71
68
3
As leaders, we should automatically respect our subordinates at all times. There is a stark difference between leadership and dictatorship. As soon as the leaders in the military figure this out, they will notice a peak in the retention rate of their Soldiers.
I have communicated with over 300 Soldiers who are eligible to extend their enlistment contract within the past few months and was shocked to hear the responses from some of them. One Soldier mentioned, “I would remain in the military but cannot understand why I’m getting cursed out when asked to do something. I am a grown man!” I asked this same Soldier if he’d discuss with his leaders the disrespect he feels and he said that he had spoken with them about it. My final question to him was, “So what did they say?” He replied, “They said that I am a Soldier and if I can’t handle it, get out!”
As a leader myself, I apologized to this Soldier and informed him that some leaders are called leaders because of their position or title, not because of their leadership. I then annotated in the retention book that he was not going to extend his contract but instead, leave the military because of the disrespect from his leadership.
Must a Soldier be a Chaplain to get respected? Can a Soldier who informs his or her chain of command that the speaking of profanity is against their religion be provided the same respect that a chaplain receives? Should fellow Soldiers respect these Soldiers? To me, the answer is quite simple. We should.
I am one of these Soldiers. I am a non-paid minister at a local church. The Soldiers who are aware of this duty respect the fact I am a Soldier and a minister. I've expressed to others that I would like for them to be themselves while in my presence, as I would perceive unrealism if they would change their talk, speech, or attitude just because I was standing around in the vicinity. Some disagreed but others said okay and would use profanity as if I’m not around. It didn’t then and doesn’t bother me a bit. However, there might be Soldiers that are affected by vulgar and demeaning language and I believe this should be respected.
If smoking a cigarette around a non-smoker is a sign of disrespect, I believe using profanity around a non-profanity speaker falls within the same guidelines if the Soldier speaks up. Leaders must understand that profanity can be damning to a lot of people. The “F” word has been known to cause havoc, begin fights, and unfortunately result in someone being killed. To tell a Soldier to deal with the disrespect because you're a Soldier is unacceptable.
This is not a new Army. Respect began when the Army began.
I have communicated with over 300 Soldiers who are eligible to extend their enlistment contract within the past few months and was shocked to hear the responses from some of them. One Soldier mentioned, “I would remain in the military but cannot understand why I’m getting cursed out when asked to do something. I am a grown man!” I asked this same Soldier if he’d discuss with his leaders the disrespect he feels and he said that he had spoken with them about it. My final question to him was, “So what did they say?” He replied, “They said that I am a Soldier and if I can’t handle it, get out!”
As a leader myself, I apologized to this Soldier and informed him that some leaders are called leaders because of their position or title, not because of their leadership. I then annotated in the retention book that he was not going to extend his contract but instead, leave the military because of the disrespect from his leadership.
Must a Soldier be a Chaplain to get respected? Can a Soldier who informs his or her chain of command that the speaking of profanity is against their religion be provided the same respect that a chaplain receives? Should fellow Soldiers respect these Soldiers? To me, the answer is quite simple. We should.
I am one of these Soldiers. I am a non-paid minister at a local church. The Soldiers who are aware of this duty respect the fact I am a Soldier and a minister. I've expressed to others that I would like for them to be themselves while in my presence, as I would perceive unrealism if they would change their talk, speech, or attitude just because I was standing around in the vicinity. Some disagreed but others said okay and would use profanity as if I’m not around. It didn’t then and doesn’t bother me a bit. However, there might be Soldiers that are affected by vulgar and demeaning language and I believe this should be respected.
If smoking a cigarette around a non-smoker is a sign of disrespect, I believe using profanity around a non-profanity speaker falls within the same guidelines if the Soldier speaks up. Leaders must understand that profanity can be damning to a lot of people. The “F” word has been known to cause havoc, begin fights, and unfortunately result in someone being killed. To tell a Soldier to deal with the disrespect because you're a Soldier is unacceptable.
This is not a new Army. Respect began when the Army began.
