PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk about leadership


Roguish Lawyer
02-10-2004, 16:08
What are the characteristics of a good leader? What are the most important things for someone to do if they want to lead others?

CPTAUSRET
02-10-2004, 16:30
Here's a pretty fair example, Counselor:

Terry



http://www.wigmusings.com/Americana/sambird.html

The Reaper
02-10-2004, 17:10
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
What are the characteristics of a good leader? What are the most important things for someone to do if they want to lead others?

Start by learning to be a good follower.

TR

Roguish Lawyer
02-10-2004, 17:17
Terry: Good one!

TR: And then?

The Reaper
02-10-2004, 18:03
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Terry: Good one!

TR: And then?

Identify leaders you admire and study how they led.

TR

Ghostrider
02-10-2004, 18:11
My 1SG gave each of us PSGs the book "The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader" by John C. Maxwell. It is a very easy read and while I would classify it as one of those "self-help" books it does have a positive message.

The list is:

Character
Charisma
Commitment
Communication
Competence
Courage
Discernment
Focus
Generousity
Initiative
Listening
Passion
Positive Attitude
Problem Solving
Relationships (ability to get along)
Responsibility
Security (in ones self)
Self-Discipline
Servanthood (serving others vs. self-serving)
Teachability
Vision

Obviously there are varying degrees of each characteristic for any given type of leader but it seems pretty accurate. I particularly like the different quotes at the beginning of each chapter. Here is one from the 1st chapter by Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery that I found quite good.....(yes, I know he was a pain in GEN Patton's side, but even a good U.S. DAT like me can appreciate a good quote, even if it came from "Monty".)

"Leadership is the capacity and will to rally men and women to a common purpose and the character which inspires confidence.":cool:

Maya
02-10-2004, 18:55
Damn Terry,

After reading about Sam Bird and BT, something got in my eyes...

You should have put a warning on that thread, "Warning, may cause severe reactions, watering eyes, running nose, and heart palpitations". I almost lost my cool.

Thanks,

Steve

Roguish Lawyer
02-10-2004, 19:16
Is there a difference between what you need to do to lead your peers and what you need to do to lead those under your chain of command?

Ghostrider
02-10-2004, 19:43
My .02, whether it's your peers or those under you , EARNING their respect (by exhibiting, competence, care, etc.) goes a long way in making you a successful leader. That's probably the thing to remember is that being an effective leader is really dependent on those you are leading.

brownapple
02-10-2004, 20:32
Credibility, vision.

It makes no difference if you are in the chain of command or leading peers in terms of what characteristics are needed to lead. The Chain of Command position simply gives you the legal tools to back up what you do. It may be more challenging to lead peers because those tools aren't there to fall back on (but very few of the men I considered leaders needed to make use of those legal tools often).

Valhal
02-11-2004, 00:15
My squadron XO gave me some advice before I was sent to USMAPS.

"Do not try to make friends right away when assuming a new command. You will have plenty of time for that after you have proven yourself and gained thier respect. If you go in trying to be everyones buddy you will have a tough time when you need to be tough."

I'm curious to know if the BTDT's agree with that statement.

brownapple
02-11-2004, 06:01
Very much, Valhal.

It is far more important to be respected than liked.

CPTAUSRET
02-11-2004, 13:11
Originally posted by Greenhat
Very much, Valhal.

It is far more important to be respected than liked.

Concur, totally!

Terry

NousDefionsDoc
02-11-2004, 13:29
Couldn't agree more.

CRad
02-11-2004, 15:47
From my study group -

Trust - Does he trust us? Do we trust him?

Loyalty - Is he loyal to his men, to his job?

Ability - Is he able to do his job? Can he lead us or will he follow us?

lrd
02-11-2004, 15:58
Originally posted by Greenhat
It is far more important to be respected than liked. I agree completely, which leads to the question: what does it take to earn your respect? How do you define respect?

(or should that be a different thread?)

AngelsSix
02-12-2004, 23:56
Respect; good topic, I like it!!:D

It is often said that respect has to be earned. But so does trust. You ask me how these two things correlate?? I will tell you.

