders. He was so good that when he left the unit and was promoted to Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major, we had Soldiers follow him so that they could still be be mentored by him.
To contrast this, when he and the CPT left, we got a new command team and they were lackluster to put it mildly. The CPT was a micro manger and was more concerned with image than Soldier welfare. The First Sergeant...stuttered, which doesn't make you a bad leader by any measure, but he would take out his frustrations on the Soldiers because of it. During that time, DUIs skyrocketed, morale plummeted, and many of the old-timers in the unit ached to have the old team back because we saw what right looked like. There was no mentorship during that time, only punishments and reprimands and after the 7th consecutive DUI incident in the unit, that command team was replaced.
I know that with all things that are going on today that being a leader is trying and thankless but the Soldier in the first instance made the time to be a good leader and it showed in the unit. I feel that if more NCOs followed this one stanza in The NCO Creed, many issues would resolve themselves: "All Soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership. I know my Soldiers and I will always place their needs above my own."

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Nov 3 at 2015 8:19 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 08:19:56 -0500

To me leadership is part of a two handed deal with mentoring being the other hand. You can have one without the other, but then nothing is complete. You have to lead by example: Never ask your soldiers to something you cannot, have not, or will not do yourself, yet if you do not understand your soldiers, and they don't fully understand you, then your leaving them in your dust and they don't have the full picture. This is why counseling is so important. Being able to set down with the soldier, letting them know what you expect and giving them a chance to ask you the questions they need to ask in order to complete the tasks. Then the followup counseling to see how things are going.
I also found when I gave a task to to, I'd never tell them how to do it, but I'd never let them fail. When they couldn't figure it out, I'd never give them the answer, but I'd ask them questions to make them think and find the answer themselves.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 3 at 2015 9:31 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:31:35 -0500

When has the Army (or any other branch of the service in any nation) ever "had" the art of leadership? I've studied a lot of leaders throughout history and leadership is a very mixed bag among those who have held positions of authority. Look at how many generals President Lincoln had to sort through until he found one that could use the Army of the Potomac to engage the enemy while on the other side, the Confederacy had the right man from the beginning to lead the Army of Virginia. During my service I met many officers, commissioned, warrant, and noncommissioned, but few leaders of note. That is few who I would follow to the gates of hell, that's for sure. To be fair, I also found stories of a few leaders who emerged from the ranks when the going got tough and then melted back when the mission was accomplished. Interestingly, that final point is the one that has served the US military services well throughout its history. Armed forces that train initiative out of its members often find themselves writhing on the battlefield like a headless serpent when leaders are killed or wounded.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Nov 3 at 2015 9:31 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:31:39 -0500

SFC A.M. Drake - Thanks for sharing this commentary.
My personal opinion is that leadership is not a lost art in the military, although there are some in leadership positions who clearly should not be there, as there always have been.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 12:30 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 12:30:23 -0500

I read this to my BLC class and it generated quite a discussion.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 3 at 2015 1:20 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 13:20:39 -0500

There is no way this is indicative of the whole Army. If someone wants something bad enough, they will work their ass off to get it.

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Nov 3 at 2015 4:46 PM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:46:22 -0500

The Army hasn't lost the art of leadership. It's the individuals within the ranks that choose the path that they take.

You can press your uniform and look like a poster Soldier all day long.
To me a true leader can look like something other than that poster Soldier and is able to instill a sense of pride within all that the leader comes across. A good leader is able to give the mission statement and allow the Soldiers complete the mission
Have a leap of faith
If you have faith in them, they will return it in kind

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2015 6:51 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 18:51:49 -0500

You get it back by giving it (leadership). Not easy but do it. Our nations sons and daughters deserve your leadership. Idgaf what anyone else isn't doing I won't stop being a leader until I am dead.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 5:47 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 17:47:40 -0500

Sir,
Thanks for sharing the article. I do not have the experience to make a somehow close-to-reality comment, but I would just say that there are different types of leadership styles. I wouldn't say one is universally better than another (however I am not fully supportive of the laissez-faire doctrine). Transformational or transactional, it all depends on the mission. A good "adaptive" leader would be able to move swiftly between them.
Standards were created, and are enforced, to make sure efficiency is met. Of course they have flaws (most of the Army Football team at West Point don't pass Height and Weight.. Does it make them less qualify to lead?)

From what I have seen so far (not a lot) I agree with the article that senior NCO tend to be more tempted with AR 670-1 infractions than officers. Maybe because they have a more direct contact with soldiers?

Has the Army lost the art of leadership? I don't know, but for sure it has a decent problem with toxic leaders..