Religion
Respect
Values
Command Post
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 97
89. Article 134—(Indecent language)
a. Text of statute. See paragraph 60.
b. Elements.
(1)
That the accused orally or in writing communicated to another person certain language;
(2)
That such language was indecent; and
(3)
That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. [Note: In appropriate cases add the following element after element (1): That the person to whom the language was communicated was a child under the age of 16.]
c. Explanation. “Indecent” language is that which is grossly offensive to modesty, decency, or propriety, or shocks the moral sense, because of its vulgar, filthy, or disgusting nature, or its tendency to incite lustful thought. Language is indecent if it tends reasonably to corrupt morals or incite libidinous thoughts . The language must violate community standards. See paragraph 45 if the communication was made in the physical presence of a child.
d. Lesser included offenses.
(1)
Article 117—provoking speeches
(2)
Article 80—attempts
e . Maximum punishment. Indecent or insulting language.
(1)
Communicated to any child under the age of 16 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
(2)
Other cases. Bad-conduct discharge; forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
a. Text of statute. See paragraph 60.
b. Elements.
(1)
That the accused orally or in writing communicated to another person certain language;
(2)
That such language was indecent; and
(3)
That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. [Note: In appropriate cases add the following element after element (1): That the person to whom the language was communicated was a child under the age of 16.]
c. Explanation. “Indecent” language is that which is grossly offensive to modesty, decency, or propriety, or shocks the moral sense, because of its vulgar, filthy, or disgusting nature, or its tendency to incite lustful thought. Language is indecent if it tends reasonably to corrupt morals or incite libidinous thoughts . The language must violate community standards. See paragraph 45 if the communication was made in the physical presence of a child.
d. Lesser included offenses.
(1)
Article 117—provoking speeches
(2)
Article 80—attempts
e . Maximum punishment. Indecent or insulting language.
(1)
Communicated to any child under the age of 16 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
(2)
Other cases. Bad-conduct discharge; forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
(3)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SSG Johnathan Williams, did you just post Article 134? I say HOOAH! There are those who will quote some Articles but leave off those that they don't like to adhere to. Great post. There wasn't a need to write anything else!
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
I could not agree more, MSG Miles. In "my" Army (1975-2006), respect was the bedrock upon which everything else was built. You nailed it in this post! Thank you!!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Image is vital in your leadership role.
Aside from faith-based objections (not "feelings", as some might argue), the fact is that the image of a leader who is vulgar in speech and/or demeanor is not an intelligent one.
As a leader, the ability to articulate your anger into words, not vulgarity is an art form which requires time and practice (many "fast trackers" tend to miss out on this perfecting opportunity at each pay grade). The enlisted ranks are no longer primarily comprised of society's misfits. (Hence the phrase of the past, "unbecoming of an officer") Intelligent articulations and passion-driven decisions must be among the most prevalent marks of modern day leaders. Be passionate about your leadership role (not P-contests). Otherwise, the only passion conveyed to subordinates with your obscenities and vulgarities, even during a chew-out session will be passionate disloyalty.
••Excerpt from FM 7-22: "Officers and NCOs lead, train, motivate, and inspire their Soldiers. Only the best leadership can inspire Soldiers to cooperate to this extent."••
Aside from faith-based objections (not "feelings", as some might argue), the fact is that the image of a leader who is vulgar in speech and/or demeanor is not an intelligent one.
As a leader, the ability to articulate your anger into words, not vulgarity is an art form which requires time and practice (many "fast trackers" tend to miss out on this perfecting opportunity at each pay grade). The enlisted ranks are no longer primarily comprised of society's misfits. (Hence the phrase of the past, "unbecoming of an officer") Intelligent articulations and passion-driven decisions must be among the most prevalent marks of modern day leaders. Be passionate about your leadership role (not P-contests). Otherwise, the only passion conveyed to subordinates with your obscenities and vulgarities, even during a chew-out session will be passionate disloyalty.
