What is engaged leadership to you?

Engaged leadership is merely taking a hands on and proactive role in leading your element. It can be simple or even complex; but the key is the role that the leader takes. The leader takes the time to understand and communicate the who, what, when, where, why and the how of the task. Identifying and correcting the problems along the way. All the while understanding the limitations and shortcomings of the team and resources. In short it is an effective leader.

Engaged leadership is being there for your soldiers. It is much more than being in your office or being physically there. It is being there to identify where your unit has a short coming and you being there to help address it. You may not be the answer but if you were engaged you will know who to put where to fix it. It is also being there when they succeed so you can give accolades to your soldiers, maybe put them in for an award. It is knowing why a soldier is hurting and he is not himself. You should be able to be there for that soldier. They may not be asking for help but I am going to give it anyway.

At the end of he day it is being the leader that your soldiers look up to. When a soldier goes out of their way to greet you or when they know, no matter how bad it is, that when you arrive you will lead them to success and victory. At least to me it is.

Engaged leadership, is being an active participant in leadership be it in your unit or base. In this case the leadership is more important that the engaged part. I believe that leadership is always being engaged, so it's almost saying the same thing twice.

If you are in a leadership position and not engaged is it leadership?

This is probably more a case of "what is it not?"

"Engaged Leadership" is NOT "Disengaged Leadership" which is probably much easier to define.

Leading from afar or hands off is a very real concept. It's easy to spot, easy to identify. Easy to know where the faults are. But not everyone knows exactly how much leadership each person needs.

Like the engine of a car, each gear is engaged 'just enough' to match the road speed, and leadership is kind of like that. You can have two troops who require vastly different amounts of leadership to accomplish the exact same effect, to get the same speed out of them. Like they are geared differently.

Engaged leadership is like that. It's knowing how much supervision, mentorship, authority, and responsibility to invest in juniors to get maximum effect.

Engaged Leadership is somebody who leads by example, has done what they asking you to do, can relate to the mission and understands the cost associated with it. Involvement is a key element to leading people so they will follow you to the end. Just as you said there are many descriptions of what engaged leadership can be. This is my definition.

As evidenced by the comments thus far, there is no Army size definition for what an engaged leader looks like, nor what engaged leadership is. In the end, it is simply leadership at its truest and in its purest form. There is no limit to the list of words that describe it but you certainly know it when you see it and feel it when it is not there.