What We Expect from Leaders

Written By: Major Danny Rumley. Danny is an Air Defense Artillery Officer serving as a Battalion Executive Officer for 2-43 ADA.

Numerous scholars speak about leadership and the attributes that successful leaders should possess. Even Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 outlines leadership qualities that Army leaders should have. Throughout the text, there is a general understanding that leaders should have favorable management qualities to help them succeed in their organization. However, there is no consensus on which exact qualities are required, let alone those qualities that lower enlisted want to see in their mid to senior leadership. 

First, Army leaders must be directly comparable to organizational leaders in the civilian sector to determine a baseline. For this article, Army leaders will be associated with global leaders to alleviate the use of any military doctrine defining leadership and expanding leadership outside of the confines of the military. The term global leaders define those who can impact operations on an international or multinational scale. Global leadership is interdisciplinary that requires managers to understand critical elements such as the social, psychological, and geopolitical impacts of their business. Even though the term is closely linked to business economics, it can be applied to military leaders who routinely lead multicultural, multigenerational, and international teams. Moreover, whose actions, regardless of rank, can influence geopolitical events. 

As with any leader, the one problem that global leaders face is that there is no universal concrete list of qualities that scholars state a leader must own. For example, authors like Caligiuri (2006) suggest leaders should learn broad concepts, while Jokinen (2005) compiled a composite list of traits he thinks every global leader should know. Various authors highlight traits that leaders who operate in an international or multinational environment should have, with many highlighting traits that favor their organization or research. This op-ed is not to criticize any military leadership or management style but to expand the question of what leadership qualities lower enlisted expect their leaders to have? Before summarizing the statement of a dozen former and current enlisted Soldiers in the rank of E5 or below, the article will continue to elaborate on the issue of the lack of academic conformity on leadership by examining Tubbs & Schulz (2006), Goleman (2005), and Iordanoglou (2018).

​Tubbs & Schulz (2006) define seven competencies that they believe leaders should possess. These seven competencies are teamwork and followership, understanding the big picture, attitude is everything, leadership the driving force, communication, innovation and creativity, and leading change. Naturally, these competencies consist of meta-competencies that detail exactly what each major category entails. For example, meta-competencies in leading change consist of creating transformational change, developing an organizational culture that embraces learning, and building support mechanisms. Tubbs & Schulz (2006) fail to elaborate on that these seven core components surround an individual's values and core personality. Most organizational leaders can agree that personality plays a significant role in presenting and perceiving any trait. One author who addresses personality is Dr. Goleman. 

​Goleman's study focuses on emotional intelligence, defined as the ability or skill to identify, assess, manage, and control the emotions of oneself, others, and groups. Dr. Goleman separates emotional intelligence into four components: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skills. Self-awareness and self-management deal with the leader, whilesocial awareness and social skills deal with the employee orothers that the leader seeks to influence. In short, Goleman's emotional intelligence defines particular domains that can enable a leader’s use of power and influence.

​Goleman’s four components relate to the U.S. Army's leadership attributes. His writings suggest that leaders must be in control of their emotions, understand others' emotions, and always influence those emotions seamlessly. Additionally, the mastery of emotional intelligence aligns directly with one of the six most recognized leadership styles –visionary, the most ideal, and lack of emotional intelligence aligning with commanding, the least appropriate in most situations, according to Dr. Goleman.

Great leaders understand the application of emotional intelligence, and as Iordanoglou (2018) states, leadership development is not up to par for today's volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous (VUCA) environment.​In Iordanoglou's (2018) literature review, several studies suggested that different leadership skills are needed at different stages that a business can be at or at different levels that an individual might be working. For example, a squad leader should possess different leadership than a Battalion Commander. Surprisingly, Iordanoglou's (2018) study found that despite literature attestingthat leadership qualities should change over time depending on an individual's level, many people who answered the study's questionnaire did not believe that this phenomenon should occur. However, the study found that an essential role is communication. 

​Furthermore, Iordanoglou's 2018 study found that participants believe that 70-80 percent of all leaders are ineffective. Numerous articles state what a leader should be; however, there is a lack of literature stating what lower-levelemployees in the military want their leaders to be. The gap in academic literature regressing this paperback to the question“What traits do lower enlisted want their leaders to have?” The author(s) conducted a qualitative case study and gathered information (the opinions) of a dozen enlisted Soldiers to answer the question loosely. It is important to note that this article is not intended to be a comprehensive study but a gateway to future research. 

​The short study found several leadership traits that these junior Soldiers would like their management to possess. The first consistent theme that appeared was effective communication. As defined by the participants, effective communication is not simply just passing down command orders but being able to articulate how the Soldier's daily individual task builds and influences the bigger picture. Additionally, being able to utilize different means of communication when appropriate. Formations or meetings are not always needed to push out information, but leaders should know when appropriate to utilize technology, such as text and emails, over giving orders face to face to elaborate on details. 

​The next theme was proficiency. Holistically, the participants stated that leaders should be proficient. In this instance, the term proficient covers multiple fields, with tactical proficiency being one of those categories. The participants believe the senior-level leadership should be tactically proficient in whatever field they are in because subordinates seem to value soft power - expert knowledge - over hard power - positional authority. Junior employees want to be able to seek guidance from their leadership. However, if the employees do not trust that leaders understand all aspects of the job, they will drift away.

​Additionally, junior enlisted that participated in the discussion expressed that they want their leaders to be proficient in day-to-day actions. These employees want to find comfort in having leadership help accomplish a task that their rank runs into issues trying to complete. For example, higher-ranking military members are more likely to complete an administrative action bypassing bureaucratic gates. Likewise, leaders who are known to be the problem-solvers or those known to be able to take on problems and give results seem to be favored amongst the group. 

​The last theme can either be explained using Goleman's definition of emotional intelligence or, more specifically, interpersonal skills. Common phrases such as “a teacher, a listener, relatable, self-awareness, and empathetic" were the terms most used to determine interpersonal skills. The participants want their leaders approachable and not out of touch with their employees. One participant stated that a leader should have a command presence while having humility and a positive attitude. In comparison, another stated that they want their leaders to be stewards of the profession. Leaders' personalities can be infectious and mimicked by junior employees. Usually, lower enlisted do not base their experience on the actual workload but how their leadership portrays work and influences the organizational climate.

​Understanding the role that leaders play in influence can help leaders understand what qualities are preferred or more related to their employees. Over, leaders must understand and adopt an extensive range of leadership styles; likewise, employees must understand that leaders can and are very influential in the absence of their preferred qualities. Leadership is not a one-size-fits-all concept, and this op-ed does not attempt to answer the question but to be a segue into further discussions on leadership. Nevertheless, one thing remains valid: military leaders are the most diverse, capable, and adaptive leaders in the world. Finding the balance between employee preference and operational requirements could be the most optimal form of leadership.