••Excerpt from FM 7-22: "Officers and NCOs lead, train, motivate, and inspire their Soldiers. Only the best leadership can inspire Soldiers to cooperate to this extent."••
(3)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SSG Oscar Buonafina, well written! Some of the current leaders do not plan to work in the civilian market. Some of them will get a wake-up call if they believe you must use profanity to get the job done. Where did this come from? It's not about religion. It's about professionalism and respect that should be in every workplace.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
My first rule of being an NCO is that "Nobody beats on my people but me." It is my job to push them, correct them train them challenge them and educate them. The more potential I see in them the more likely they are to be pushed. Watching a SPC develop from a skilled soldier to a leader with initiative and problem solving is probably the greatest joy I have ever experienced.
The second part of that rule is that I have to get them to be a team. The easiest way to do this is stress. We have to overcome obstacles and do more than we thought we could. So not only do I need to do my job with excellence, I need to push the team and sometimes that can be a bit rough.
I have been doing this for a day or two and have a whole ruck sack full of tools to get soldiers to perform. I love my job and do not look forward to giving it up and enter management.
So this thread is about respect. The assumption that the MSG makes in the opening comment is that this soldier has the facts of the situation. By taking this soldier's view as fact it implies that the no less than three layers of the chain of command have failed. That my 1SG is unaware of what we I am doing, that he doesn't know my strengths and weaknesses. The MSG assumes that that both my squad leader, platoon sergeant and platoon leader are unaware of what is happening under their command.
There are dozens of checks on behavior that exist that within a company. Even the ability for a company commander to become abusive and 'toxic' is limited due to the checks on behavior. By and large the system works, sometimes it takes time but I have never seen it fully fail. Senior leaders have less checks on behavior and that is where we see the toxic leadership causing issues.
Leadership is an amazingly complex job as we have to deal with a variety of people and develop both compliance with orders under stress and complex problem solving. We have to build both immediate execution of orders and moral operators who resist committing the horrors that have been commonplace in previous wars.
Above all I remember that my job, and the job every Sergeant is to hear the words "Sergeant, take three men across that road and draw fire." And when I say "Yes, Sir!" my three men follow me across the road. Evidence supports my success.
So why have I gnawed on this thread like a stray dog with a fresh knuckle bone? Because I have a hard job and the last thing I need is some senior EM from outside my chain of command coming into my truck and making it harder. My rater, senior rater and reviewer already have that job. Most importantly my subordinates have to respect me enough to get up and follow me across that road.
Respect is about what you do, the relationships you build and the people you develop. Outside of the family you get salutes and 'Yes sergeant, No sergeant" and all the forms of respect. Inside the family you get respect, and sometimes it comes in the form of having an ass cheek removed via loud and creative cussing.
I feel sorry for soldiers who never get to experience that family. The professional environment has its place, but it is but a pale shadow of that rough, abrasive, abusive, loving and unforgettable experience.
I was once told by a chaplain that "Sometimes you just have to trust in god." I told him I trust my squad and 556.
The second part of that rule is that I have to get them to be a team. The easiest way to do this is stress. We have to overcome obstacles and do more than we thought we could. So not only do I need to do my job with excellence, I need to push the team and sometimes that can be a bit rough.
I have been doing this for a day or two and have a whole ruck sack full of tools to get soldiers to perform. I love my job and do not look forward to giving it up and enter management.
So this thread is about respect. The assumption that the MSG makes in the opening comment is that this soldier has the facts of the situation. By taking this soldier's view as fact it implies that the no less than three layers of the chain of command have failed. That my 1SG is unaware of what we I am doing, that he doesn't know my strengths and weaknesses. The MSG assumes that that both my squad leader, platoon sergeant and platoon leader are unaware of what is happening under their command.
There are dozens of checks on behavior that exist that within a company. Even the ability for a company commander to become abusive and 'toxic' is limited due to the checks on behavior. By and large the system works, sometimes it takes time but I have never seen it fully fail. Senior leaders have less checks on behavior and that is where we see the toxic leadership causing issues.