If you cannot trust someone, how can you believe them??
If you cannot believe them, you will not have any repsect for them (more than likely).
If you cannot follow a person without a doubt in your mind that they are doing the RIGHT THING, then you know you cannot trust that person, so knowing they are doing the WRONG THING.....how could you respect them??

Respect has to be proven. For someone to earn respect, they have to PROVE to you beyone a reasonable doubt that you can TRUST them, no matter what.

Actions speak louder than words. Someone can tell me anyting I want to hear (like saying that they would do anything for me) but I don't necessarilly TRUST them. They have to PROVE to me through their actions that I can TRUST them. This does not happen overnight, it takes time.

Once you break someone's trust, they can no longer believe in you and certainly cannot respect you.

That's my take on it..............

Eagle5US
02-13-2004, 12:21
TRUSTWORTHY
He tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.
LOYAL
He is true to his family, his leaders, friends, and nation.
HELPFUL
HE is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without expectation of pay or reward.
FRIENDLY
He is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Soldiers. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.
COURTEOUS
He is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together.
KIND
He understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not hurt or kill harmless things without reason.
OBEDIENT
He follows the rules of his family, and unit. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.
CHEERFUL
He looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.
THRIFTY
He works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.
BRAVE
He can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him.
CLEAN
He keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.
REVERENT
He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

Now, replace the "He" pronoun with "A Scout"...this is the Boy Scout Law... I think this is a fine place for young leaders to find some initial direction, and older ones to maintain their own.

The Eagle

Weazle23
02-13-2004, 12:21
Originally posted by AngelsSix
Respect; good topic, I like it!!:D

It is often said that respect has to be earned. But so does trust. You ask me how these two things correlate?? I will tell you.

If you cannot trust someone, how can you believe them??
If you cannot believe them, you will not have any repsect for them (more than likely).
If you cannot follow a person without a doubt in your mind that they are doing the RIGHT THING, then you know you cannot trust that person, so knowing they are doing the WRONG THING.....how could you respect them??

Respect has to be proven. For someone to earn respect, they have to PROVE to you beyone a reasonable doubt that you can TRUST them, no matter what.

Actions speak louder than words. Someone can tell me anyting I want to hear (like saying that they would do anything for me) but I don't necessarilly TRUST them. They have to PROVE to me through their actions that I can TRUST them. This does not happen overnight, it takes time.

Once you break someone's trust, they can no longer believe in you and certainly cannot respect you.

That's my take on it..............

Well said. This sounds like integrity, which is earned over time. If you have integrity then trust, respect etc comes as well. Integrity comes with keeping your word. Actually doing what you say you will.

I have heard it said that if a leader takes care of his people, his people will take care of him. But if he doesn't take care of his people, his people will really "take care" of him.

Roguish Lawyer
02-13-2004, 12:28
Eagle:

Great post.

AngelsSix
02-14-2004, 18:06
Very nice, Eagle. Thank you.

Doc
02-14-2004, 21:13
A Leader must provide;

Purpose

Motivation

Direction

AngelsSix
02-15-2004, 20:31
Doc:

I agree, however......how do you do it?? I mean what's the best way to motivate people?? Everyone is so different. It would drive a person nuts trying to motivate 50 people that take different ways to motivate them. Can you elaborate for me?? Is there one or more proven methods for motivating a group of different people?? Or do you need to find a separate motivating factor for each individual??

How does one provide purpose??

Definition of purpose:
pur·pose ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pűrps)
n.
The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: “And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue” (Sarah Josepha Hale).
A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.
Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.
The matter at hand; the point at issue.

In other words giving someone a goal to work towards.

Would direction and purpose be the same thing??

Doc
02-16-2004, 04:15
Purpose: The reason for doing something.

Motivation: The technique(s) a leader uses intially and throughout the process to influence those they are working with to do what the leader wants them to do. They can be positive and/or negative means.

Direction: A road map to get to the final goal.

AngelsSix
02-16-2004, 09:53
Thanks for clarifying that for me, Doc. I never had a good leader until now. My class leader epitomizes leadership. It's nice to have folks like him around.

