Army Iraq Study Released

[Basenshukai]

I found out about this study by watching the news this morning.

I went to the Official Army Website (www.army.mil) to see the Army's report on the study. However, the MSNBC news report had added that there was a perception of poor officer leadership, at battalion-level, that the Army link did not show. I found the statement here, however, as well as on some other links:

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25127-2004Mar25.html)

Edited: Must register to site for link. Scroll down to next post to see the Washington Post report.

From the Washinton Post report"A slim majority of Army soldiers in Iraq -- 52 percent -- reported that their morale was low, and three-fourths of them said they felt poorly led by their officers, according to a survey taken at the end of the summer and released yesterday by the Army. "

Some months ago, a trusted friend who enlisted into the Army to serve his country in this crisis, echoed the same feelings to me in a letter. I'll have to add that he comes from a wealthy New York family and also has a master's degree from a well respected university. He didn't join to escape a bad set of circumstances. He joined out of a sense of patriotism and still wants to make the service a career. "It seems that they [the officers] don't care about what is going on here anymore", he wrote, "as long as it briefs well."

What is driving this perception among soldiers in regular units? Generally, it seems, that the elite units bypass these issues. Better leadership (officer and NCO), better training, tight cohesion, and more of a sense of purpose might be the distinction between the elite units and most conventional units. Or, I might be totally wrong. Well, let's discuss it.

[Basenshukai]

Apparently, the link for the Washington Post did not work. Here's the full report.


In Army Survey, Troops in Iraq Report Low Morale

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 26, 2004; Page A18


A slim majority of Army soldiers in Iraq -- 52 percent -- reported that their morale was low, and three-fourths of them said they felt poorly led by their officers, according to a survey taken at the end of the summer and released yesterday by the Army.



In addition, seven in 10 of those surveyed characterized the morale of their fellow soldiers as low or very low. The problems were most pronounced among lower-ranking troops and those in reserve units.

"Nearly 75% of the groups reported that their battalion-level command leadership was poor" and showed "a lack of concern" for their soldiers, said an Army report accompanying the data. "Unit cohesion was also reported to be low."

The survey was part of a study initiated by the Army last summer after a number of suicides provoked concern about the mental well-being of soldiers in Iraq. The report faulted the Army for how it handled mental health problems, saying some counselors felt inadequately trained and citing problems in distribution of antidepressant medication and sleeping pills.

But perhaps the most surprising findings were the grim conclusions about troop morale, which indicate that Iraq is taking a toll that goes beyond casualty figures.

The Pentagon has been intensely worried that more frequent and longer combat tours will prompt more soldiers to get out of the Army rather than reenlist, especially if it means a second stint in Iraq or Afghanistan. Army insiders say it is likely that brigades from three divisions that served in Iraq over the past year -- the 101st Airborne, the 3rd Infantry and the 4th Infantry -- are likely to be sent back in 2005.

The Pentagon data on morale also appear to give official confirmation to a more informal survey conducted last summer by Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper. That survey found about half of troops who filled out questionnaires described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they did not plan to reenlist.

Col. Virgil Patterson, who oversaw the Army survey, said he was "somewhat surprised" by the findings on troop morale. He noted that when the survey was taken, soldiers were still feeling the effects of a brutally hot Iraqi summer, and that since then troops have better living conditions and are better able to communicate with their families.

"It was a pretty miserable set of circumstances at the time," he said. "We speculate that all of those contributed to the factor of low morale."

Patterson said he could not place the numbers in historical context because similar surveys have not been conducted before. "This is the first time we've ever gone into an active combat theater and asked soldiers how they are doing, so we have no comparative data," he said. The study, conducted from late August through early October 2003, surveyed 756 Army soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait, focusing on units that had engaged in combat.

Reaction to the Army's survey was mixed among several experts.

Retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, a Vietnam War veteran, said, "It's not particularly surprising, especially given the frustrating nature of the combat they're facing now, with patrols and bombs going off."

But a senior Army commander who spoke on the condition of anonymity expressed alarm.

"I'd be extremely worried by these numbers," said the officer, who specializes in morale issues. Having more than half the soldiers surveyed say they are unhappy should "set off alarm bells," the officer said.

Jonathan Shay, a Veterans Affairs psychiatrist, called it "a painful report to read." Shay, who wrote two books on cohesion and leadership problems in the U.S. military during the Vietnam War, said the report shows morale and cohesion were "seriously low" among troops in Iraq.

