What kind of leader are you?

Having not served and having just come across this stuff, I found it interesting and, naturally, wanna know what you people, especially military (or ex) people, especially military (or ex) with leadership experience think about it?

What Kind of Leader Are You? - Soldier Systems

Hersey

Larry Gude said:

Having not served and having just come across this stuff, I found it interesting and, naturally, wanna know what you people, especially military (or ex) people, especially military (or ex) with leadership experience think about it?

What Kind of Leader Are You? - Soldier Systems

Hersey

Click to expand...

The German model leaves a lot to be desired. It attempts to apply an almost binary measure to situations and people with many shades of gray.

The Hersey model leaves a lot to be desired as well, for similar reasons. The techniques do indeed vary from situation to situation and from one organizational structure to the next. Also, within a command organization, there are organizations within organizations, and the leadership style is often dictated by the function of the organization at a particular level. Leading a group of sailors handling the lines used to tie a ship to a dock is very different from leading a group of highly-trained technicians doing individual and independent tasks.

Railroad said:

The German model leaves a lot to be desired. It attempts to apply an almost binary measure to situations and people with many shades of gray.

The Hersey model leaves a lot to be desired as well, for similar reasons. The techniques do indeed vary from situation to situation and from one organizational structure to the next. Also, within a command organization, there are organizations within organizations, and the leadership style is often dictated by the function of the organization at a particular level. Leading a group of sailors handling the lines used to tie a ship to a dock is very different from leading a group of highly-trained technicians doing individual and independent tasks.

Click to expand...

A comment;

The American model would have Staff Officers in all four blocks and Commanders in a vague ven diagram circle in the middle – For some reason everyone ‘deserves’ to get a chance. It’s the same bull$#*! as giving all kids trophys for competing instead of an actual accomplishment. Unfortunately, in our profession we risk lives instead of self-esteem. The “Dangerous” are only removed after they have had their full opportunity to incite chaos and destroy units. The “Supervise” are only removed after they hit Colonel or LTC due only to ‘restrictions’ on personnel numbers.

Click to expand...

That was pretty interesting, too.

In uniformed organizations with traditional functions, anything that attempts to make senior and junior people equal in some fashion, is indeed dangerous. In battle on a battlefield, orders are given and followed. Period. Or else people could die. If the person giving the orders is incompetent, people could die as a direct result, and for that I know of no remedy (not before it's too late, anyway).

In the Puzzle Palace (aka Pentagon) and its various extensions, including the systems commands and engineering and procurement activities, the effect of leadership is translated into team effectiveness, often expressed in cost, technical performance, and schedule compliance. Leadership in that kind of atmosphere contains a mix of uniformed and (often) formerly uniformed civilians, although there is a growing portion of the civilian ranks that joined the Government straight from college. The quality of leader is in part supported by an aggressive training regimen and several avenues for grievances and redress. The leadership style, in this atmosphere as in others, varies with the organization and its function and the individual situation.

I think the best leaders are those who take responsibility for the effectiveness of their organizations and do whatever it takes to ensure success of the organization, whether the task at hand is winning a battle, saving lives, maintaining complex equipment, or other more specialized functions. These leaders are motivated, energetic, positive and intelligent. There are other attributes harder to name, but folks who have worked for this type of leader seldom fail to realize that that leader was SPECIAL.

Railroad said:

In uniformed organizations with traditional functions, anything that attempts to make senior and junior people equal in some fashion, is indeed dangerous. In battle on a battlefield, orders are given and followed. Period. Or else people could die. If the person giving the orders is incompetent, people could die as a direct result, and for that I know of no remedy (not before it's too late, anyway).

In the Puzzle Palace (aka Pentagon) and its various extensions, including the systems commands and engineering and procurement activities, the effect of leadership is translated into team effectiveness, often expressed in cost, technical performance, and schedule compliance. Leadership in that kind of atmosphere contains a mix of uniformed and (often) formerly uniformed civilians, although there is a growing portion of the civilian ranks that joined the Government straight from college. The quality of leader is in part supported by an aggressive training regimen and several avenues for grievances and redress. The leadership style, in this atmosphere as in others, varies with the organization and its function and the individual situation.