Simple Simon
06-06-2006, 06:28
Seems like a no-brainer but Lead by Example.

It doesn't even scratch the surface but it is a place to start. I adopted the attitude sleep where my guys sleep, eath when, where and what they eat, and get my hands dirty with them. It was always nice to know my leaders put their pants on the same way I did, but when it was crunch time they made good sound decisions.

When approaching a tactical plan take everyones opinion into consideration, you may not always have the best ideas.

incommin
06-06-2006, 10:53
There is more to being a leader than knowing the characteristis and trates listed in the leadership manual. There has to be a desire to be a leader and the stomach for doing and making difficult decisions.

Years ago, an old SGM (with the last name of Pope) told me that if you walked, talked, and looked like a soldier, people would assume you were one. But more importantly, you would become one.

In the same light, if you walk, talk, and act like a leader people will assume you are one and you will become one.

Things like: First in and last out; Taking care of soldiers before yourself; Training to standards; and Enforcing rules and regulations; will provide the image. Doing it day in and day out in a consistant manner will make you a leader.

x SF med
06-06-2006, 13:03
A SGM (GHH for any C/2/10 guys) once told me the key to real leadership is:
Never ask anybody to do what you have not done yourself, or are willing to learn yourself - now go scub my latrine, I'm an E-9 and know how, but get me some coffee first....

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-06-2006, 14:48
Leadership is all about enabling your subordinates to succeed.

72_Wilderness
06-06-2006, 16:52
A person must also be careful once they earn the respect of those surrounding them.

I was part of a Scout Troop for the past 6 years and in my third year I noticed one thing. It didn’t matter that I was no longer leading my peers and those ‘under’ me. They still respected me, to the point that they would do what I had suggested before they would do what the official boy leader had told them to. I realized this quickly and learned to keep my mouth shut. I would quietly make suggestions to the leader and sometimes he would change the plans other times he would continue on his desired course.

Some said “I ruled with an Iron Fist.” But its not entirely true, I just demanded certain things be done a certain way and at the end of the day when I was no longer the official boy leader, a kid that severely disliked me and the way I did things (he was prone to tell me this on a monthly biases) came up to me and said, “I know I said I hated you, but I want you to be the Senior Patrol Leader. Jordan doesn’t have a clue what he is doing and you can get things done around here.” Talk about doing an about-face on a situation!

If a new leader steps in, one must step to the side and allow him to earn respect from the others or else the leadership falls apart. In Scouts we could never resort to the legal powers because we had none. Earning the respect of your peers and others was a crucial part of each leadership position.


Another proud Eagle Scout.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-06-2006, 20:32
In Scouts we could never resort to the legal powers because we had none.

Legal, or legitimate, power is just one of the sources of power that a leader can exercise. There are other sources more important. Referent power which deals with the strength of the relationship between the leader and the followers. This occurs when the follows look at the leader and sees a role model for instance. There is expert power which is really the power of knowledge which occurs because someone has relative expertise inparticular areas. There is reward power which has to do with the control over desired resources. There is also coercive power which deals with negative sanctions. Probably the most important aspect of power for a good leader is referent power because it is "granted" to him/her by his/her followers which has to do with that respect you were talking about. Of course, the exercise of power is just part of the tools in a leaders rucksack. The exercise of leadership is a whole lot more complicated than just the study of power. It is both a science and an art, rational and emotional, and very personal based on ones ability to first know oneself.

x SF med
06-07-2006, 08:14
Outstanding synopsis of power and leadership COL M - you put it into a nutshell. I worked for a lot of competent people, who could not lead worth a damn - but the few who were real leaders, inspired all of the team to aspire to the same level of excellence as they had set for themselves.

Five-O
06-07-2006, 13:12
They say you salute the rank not the man. When men salute the man and not the rank you are a leader....regardless of rank. Strength of character and a sense of humor near the top of my list. Great post.

frostfire
06-07-2006, 22:14
Leadership is all about enabling your subordinates to succeed.