The report faulted the Army's handling of mental health issues for troops and called for appointment of a "czar" to coordinate such services in Iraq and Kuwait. Patterson said a medical specialist would fill that new position next month.

In its findings on suicide, the report confirmed data previously released by the Army that the rate among soldiers in Iraq in 2003 was higher than for the Army generally, but lower than that of U.S. men of a similar age range. There were 23 confirmed suicides among Army troops in Iraq in 2003, for a rate of 15.6 per 100,000 soldiers, the report said. That compares with an Army average in recent years of 11.9, they said.

Col. Bruce Crow, an Army psychologist and an expert in suicide prevention who served as a member of the study group, said there were few clear patterns to the suicides, such as a persistent correlation with how long the troops had been deployed or what type of work they were doing. But he said soldiers who killed themselves generally tended to be younger, unmarried men.

[QRQ 30]

Things are looking up. I remember when close to 100% EM felt they were led astray by ossifers. As for morale remember: "A bitching troop is a happy troop!"

Of course the article is fodder for the swine who want to make hay of nothing. :boohoo

[Basenshukai]

So, I guess what you are saying is that morale has improved over the years and that all soldiers complain about something and that, therefore, there is nothing wrong with "us" officers and we are doing just fine with our leadership.

I don't know. I'm a bit skeptical.

In as much as I believe in the objectives laid out for the GWOT, I don't want to refuse to look at what soldiers are saying and feeling, in an attempt to protect the "cause" from outside criticism. Sure, the "libs" are going to "go to town" with this issue. They will blow it way out of proportion and make the GWOT seem misdirected and foolish. Nevertheless, this does not mean that there is no issue. Maybe you are right. But, the results of nearly 1,000 troops interviewed, 86% of which have been engaged by enemy forces in Iraq, are significant enough to me to warrant a hard look.

[QRQ 30]

Well shucks Base... I guess I need a smiley for "Tongue in Cheek". perhaps "sarcastic will due.

However I still contend that the raw data from any survey can be spun to fit any particular agenda.

Don't be so sensitive. I once had a 1Lt for an RTO on my RT. He was the best I ever had and I even let him talk on the radio.:D

[The Reaper]

That wasn't what they said.

They said their battalion command leadership was poor. That means the LTCs in BN Command who were selected by DA, and probably the CSMs as well, as part of the "command team".

I would like to see what they said about their PLT and CO command leadership. Probably not enough contact with the BDE and DIV leadership to comment on them.

As far as morale goes, soldiers will gripe to anyone who will listen, and anyone who asks them will get an earful. The real issue will be seen in the retention rates, given the almost certainty that the same soldiers will be back again (or in Afghanistan) within a few years.

To be truly useful, the survey would have to ask a lot better, more detailed questions.

TR

[Kyobanim]

Here's an email from a friends kid who is in Iraq. I received it 2 days ago.

Hi Everybody,
> Sorry for the mass e-mail, but this is just to good
> not to tell. For starters, I am outta here in less than 5 days. The
light
> at the end of the tunnel did in fact turn out to be freight train, and it
> hurts, but it will all be a funny story in a month or two. I work in one
of
> the palaces now, and it is pretty cool, both literally and figuratively.
It
> feels alot like a movie set, and is made about as well. I have a feeling
> this place will fall apart with the next stiff wind that comes through.
> Looks pretty, as long as you don't look real close. Ok, now the really
cool
> part. The center of the place is a three story tall hall, all marble and
> shine, and I work on one side of it. The other day, I sitting at my desk,
> working dilligetly <cough>, when I hear something odd. Now, mind you, I
am
> in Iraq, and while strange things happen everyday, I never expected to
hear
> bagpipes. Yes, bagpipes, played by authentic Scotsmen. 8 pipers and 3
> drummers played for about 15 minutes and then marched out. Another
positive
> aspect of coalition operations, at least for me. The coolest/oddest part
> was the closing song. I had never heard the Marine Corps anthem on
bagpipes
> before. Most likely never will again, but it was neat. I should have
some
> photos to show off, provided I remember to snag them from a buddy of mine
> who owns a digital camera.
> This should be my last big e-mail from Iraq. That statement
alone
> brightens my day. The last 4 months have been alot of hard work and a lot
> of fun. Part of me wants to stay, but I haev beaten that irrational
portion
> of my brain into submission with thoughts of Subway and driving all over
> Texas. I can say for sure that things are better here now than when I got
> here, and I am very glad I have been here. I hope all of you are well.
> Thank you for everything.
>
> Dave

He arrived in Iraq a few weeks after the major fighting ended, IIRC.