Leadership is an amazingly complex job as we have to deal with a variety of people and develop both compliance with orders under stress and complex problem solving. We have to build both immediate execution of orders and moral operators who resist committing the horrors that have been commonplace in previous wars.
Above all I remember that my job, and the job every Sergeant is to hear the words "Sergeant, take three men across that road and draw fire." And when I say "Yes, Sir!" my three men follow me across the road. Evidence supports my success.
So why have I gnawed on this thread like a stray dog with a fresh knuckle bone? Because I have a hard job and the last thing I need is some senior EM from outside my chain of command coming into my truck and making it harder. My rater, senior rater and reviewer already have that job. Most importantly my subordinates have to respect me enough to get up and follow me across that road.
Respect is about what you do, the relationships you build and the people you develop. Outside of the family you get salutes and 'Yes sergeant, No sergeant" and all the forms of respect. Inside the family you get respect, and sometimes it comes in the form of having an ass cheek removed via loud and creative cussing.
I feel sorry for soldiers who never get to experience that family. The professional environment has its place, but it is but a pale shadow of that rough, abrasive, abusive, loving and unforgettable experience.
I was once told by a chaplain that "Sometimes you just have to trust in god." I told him I trust my squad and 556.
(3)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
I would not discount God, nor would I try to hold onto exclusivity to correct my solders. If one of mine fails to render proper courtesy, the NCO or officer is well within their right to issue an on-the-spot correction. That being said, it is my right to be informed of the incident so I can address the issue and prevent further occurrences.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) I have to agree with MSG (Join to see),that was well said, lengthy or not! I won't disagree with your last six words because some (many) of us have had to put trust in others and 5.56. I would tend to go along with MSG John Wirts in not discounting God. There have been a few ocassions when he was the only I was talking too (tangled parachute for one) and even if he didn't have anything to do with me coming out of that mess unhurt.... I give him benefit of the doubt, he surely was the one I was talking too while rapidly decending to the ground. I like to think he was listening that day! Don't know who the other jumper was that got tangled in my lines, but all I heard from him was a lot cussing and 4 letter words. I walked away, he didn't! Just a thought! Much success to you!
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
On the spot corrections have their own category. But should be limited to informational and corrective training left to the chain of command.
I have occasionally practiced high priority requests for divine intervention. Usually after I have become a fully ballistic object Although the last time such an event occurred my last thought was 'I sure am glad I wore my spine board today because this is going to hurt... Hey it was a BMW that hit me!"
I am now forced to begin to consider if the military is a religion and that if I am becoming a fundamentalist and thus resistant to other faiths infringing on that belief system. Wouldn't that be irony.
I have occasionally practiced high priority requests for divine intervention. Usually after I have become a fully ballistic object Although the last time such an event occurred my last thought was 'I sure am glad I wore my spine board today because this is going to hurt... Hey it was a BMW that hit me!"
I am now forced to begin to consider if the military is a religion and that if I am becoming a fundamentalist and thus resistant to other faiths infringing on that belief system. Wouldn't that be irony.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
This may be a difference between the old army and the new. When I was in, which wasn't that long ago, any senior was expected to correct any junior anywhere when correction was needed. This was expected. It wasn't just a chain of command issue...it was an "Army" issue.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I cuss a lot... but if someone asks me to refrain, I make every effort to do so. I don't want to be offensive to people just because I sprinkle my speech with some 'bad words' every now and then.
(3)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor, you're on point. It's not the profanity. Like SSG John Erny mentioned himself, he learned how to cuss in the military. So did I. I just don't anymore but this post is about respecting your fellow Soldiers regardless of their rank.
(0)
(0)
CW2 Jonathan Kantor
Well, I treat everyone the same. Regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc. I don't really care. If you're in uniform, you're a Soldier and I will treat you the same as anyone else... unless you're an asshole ;)
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I understand that in order to get respect, you have to give respect, but this is the military, not a desk job. It IS, for the most part, a dictatorship, and that's the only way it can work effectively. So feel free to disagree with me, but I approve of the response to the soldier being "Sack up and deal with it".