I think the best leaders are those who take responsibility for the effectiveness of their organizations and do whatever it takes to ensure success of the organization, whether the task at hand is winning a battle, saving lives, maintaining complex equipment, or other more specialized functions. These leaders are motivated, energetic, positive and intelligent. There are other attributes harder to name, but folks who have worked for this type of leader seldom fail to realize that that leader was SPECIAL.

Click to expand...

So, how to identify that person? Have more of what made them special to help find, or make?, more special people in the right place and time? Moltke seemed to take the man for what he was, identify him and place him accordingly; not make him.

Larry Gude said:

So, how to identify that person? Have more of what made them special to help find, or make?, more special people in the right place and time? Moltke seemed to take the man for what he was, identify him and place him accordingly; not make him.

Click to expand...

I guess I was thinking about what some term "natural leader" qualities. I hesitate to use terms like "charisma," but my experience working for such people has brought that word to mind.

You do place a person like that in a position for which he/she is best suited, leading people. And contrary to the impression I got from the German model, I think that you put such leaders on a track for promotion, going through the officer ranks to the top by being recommended for strategically-chosen billets. You want the fellow who gets the job done with an inspired crew, to be given the responsibilities commensurate with his abilities.

AND, you definitely cannot "make" a great leader. An azzhole is what he is - put a hat on him and dress him up, but he's still an azzhole. Unfortunately, some do make it into relatively senior positions.

Railroad said:

I guess I was thinking about what some term "natural leader" qualities. I hesitate to use terms like "charisma," but my experience working for such people has brought that word to mind.

You do place a person like that in a position for which he/she is best suited, leading people. And contrary to the impression I got from the German model, I think that you put such leaders on a track for promotion, going through the officer ranks to the top by being recommended for strategically-chosen billets. You want the fellow who gets the job done with an inspired crew, to be given the responsibilities commensurate with his abilities.

AND, you definitely cannot "make" a great leader. An azzhole is what he is - put a hat on him and dress him up, but he's still an azzhole. Unfortunately, some do make it into relatively senior positions.

Click to expand...

It's worth keeping in mind, I think, that 19th century Germany and, to a large extent, especially in senior command, the officer corp was also a class corp so, in a lot of ways, perhaps it was a relatively simple thing to sort candidates out into four basic groups because most of them came from the same basic background, same basic education and training and experiences.

Larry Gude said:

It's worth keeping in mind, I think, that 19th century Germany and, to a large extent, especially in senior command, the officer corp was also a class corp so, in a lot of ways, perhaps it was a relatively simple thing to sort candidates out into four basic groups because most of them came from the same basic background, same basic education and training and experiences.

Click to expand...

The same can still be said for the military now, there are quite a few dynastic military families. I used to work for RAdm Flatley who was the third generation of Navy admirals.

Larry Gude said:

So, how to identify that person? Have more of what made them special to help find, or make?, more special people in the right place and time? Moltke seemed to take the man for what he was, identify him and place him accordingly; not make him.

Click to expand...

I think this is simpler than you think.

Ever had a bad boss?

Ever had a good boss?

What made them different?....you could list lots of qualities and what not.

In my personal experience with leadership, it isn't easy, and sometimes I felt like I walked a tight rope, but with time and experience I chose to grow, learn, and work with people as opposed to giving commands. A leader doesn't need to command. Sometimes only a look is sufficient, or a parting glance, but failing all else - speaking is usually sufficient.

I can imagine a battlefield situation can offer a different dynamic, though. However, if one feels it necessary to 'command' in order to 'lead' - this is backwards. One must first 'lead' then 'commanding' will follow naturally.

Cheeky1 said:

I think this is simpler than you think.

Ever had a bad boss?

Ever had a good boss?

What made them different?....you could list lots of qualities and what not.

In my personal experience with leadership, it isn't easy, and sometimes I felt like I walked a tight rope, but with time and experience I chose to grow, learn, and work with people as opposed to giving commands. A leader doesn't need to command. Sometimes only a look is sufficient, or a parting glance, but failing all else - speaking is usually sufficient.

I can imagine a battlefield situation can offer a different dynamic, though. However, if one feels it necessary to 'command' in order to 'lead' - this is backwards. One must first 'lead' then 'commanding' will follow naturally.

Click to expand...

It's really interesting stuff as a small business person especially the comments about intelligence and initiative and how he would choose smart lazy guys to get things done economically. That is right up our ally because so much changes so fast. I think I am a smart lazy leader but, sometimes I fear I am a dumb lazy leader!