Another perspective is from my son. He's making the army a career. 28, married 1 newborn child when he deployed to Kuwait before it started, E5 Army. I spoken extensively to him since he got back but I do have letters and emails that he senet while over there.

Initially, he was gungho to go, charging around making sure everything worked, etc. He was with a commo CO. His attitude seemed, IMO, up beat until they moved into the palace by the airport after the major fighting was over.

His biggest complaint was inept leadership from the senior NCOs with the exception of the 1st SGT. (there was a large proportion of aged NCOs in his company) His second biggest was lack of combat training. They traveled from the airport palace to downtown bagdhad for duty. He said they were shot at on every trip, but were issued only 1 30rd magazine per day when they were on duty. Prior to deployment they had only used their weapons for yearly qualification in Germany. By the end of his tour he was ready to get out. After several months at home and then PCSing to the States his attitude turned around again. Now he's the same guy he was before he left, with one exception.

He's now E6. The unit he's in now is overrun with E6s and more than their share of E7s. He tells me that most of them are over 40 and are ready to retire. And his complaining about the inept leadership is driving ME crazy. :D That's all about to change as they are prepping for a change of command for a new CO. The NCOs should be cycling within the next year or so.

Granted, this is only one person's opinion but he's been hard core since he graduated ABN school. First unit was Bragg. He's always wanted to make it his career so I don't think he's just complaining to complain. Maybe getting stuck in leg units all the time has jaded his view cause he really likes to jump, I really don't know.

I know this isn't an answer or an opinion but it's how it is in a commo BN. At least these ones.

[Basenshukai]

A couple of points.

1. First of all, it would be really useful to actually read the full report (minus any "classified" information) as opposed to the PAO approved report, or some civilian newspaper's version of the facts of said report. Where would a report like that be available?

2. Taking into account what TR mentioned, I will write that it is very easy for the soldier at platoon-level to rest blame for any and all events upon the battalion leadership. The average BN CDR rarely gets to walk and talk with the soldiers on a daily basis. Chances are that they don't really know much about their "old man" except for what others say about him. I've seen fellow officers shrug-off responsibility for any negative event (tasking, mission, ect) by simply saying "we are doing it because the BN CDR/SGM said for us to do it". When company-level officers don't take ownership of unpopular orders, it degrades their soldiers' trust in their leadership at levels above their platoon leader/company commander.

BN CDRs/SGMs have some pretty heavy pressures on them as well. They know they are ultimately responsible. The average soldier doesn't get to see the work and personal sacrifices that their leadership make on a daily basis. The missing link here, seems to be communication.

[ktek01]

Originally posted by Basenshukai


What is driving this perception among soldiers in regular units? Generally, it seems, that the elite units bypass these issues. Better leadership (officer and NCO), better training, tight cohesion, and more of a sense of purpose might be the distinction between the elite units and most conventional units. Or, I might be totally wrong. Well, let's discuss it.

Don't forget the weeding out process. SOF units get to DX the unmotivated slugs, what few they may ever see, and guess where they get sent. Most of those types wouldn't even try to get into a unit like that. In the line units we were stuck with them. We had our hard chargers, some units had a lot of them, some units had hardly any. Those kind of guys usually would try out for an SOF slot, get fed up and ETS, or turn into slugs themselves. Constant battle in the line units to keep motivation high and not let the slugs take over. Ive been in line units where they were winning that battle, and in one where they didn't even try.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I saw a report on the report. It said that living conditions had improved significantly since this survey was taken. I would guess that is part of the bitching. Troops have a tendency to:

1. Think the BCs and above live significantly better than they do. In some conventional units this may be the case. I was pissed for a week when the C Team kicked us out of Pineapple Face's beach house, but I got over it.

2. Underestimate what the leadership does on a daily basis. Like TR said, they may not be getting enough face time to realize that the "Old Man" is actually working for a living. Remember that program they had years ago where the private sat in for the BC for a day? I can't remember the name of it, but I think that was a lame attempt to show the other side.

3. The burden of command has to be experienced first hand to be understood. You can't explain it to somebody that never had command.

4. The command may be getting wrapped up in minutia and not taking time out to lead. BCs only talking to CCs is, IMO, management not leadership.