Legal, or legitimate, power is just one of the sources of power that a leader can exercise. There are other sources more important. Referent power which deals with the strength of the relationship between the leader and the followers. This occurs when the follows look at the leader and sees a role model for instance. There is expert power which is really the power of knowledge which occurs because someone has relative expertise inparticular areas. There is reward power which has to do with the control over desired resources. There is also coercive power which deals with negative sanctions. Probably the most important aspect of power for a good leader is referent power because it is "granted" to him/her by his/her followers which has to do with that respect you were talking about. Of course, the exercise of power is just part of the tools in a leaders rucksack. The exercise of leadership is a whole lot more complicated than just the study of power. It is both a science and an art, rational and emotional, and very personal based on ones ability to first know oneself.

wow...that's the summary of Nahavandi, A. (2003) The art and science of leadership chapter four. The book also covers that a good leader is contingent upon his/her ability find situations that match his leadership style or adjust his style to current situation. Ok, nothing new here.

If I got anything engraved on my gray matter from reading MSG Howe book, thar would be a leader empowers the team members at any setting.

I learnt a while back that you can tell a team has had a good leader if upon his departure, another good leader would emerge from the team.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-08-2006, 06:39
wow...that's the summary of Nahavandi, A. (2003) [.
Interesting, never heard of this person, but evidently the author discovered nothing that was not being practiced in the community long before publishing the book. You are right, there really is nothing "new" in the arena of leadership as far as theories and espoused practices. Trying to capture leadership in print is sort of like trying to explain any other intangible trait where the definition is described by an action under a set of multiple variables that can never be duplicated again in the same time and space continuum. Remember that the exercise of leadership and all the physcial and psychological aspects are going to be driven by personal strenghts and influenced by factors over which those caught in the situation have no control. The best you can hope for is that the person confronted with those variables is equipped through training, experience, luck by having the right folks and resources with him at the right time and place to create a favorable outcome.
No one wakes up one day and says, "Today I am going to be a leader" anymore than anyone can invest upon you the mantel of leadership by virtue of assignment, study, or wish. The bottom line is that you can read any book, review any study, and go through any training program, but you just do not know what you are going to do until the situation presents itself. I will also tell you that those that rise to the occassion in one situation may fail miserably in another.

incommin
06-08-2006, 07:05
Back to the age old discussion of are great leaders born? Are they created or made? Are they a product of the right moment in time and circumstances? Or all of the above?

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-08-2006, 08:23
Back to the age old discussion of are great leaders born? Are they created or made? Are they a product of the right moment in time and circumstances? Or all of the above?

I think you can make arguments for all of the above. Certainly charismatic leaders are event driven and when the "crisis" that allowed them to rise is gone so is their effectiveness. Born can be a timing thing as much as a character development event that builds traits and effects outlooks but I do not think genetics plays a major role. I can think of any number of offspring who could not walk in their parents shoes and any number of parents whose offspring outstanding accomplishments' belie their heritage. Given the right mix of personal characteristics, training, guidance, events, and circumstance leaders can arise or fall. In the meantime academicians will garner big bucks analyzing what makes a leader or a tyrant and entreprenures will package material to convince anyone that they too can lead the world if only that person would maximize his/her capability by allowing the entre"manure" to bring out his/her latent potential. In the meantime, those organizations that rely on folks to perform "leadership functions" need to grow their own by providing the tools and training for those that have been assessed and selected to met the requirements deemed as necessary for success in accordance with the vision, mission, goals, standards and unknown but expected variables under which they expect their leaders to function. One size does not fit all any more than one style of leadership. That, in my humble opinion, is why it is a fine balancing act between both an art and a science and it is not a static formula but a dynamic process that is environment and event driven.

incommin
06-08-2006, 15:04
When saying born I don't think the thought is of genetic line. I think it is more of what that person is at birth that allows them to become a type A or B; hormones that influence brain wiring and physical development; and social status that influences development. Just like our fingerprints, we are not all the same at birth. We don't start equal. We don't learn at the same rates. We think and function differently right from birth.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-08-2006, 15:36
When saying born I don't think the thought is of genetic line. I think it is more of what that person is at birth that allows them to become a type A or B; hormones that influence brain wiring and physical development; and social status that influences development. Just like our fingerprints, we are not all the same at birth. We don't start equal. We don't learn at the same rates. We think and function differently right from birth.