(3)
(0)
CPL (Join to see)
A quick question to you 1st SGT Randall, If you a SPC and your Senior NCO, then your Supervisor would called you name like Terrorist, an Alien. May they doing it for fun. How you are going to respond to it?
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
CPL (Join to see) , I Know how I would handle it, but I won't pass that one on to you. The next time it happened If you are this Soldiers First Line Supervisor, then you should address the issue with sergeants Nimrod and Jackass. If it continues, YOU take care of your Soldier and take it the 1SG and on to the CSM if need be. This falls under a leader taking care of and not letting anyone screw with your troop. I wish I were your 1SG in this case, I would have it fixed in less than five minutes with Sergeants Nimrod and Jackass. Suggest you(but tactful) say "Excuse me Sergeant, why do you continually call SPC ??????? these names, I'm informing you now that I do not appreciate it, his name is SPC ??????? and I and he would appreciate the proper Military Courtesy from you that we're required to give to you by calling him by his rank and name. You call everyone else by their rank and name, he is entitled to the same. If you choose not do so, I'm letting you know I will take up your lack of professionalism with 1SG, Cdr and if need by the Bn. CSM. Now this may piss him off because you have challanged what they may feel is their authority. If you willing to do this you have to be ready to stand his ground and be ready to do just that. To some, the question may seem minor or unimportant. However, it is important to the SPC and should therefore be a concern for his supervisor and leader. Remember, when your Soldiers are right, you always put yourself in between then and stand up them. And as you may know by now, sometimes Corporal can be the hardest rank in the Army to wear! Also, by standing up for your troops will raise you a notch or respect your Soldiers will have for you as well. Good luck! Would like to know what happens if this is an actual situation.
(1)
(0)
CPL (Join to see)
Thank you 1st SGT Randall, Mcpherson. Actually this happened to me when i was with my last unit. But, i did not pay attention since i have more important things to do to keep me from losing my temper and go crazy...I'm glad I'm enjoying my new assignment with grat NCO's who look out on my as I'm the lowest enlisted rank in my new unit. Thank you for the advise.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
CPL Peter Martuneac, Replace the word Religion with the word Respect. If you have Soldiers by which you mentor, respect them. If you cannot do so, you should not get another stripe. There are some Soldiers who are dirtbags and should not have enlisted into the military. We know this. But even they deserve to be respected. Do the proper paperwork and they will no longer be in the military but don't demean them because you have the rank. It's not leadership, that's a form of dictatorship. We're in American, not in Asia. Curse/Cuss and use the language you want to use to get the job done, just don't do it to demean, harass a junior Soldier just because you now have stripes. The Army values mean something and if you cannot respect your Soldiers, you should get rated a NO on the front page of your NCOER when due. LDRSHIP
(1)
(0)
9
3
6
Sorry but I have to agree,man up or get out. I don't have the time to treat every soldier as a their own pretty, pretty snow flake.
The law of the land states that language does not constitute harassment. If the soldier feels they need to seek a religious accommodation then they can appeal to the chain of command.
If we accommodate you and your beliefs then we have to do so for everybody, to include FSM believers.
The law of the land states that language does not constitute harassment. If the soldier feels they need to seek a religious accommodation then they can appeal to the chain of command.
If we accommodate you and your beliefs then we have to do so for everybody, to include FSM believers.
(9)
(6)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT Newport, I have down-voted your comments because you have deliberately lied regarding another NCO, and a senior NCO at that. The below is taken, word for word, from YOUR third comment above. In it you quote MSG Miles own words from his original posting. NOWHERE does he reference any type of religious beliefs in the wording. If you still believe there are religious connotations within the quote then SHOW it, otherwise you are lying.
2)My issue with the good MSG was that he took a pair of derogatory actions on a leader based on his religious beliefs.
"As a leader myself, I apologized to this Soldier and informed him that some leaders are called leaders because of their position or title, not because of their leadership. I then annotated in the retention book that he was not going to extend his contract but instead, leave the military because of the disrespect from his leadership."