5. I've said it several times and I'll say it again - where the hell is the NCO Corps - especially at senior levels?

6. Its been a couple of months since they had a big catch. frustration starts to set in.

Like others have said, I wouldn't read too much into this. They are mostly 3Fd and bitchin'. Its when they get quiet that you have to worry.

[Basenshukai]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

4. The command may be getting wrapped up in minutia and not taking time out to lead. BCs only talking to CCs is, IMO, management not leadership.



Great point. I'm going to write this one down.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Basenshukai
Great point. I'm going to write this one down.

Don't listen to me, what the hell do I know?

I worked in an office with about 50-60 people that worked for me. Accountants, Radio operators, lawyers, etc. Every afternoon about 1500, I would get up, get a dip and go find somebody to mess with. Junior people. Just ask them about their jobs, families, etc. At first, it scared the piss out of them, but they got used to it and even complained when I didn't get around to it.

Most people value face time with the boss, especially positive, more than most of us realize. A CSM troopin' the line and not being negative can do wonders for morale. People also like to show off their knowledge. If I was CSM of CENTCOM, I would be getting a class on something every day. "Doc, how does this Ascherman doodad work?" "Specialist, teach me how to tear down this M2." "Team Sergeant, show me how to fill out this TDY voucher."

People need praise a lot.

IMO, its also a VERY good way to get a feel for what's really going on.

But I'm just a hillbilly. I don't know any other way to do it.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I worked in an office with about 50-60 people that worked for me. Accountants, Radio operators, lawyers, etc. Every afternoon about 1500, I would get up, get a dip and go find somebody to mess with. Junior people. Just ask them about their jobs, families, etc. At first, it scared the piss out of them, but they got used to it and even complained when I didn't get around to it.

Most people value face time with the boss, especially positive, more than most of us realize. A CSM troopin' the line and not being negative can do wonders for morale. People also like to show off their knowledge. If I was CSM of CENTCOM, I would be getting a class on something every day. "Doc, how does this Ascherman doodad work?" "Specialist, teach me how to tear down this M2." "Team Sergeant, show me how to fill out this TDY voucher."

People need praise a lot.

IMO, its also a VERY good way to get a feel for what's really going on.

But I'm just a hillbilly. I don't know any other way to do it.

Excellent advice.

[NousDefionsDoc]

PLDC, Great Teammates and Managing for Dummies

[Basenshukai]

NDD,

Actually, you are totally correct. I have first hand experience in a situation where that very style of leadership is exactly what is needed. But, in an effort to be proper, I'll tell you all about it via PM. You know, dirty laundry and all. De Oppresso Liber.

[NousDefionsDoc]

LOL - TR was VERY hands on! Boss, get out of the aid bag. Boss, put the demo back in the box. Boss, what are you doing now? Boss, I'll make the comms shots if you don't mind. LOL. Man loves him some trainin'.

[QRQ 30]

I think I need to explain my words. Yes commanders, managers and CEOs need to be visible Their visible presence shows the troops they care. To paraphrase from the book "The One Minute Manager" you need to go out of your way "catch" someone doing something right. However micromanagement is IMHO what started to destroy the military in the time of LBJ. This is where use of the chain of command comes in and what I meant by saying that a commander need only directly control his immediate junior leaders. If the commander doesn't allow, expect and demand that his leaders lead he may as well take them out and shoot them.

A smart manager, leader (choose your terms) surrounds himself with good subordinates. This is the difference in a president like LBJ who kept his fingers in every decision and one like GWB who makes it known what he wants and then allows his DOD to do the job.

I stand by my word, one man cannot control a 150 man Signal Company. He needs good Plt Ldrs, Plt Sgts, section chiefs, etc. He needs to allow them to function and any order they give should be theirs. IMNHO the sorriest cop out on the books is for a subordinate to say: "This sucks but the Old Man says to do it."

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
A smart manager, leader (choose your terms) surrounds himself with good subordinates.

True, but not every manager has the ability to choose his team. How do you lead without good subordinates?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Oh I agree, I must have missed something. I hate a micromanager worse than anything. I'm talking about morale, not running the show.

Too often I think, the only time anybody sees their boss' boss is when there as an ass chewing to be had. It should be just the opposite in my book. The BC should let the CCs do the stick and he should look for opportunities to praise (for example).

