Former Sergeant Major of the Army Van Autreve, who served as the 4th SMA from 1973-1975, spoke of an environment focused on empathy for soldiers centered around servant leadership, This was ahead of its time and long before those terms and concepts became mainstream. The former SMA also understood that the future of the NCO Corps would be shaped by their surroundings.
Sitting on a promotion board, I could see SMA Van Autreve words take shape. The promotion board is a nerve-wracking hurdle specialists aspiring to become sergeants must overcome. After months of studying with their NCOs, they sit alone before the senior noncommissioned officers of their battalion and answer questions covering a wide range of military topics. Based on their performance, they either promote or they do not promote.
At the completion of the promotion board, the ten Specialists selected for portion to Sergeant stood relieved. They had passed. Their Command Sergeant Major and president of the board shared his expectations with them and stated, “I need leaders, not likers.” He expected this wisdom and mindset to shape their leadership foundation.
It is easy to see where the Command Sgt. Major got his idea. The Former Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman, (SEAC) John Troxell linked leader desire of popularity and leadership boundaries to environments where sexual assaults are more likely to happen. This tidbit is then likely to get empathized and repeated down the NCO Support Channel to the aspiring NCOs.
At first glance, “leadership not likership” sounds like a great and simple catchphrase to guide leader conduct, and as Troxell stated, “establish appropriate lines of separation between leaders and those they lead.” However, upon more exploration, it is more harmful than helpful. Leaders may become afraid of making decisions their subordinates may like even if it is the right decision.
It should be readily apparent that leaders should not make decisions based on whether they will be popular with their subordinates. Decisions should not be based solely on subordinate desires, but it can include them. The trouble begins when the decision is one that matches subordinate desires. From the outside the perception becomes reality and other leaders label that person as a liker.
Imagine a 100 degree day. Soldiers are out lugging hoses, fittings, and 50,000 gallon bladders in the hot sun without cover. Their NCO moves them into the shade of a shipping container and downgrades the uniform – no more flak vest and kevlar – for a fifteen-minute break. A senior leader stops by to check and berates that NCO for making a soldier-happy decision.
Soldiers want their leaders to care – to have their welfare in mind. It is mutual respect, as the leader must be respected for their rank, the soldier requested to be treated with respect accruing. However, demonstrating that caring gets a leader labeled as a liker, or worse, a Joe or Private-Hugger. I heard a command sergeant major tell a private that he should not view his Sergeant as his friend. While being a friend is not a common position this thinking can be more harmful than good.
Leaders can be likable and respected. I had a soldier whose close friend committed suicide the night before a PT test. The soldier demonstrated obvious signs that he was not getting enough sleep. I sent him with another soldier back to the barracks. I told him that we would reschedule his PT test. Too often, leaders say, “you should be ready at any time for a PT test.” Although it is in the test instructions to ask if anyone at this time cannot take it, I have never heard anyone say they were not ready. Empathy and common sense are not weaknesses or “likership.”
Time after time, I hear senior leaders push engaged leadership as the solution for indiscipline and lack of squad cohesion. In my 20-plus year military career, this is usually code for barracks checks. The conventional wisdom is that leader presence in the barracks reduces indiscipline, regardless of where the indiscipline actually occurs. In my experience, if the presence is forced, it has little effect on indiscipline or improving cohesion.
The Army published Training Circular 6-22.6, Employee Engagement Doctrine. Interestingly, it states that leaders should “empathize with the needs of team members.” This sounds like subordinate desires should be included in the leader’s decision-making process. I only found it because I was researching this piece.
As a first sergeant and senior NCO, I want engaged leaders and soldiers in my formation. Engaged soldiers are typically more committed to the organization. They will not stop at the first obstacle, but find ways to overcome challenges and accomplish the mission. In my opinion, the only way they become engaged is if they truly believe their leaders care about them.
In my company professional development sessions, I explain engagement using the example of a soldier stapling papers. Upon running out of staples, a disengaged soldier would stop and go on break with no back brief, leaving the task incomplete. An engaged soldier would check drawers for staples or ask supply for more. They would attempt to solve the issue themselves.
Instead of worrying about liking or leading – leaders should focus on the impact of their actions on unit cohesion. Are they strengthening it or weakening it? As SMA Van Autreve said, NCOs create the conditions for success.
Subscribe to The Company Leader!