2)My issue with the good MSG was that he took a pair of derogatory actions on a leader based on his religious beliefs.
"As a leader myself, I apologized to this Soldier and informed him that some leaders are called leaders because of their position or title, not because of their leadership. I then annotated in the retention book that he was not going to extend his contract but instead, leave the military because of the disrespect from his leadership."
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG,
Your opinion is noted.
I felt is was in poor taste to quote more than one paragraph as it was an early reply and the original source was easily available. In the future I will source my material more clearly to ensure that all supporting evidence is included in my reply. Although MSG Miles has commented that I tend to be a bit long winded.
I have made myself available to the the original poster off line, because the emotional content was getting a little high. He has proven perfectly capable of clarifying his own position.
I thank you for your down vote. It reminds me why I am here.
Your opinion is noted.
I felt is was in poor taste to quote more than one paragraph as it was an early reply and the original source was easily available. In the future I will source my material more clearly to ensure that all supporting evidence is included in my reply. Although MSG Miles has commented that I tend to be a bit long winded.
I have made myself available to the the original poster off line, because the emotional content was getting a little high. He has proven perfectly capable of clarifying his own position.
I thank you for your down vote. It reminds me why I am here.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT Newport, what I stated is NOT an opinion but a fact. If it was MY opinion then I would have prefaced my posting with such a qualifier.
(1)
(1)
2
2
0
I always treated my soldiers with respect and dignity there is no point in belittling someone. The only time I wont is if we had to take a hill. I would not say please but take that f@cking hill!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The more you look into DOD and Branch Medical Manuals you notice PSYCH professionals know what is going on. Check this quote out circa 1953 NAVY MED PSYCH MANUAL
What do you think of this quote I found NAVY MEDICAL PSYCH MANUAL 1953
Bureau of Medicins and Surgery
Department off the Navy
PSYCHIATRIC UNIT
OPERATIONAL
PROCEDURES
(Revised 1954)
"It is beyond the power of the medical or psychiatric profession to select or to
prepare personnel which will be psychiatrically immune to the hazards of poor leadership
or poor morale."
What do you think of this quote I found NAVY MEDICAL PSYCH MANUAL 1953
Bureau of Medicins and Surgery
Department off the Navy
PSYCHIATRIC UNIT
OPERATIONAL
PROCEDURES
(Revised 1954)
"It is beyond the power of the medical or psychiatric profession to select or to
prepare personnel which will be psychiatrically immune to the hazards of poor leadership
or poor morale."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Being an effective leader is a tricky balancing act, but it is not impossible. Leading by fear and intimidation might get the job done, but will your Soldiers respect you and trust you? Likely not. They certainly will not bring their problems to you, or trust you to help them.
In my close to 8 years in the Army, I learned the most from bad/toxic leaders because I saw and remember what not to do. I also remember what it felt like to be subjected to that type of treatment from a bad leader. I vowed that when I became a NCO I would not be like them. I talk to my Soldiers as human beings and brothers/sisters in arms. I let them know that I'm not entirely the rank that's on my uniform, but I will always insist on maintaining that professional "distance" in that I won't be their buddy nor will I hang out or drink with them.
Having studied a bit of psychology in college, I think I have a little insight into how the human mind works (and doesn't work in some cases). People want to feel good about themselves, feel accomplished, and are more likely to trust those who help them to attain those goals. Thus, helping your Soldiers succeed is the surest way to win their trust and confidence. This is where urging them on to greater things comes in. You don't have to threaten or yell at them to motivate and encourage them. Yelling at them and degrading them while using your rank to force compliance only makes them afraid of you and resent you. They surely don't think of you as a positive force in their lives or careers. They'll do what they have to do because that's what the UCMJ says they have to do. But it is far easier to treat Soldiers like the adults they are and have them WANT to accomplish the tasks you set them to. You usually get better results faster that way.