Too many are "reporteros" - fly in, write everbody up, and fly out.

I was just talking out loud, not answering anything anybody else posted.

Sorry if it seemed that way.

[ktek01]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc

5. I've said it several times and I'll say it again - where the hell is the NCO Corps - especially at senior levels?


I think a lot of the good ones quit when they come up for E-8 and realize they wont be on the line anymore. Those hard chargers dont like desk jobs.






:D

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
True, but not every manager has the ability to choose his team. How do you lead without good subordinates?
It is your team whether you chose them or not. You find a way. its usually easier that it would seem.

One way is not bitchin' at them all the time. They are like kids. You have to pick the most important thing, fix that, then move to the next. If you try to correct everything at once, it just makes them rebel.

Positive reinforcement, leading by example, competition, clearly defined goals, milestones, team building, shared adversity, laughing when things get bad or stupid, all the little tricks. HALO Teams traditionally compete with SCUBA Teams (the two special teams). Groups compete between Groups.

Plus The Hat, its magic. It makes you want to do the best you can.

[QRQ 30]

I had written a rather long post on this subject but I seem to have hit the wrong button.

Don't mistake visibility and accessibility for micro-management. If you don't allow, expect and in fact demand that your subordinate leaders do their job you may as well get rid of them. If you are a Bn CO your best assets are your CSM, and Company COs and 1SGs. You keep them doing their job and you will have time to maintain a friendly, positive presence among the troops.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
I had written a rather long post on this subject but I seem to have hit the wrong button.

Don't mistake visibility and accessibility for micro-management. If you don't allow, expect and in fact demand that your subordinate leaders do their job you may as well get rid of them. If you are a Bn CO your best assets are your CSM, and Company COs and 1SGs. You keep them doing their job and you will have time to maintain a friendly, positive presence among the troops.

Couldn't agree more.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
One way is not bitchin' at them all the time. They are like kids. You have to pick the most important thing, fix that, then move to the next. If you try to correct everything at once, it just makes them rebel.

I learned this lesson the hard way.

[NousDefionsDoc]

LOL - most do. I bought a book.:lifter

[NousDefionsDoc]

I like this thread. Base, you mind if we just talk about leadership in general instead of the report specifically (like we are already)?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I like this thread. Base, you mind if we just talk about leadership in general instead of the report specifically (like we are already)?

We did a thread on leadership a while back, but I don't think it took. Want me to bump it or should we just keep going here?

[Edit: here it is:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=508&highlight=talk+leadership ]

[NousDefionsDoc]

Either way is fine with me.

[Roguish Lawyer]

You guys interested in giving me advice on some of my current management challenges?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Sure

[Basenshukai]

I agree NDD.

Besides, since leadership is what impact most of the stuff mentioned in the report, I think is most relevant here.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Know yourself and seek self-improvement, Be technically and tactically proficient, Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions, Make sound and timely decisions, Set the example, Know your soldiers and look out for their welfare, Keep your soldiers informed, Develop a sense of responsibility in your subordinates, Ensure that the task is understood, supervised and accomplished, Build the team, Employ your unit in accordance with its capabilities.


Just so I don't lose them

[DanUCSB]

As for the report, you have to be careful, as The Reaper said, not to read too much into it: I'm sure John Kerry will talk about how everyone in Iraq says that the leadership sucks, but that's not what the survey is saying; it specifically refers to "battalion-level command." I think the reason for this is twofold, and fairly simple. First and foremost, EMs love to bitch, and officers are their favorite targets. Second, the BC is the first officer up the chain that a typical enlisted guy doesn't deal with on a daily basis. He knows that the BC has a lot of power over him (anything brigade and above is too far up to worry about, or so goes the logic), but he doesn't see that the BC is running around all day, just like him. Joe can -see- what his LT or his captain's doing, usually. Which adds in another nuance: platoon and company-level commanders are very visible, and if people /aren't/ bitching about them? That's a good sign that we've got good officers out there.

As for the bigger picture, I think people are whacking around a crucial distinction. Every leader knows (whether they do it or not is a different story) that he needs to be up front with his men. And alot of what's been said here is exactly true: you should be up, talking to Joe, seeing how he's living, asking about people's jobs, distributing praise. The vital trick is knowing where the line is between that, and micro-management. I think alot of people (on this board, especially) would agree: a commander that you never see is a bad thing, but a micro-manager is worse. You have to know where to draw that line.