Yep, but hormones are determined by genetic make up and can be impacted upon by environmental factors. As far as type A and type B personalities, each has a role in different situations which is why I believe there is no one size fits all when it comes to leadership. As far as social status, we all know outstanding leaders from every walk of life but where folks get themselves into trouble is when leaders, especially in the military, view rank and leadership as step up in their social status and wear it like a badge rather than accepting it for what it should be as another level of responsibility with which to enable those for whom you are responsible to succeed. Rank is a promotion it is not a leadership catagory or style it just provides more legitimate, coercive and reward power for the "leader" to use but does not necessarily provide the individual the important referrent or professional power which are more important when it comes to exercising good leadership. I think you can make arguments both for and against where in the food chain someone was born when it comes to providing a plus in education, development, and opportunities for growth but IMHO it is not in anyway a determinent factor in predicting who will or will not become a leader.

12B4S
06-09-2006, 02:29
All great insight. Just cutting it to the quick. Taking it to leadership in combat. All the above applies and if this was posted, I missed it.

Lead from the front............

x SF med
06-09-2006, 08:24
Leadership is also about respect - given and received - they go hand in hand, but respect is earned. Those that have learned how to follow usually make very good leaders - they understand what is being asked of them.

incommin
06-09-2006, 08:57
I do not think that learning to follow has much to do with becoming an effective leader. The world is full of followers. In fact, most of the population are followers. They want someone to lead, to tell them what to do, to make life easier for them. But they do not want the responsibility that goes with leadership! I have known hundres of good soldiers who followed well; soldiers who helped leaders look good. But they did not have the stomach or drive to step into a leadership role. They didn't want the headaches that come with leading and training other soldiers.

x SF med
06-09-2006, 10:29
IC - a born leader who has never followed has no clue what it takes to follow orders, and in many cases becomes ineffective because he does not understand what it takes to bend to another's decision. And in many cases, the great leader you may be following (or the good leader you are) has to be following direction of a leader above himself.

Another salient point to this discussion is the ability to lead from behind, to allow a less effective leader to remain in the forefront while guiding him - can you say UW/GW - the G chief is in charge - but you have to lead him.... and follow his command. The best SF soldiers intuitively get this, and many get peered, ID'd , or recycled because they don't get it and want to 'be in charge' leadership is not about being in charge....

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-09-2006, 12:43
I do not think that learning to follow has much to do with becoming an effective leader. .

Kinda depends on what you mean by following. I think it is important to be able to empathize with the chain of command above you so you have a basic understanding where they are coming from. It sort of allows you to anticipate how they are going to react to what you might be about to do which gives you a leg up when it comes to doing what needs to be done both for the mission and more importantly for the troops. Also goes along with understanding in a tactical/operational sense what the next two echelons above you are up to so that you can execute intelligent initiative vice just initiative. It is also important to be a good follower from the standpoint that if you have an inclination to tell the boss to go pound sand everytime you disagree with him you are still going to usually wind up executing his instructions but under his terms and not yours. The folks that suffer then are your troops. Learning to follow is more of an art in determining how the leader above you thinks. Once you learn that you can manage from below, short cut the stupid decisions, have input into actions before they occur and while you may have to eat a little crow once in a while you will never have to eat the whole damn flock and your troops are better off for it.

incommin
06-09-2006, 15:26
Any intelligent leader or follower will quickly learn the idology of the leaders above him and stay within the boundries that are set for him/her. I was a very effective senior NCO (or so my records say) and yet I would have not been as good as an officer...... because I did not want to be one!

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-09-2006, 15:52
because I did not want to be one!

Neither did I. I was just a soldier that happened to be an officer.

frostfire
06-09-2006, 22:49
... In the meantime academicians will garner big bucks analyzing what makes a leader or a tyrant ....
that's why I returned the book heh heh :D The books did a good job putting the finely summarized points here to a 247 multi-chapter-scenarios and examples-packed materials, though



There are so many insights here (& other threads) that would make bulks of a military science paper. I will quote/paraphrase and give credits accordingly. Thank you, gentlemen.

incommin
06-10-2006, 14:11
Neither did I. I was just a soldier that happened to be an officer.