Yes, this doesn't work for all Soldiers, as you do get some bad apples who, for whatever reason, refuse to be compliant, and thereby refuse to be successful. These Soldiers DO need a firm hand and firmer guidance. Some truly don't "get" some things and truly are more confused than defiant. A good leader will know the difference and react accordingly.
When your Soldiers want to work for you, they will surprise you. As Patton once said, "Don't tell someone how to do something, tell them what you want done. The results may surprise you." This is true. As a long-time Specialist, (granted I was older and had more life experience) I usually knew of better/more efficient ways to get things done than some younger NCOs. So listen to your Soldiers because they might just have an idea that you didn't think of. Don't let your rank blind you to good ideas. Your Soldiers make you look good when there is mutual trust.
The payoff is when your Soldiers (or even someone else's Soldiers) come to you to ask for your opinion or your advice. This means they trust you enough to ask what you think. When they confide in you and trust you to suggest a course of action to resolve a problem, you know that you are not just a rank, but a leader.
How many "hardass" leaders can honestly say that their Soldiers respect and trust them? Respect is not Fear. There is a big difference. I would imagine not many, if any at all.
You don't have to be General Patton or Sergeant Hulka to get the job done. If you truly "know your Soldiers" then tailoring your approach to each one should not be difficult. The days of roughing up, belittling, and intimidating your Soldiers into compliance are over. To be an effective leader today, you need to be a human being first. Once you're past being "Billy Badass" then you can concentrate on being a good leader.
In my close to 8 years in the Army, I learned the most from bad/toxic leaders because I saw and remember what not to do. I also remember what it felt like to be subjected to that type of treatment from a bad leader. I vowed that when I became a NCO I would not be like them. I talk to my Soldiers as human beings and brothers/sisters in arms. I let them know that I'm not entirely the rank that's on my uniform, but I will always insist on maintaining that professional "distance" in that I won't be their buddy nor will I hang out or drink with them.
Having studied a bit of psychology in college, I think I have a little insight into how the human mind works (and doesn't work in some cases). People want to feel good about themselves, feel accomplished, and are more likely to trust those who help them to attain those goals. Thus, helping your Soldiers succeed is the surest way to win their trust and confidence. This is where urging them on to greater things comes in. You don't have to threaten or yell at them to motivate and encourage them. Yelling at them and degrading them while using your rank to force compliance only makes them afraid of you and resent you. They surely don't think of you as a positive force in their lives or careers. They'll do what they have to do because that's what the UCMJ says they have to do. But it is far easier to treat Soldiers like the adults they are and have them WANT to accomplish the tasks you set them to. You usually get better results faster that way.
Yes, this doesn't work for all Soldiers, as you do get some bad apples who, for whatever reason, refuse to be compliant, and thereby refuse to be successful. These Soldiers DO need a firm hand and firmer guidance. Some truly don't "get" some things and truly are more confused than defiant. A good leader will know the difference and react accordingly.
When your Soldiers want to work for you, they will surprise you. As Patton once said, "Don't tell someone how to do something, tell them what you want done. The results may surprise you." This is true. As a long-time Specialist, (granted I was older and had more life experience) I usually knew of better/more efficient ways to get things done than some younger NCOs. So listen to your Soldiers because they might just have an idea that you didn't think of. Don't let your rank blind you to good ideas. Your Soldiers make you look good when there is mutual trust.
The payoff is when your Soldiers (or even someone else's Soldiers) come to you to ask for your opinion or your advice. This means they trust you enough to ask what you think. When they confide in you and trust you to suggest a course of action to resolve a problem, you know that you are not just a rank, but a leader.
How many "hardass" leaders can honestly say that their Soldiers respect and trust them? Respect is not Fear. There is a big difference. I would imagine not many, if any at all.
You don't have to be General Patton or Sergeant Hulka to get the job done. If you truly "know your Soldiers" then tailoring your approach to each one should not be difficult. The days of roughing up, belittling, and intimidating your Soldiers into compliance are over. To be an effective leader today, you need to be a human being first. Once you're past being "Billy Badass" then you can concentrate on being a good leader.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google