--Dan

[BMT (RIP)]

Reminds me of a BC I had in the late '50's. We were in the motor pool one morning and the BC came up to a group and asked 1 PVT." GK is it true when you get out of the Army you are going to buy a jeep and M-1 and piss on them every morning?"

We all laughed and the BC walked off. Poor ole GK said"damn that man knows everything!"

BMT

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You guys interested in giving me advice on some of my current management challenges?

Well?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Well?

I started writing and realized it will take more time than I have. I have a ton of work to do because I am leaving to go on vacation.

Perhaps when I get back?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Sure, just don't leave us hanging next time. LOL

[brownapple]

Back to the "report" briefly.

I'd be interested in seeing what the actual questions asked were and also in seeing the real report instead of a media breakdown of the report. Without that information, there really isn't anything to analyze, we're just speculating.

[QRQ 30]

A while back a poster stated that sometimes what Sr. NCOs acted more like managers than leaders. Actually he was correct and a Sr. NCO who is acting as a manager rather than leader/supv. is doing exactly what is expected of him. I present this information from USARMY INFO.COM. Keep in m9ind that E-8 and E-9 are skill level 5 posotions.

Each MOS has from one to five skill levels depending on the types of duty positions encompassed by the MOS. The five skill levels are generally characterized as follows:

Skill Level 1 identifies entry-level positions requiring performance of tasks under direct supervision.


Skill Level 2 identifies positions requiring performance of more difficult tasks under general supervision; and in some instances, involving supervision of soldiers in Skill Level 1.


Skill Level 3 identifies positions requiring performance of still more difficult tasks and involving first line supervision of soldiers in Skill Levels 1 and 2.


Skill Level 4 identifies positions requiring relatively detailed knowledge of all tasks specified for a given MOS, normally involving first-line supervision of soldiers in Skill Levels 1, 2, and 3, and involving managerial duties.


Skill Level 5 identifies managerial and supervisory positions requiring broad knowledge of the tasks performed at all subordinate levels in a given MOS and related MOS' s in order to coordinate and give direction to work activities.
An individual is awarded an MOS skill level when the skills, competencies, and knowledge for a particular MOS have been acquired.
Subsequently, an individual is periodically evaluated to determine whether he or she has maintained the MOS skills, competencies, and knowledge.

[DunbarFC]

I'd appreciate some advice on a bad leader

Great guy, super nice, but a HORRIBLE boss. My group is being steamrolled and he just wants to make everyone happy....

Sorry to bust in on you RL but as you opened the door.....

[QRQ 30]

There's not much you can Dunbar unless you are above him in the Chain-of-Command. About all you can do is wait foerthe next Change of Command ceremony and personally perform to your highest potential.

I hope some who think "being one of the boys" is leadership heed. Accomplishment of the mission is always first -- above public approval.

There are principles of leadership and management but there are as many styles as there are people. What works for me may not work for someone else. At one time I had trained all active Pizza Hut Managers from Ashboro to South Port, NC. I expected the most of them and got it. My style of management was "the Golden Rule" plus recognizing that every person on this planet is different. The principle of "one size fits all" as far as management is a crock. You have to know each individual under your care and determine what key will trigger the proper response. My two sons are a good example. One will perform with a pat on the back and the other needs a kick to the back side!!

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by DunbarFC
I'd appreciate some advice on a bad leader

Great guy, super nice, but a HORRIBLE boss. My group is being steamrolled and he just wants to make everyone happy....

Sorry to bust in on you RL but as you opened the door.....

Soapdish charge under the driver's seat?

Not that bad? Private detective with compromising photos?

TR

[QRQ 30]

Reaper says:
Private detective with compromising photos?


That reminds me of a story. Maybe some of you have heard of CSM Pioletti of the 10th. To put it mildly he was so straight laced it is said he didn't even own and civilian cloths. One day some guys got together and submitted him for subscriptions to a bunch of "skin" mags and lonely hearts clubs. There weren't computers in those days and all came to his mail box.

It didn't get him relieved but nearly got him divorced. :D

[brownapple]

Originally posted by DunbarFC
I'd appreciate some advice on a bad leader

Great guy, super nice, but a HORRIBLE boss. My group is being steamrolled and he just wants to make everyone happy....

Sorry to bust in on you RL but as you opened the door.....

Leaders don't need to be liked, they need to be respected. All he is accomplishing is making sure that everyone will hate him in the end. Above and below him.