Sir, this old CSM would like the honor of buying you a beer some day!

Tangodown_inc
06-10-2006, 14:43
I see all kinds of leadership mistakes on a daily basis while teaching units to go to Iraq. The biggest mistakes I see are failure to be able to rely on solid NCO's, lack of the ability to multi-task, and most of all not being able to stay calm and perform under fire (in this case simulated). I can't count the times a young Specialist has held things together when the convoy commander that he is RTO'ing for loses control. Unfortunately in some circles of the military, rank isn't earned though the ability to lead.

Sdiver
08-09-2006, 10:46
A buddy of mine and I, were discussing this sometime last week, and yesterday, one of my Supervisors informed me, that I was being seriously considered to be made an FTO for my dept. When he told me this, it almost floored me. I haven't even been with my dept for a full year yet. I've only been on the road since last Nov., and here they're looking at making me an FTO.

Sure, I know the day to day operations for our company, but I surely don't know it all, nor do I claim to. I'm at work on time, most of the time, well before my scheduled clock in time, to do rig checks and help out those that need it. My daily uniform is always presentable...ironed, boots shined (of course not spit shined, unless it's necessary), my rig is always cleaned and stocked. I attribute this to just doing the best job I can, taking pride in my work, my dept and of course myself.

But there are others that have been with my dept, far longer and have the same work ethic as I do. But I know, that they aren't being considered, for an FTO position, nor have they ever.

As QP's, in which all on a team are NCO's and Officers, and all have an "Alpha Male" mentality, what is it you look/looked for in a leader? Experience? Rank? Who shouts the loudest? The Biggest Dog in the fight?

What sets apart, one as a Leader, in a profession such as SF ?

Roguish Lawyer
08-09-2006, 12:04
S, excellent topic. I have merged with an existing discussion of the same thing. Perhaps people want to keep it going . . .

x SF med
08-09-2006, 12:18
diver-
Get the book "The Company They Keep" if you can find it - an anthropological study of SF from an inside viewpoint, in a way. I tlaked to the author a few years ago, because it's my team on the cover of the book, even though you can't really tell - unless you were on the team. It tells you how leadership develops on a team, starting at the Q course.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
08-09-2006, 19:48
What sets apart, one as a Leader, in a profession such as SF ?

There is not a simple response to this and the answers you get will vary from individual to individual based on their level of experience with others good and bad, the level of command you are talking about, and their own level of expertise. Basically it depends on the qualities of the individual, the situation at any particular point in time, the abilities and responsiveness of those being "led", the working relationship(s) in existence, expectations of both the leader and the follower, a mutual frame of reference for understanding the rules of the game and shared experiences, just to mention a few.

Richard
08-09-2006, 20:26
Guys,

Leadership in SF--IMO and based on my experiences on a couple of ODAs--is predicated on the philosophy of, "Do something...lead, follow or get the hell out of the way...but do something!" Beyond that, it's purely theoretical gobbledygook which can be used by anyone with a gift for expounding on the obvious to sell a lot of books. Situationally, primus inter pares on an SFODA is the expected norm.

Richard

incommin
08-10-2006, 06:01
There is not a simple response to this and the answers you get will vary from individual to individual based on their level of experience with others good and bad, the level of command you are talking about, and their own level of expertise. Basically it depends on the qualities of the individual, the situation at any particular point in time, the abilities and responsiveness of those being "led", the working relationship(s) in existence, expectations of both the leader and the follower, a mutual frame of reference for understanding the rules of the game and shared experiences, just to mention a few.


I think that nailed the box lid down pretty tightly on this subject! Excellent!

bluebb
08-10-2006, 23:14
These men are the leaders who shaped me;

1. Cpl Cooper - The 1st NCO I met on active duty, took my basic training platoon through the first few days before reporting to our training company. Led by example, uniform squared away, and very orginized.

2. Sgt Hurey - My first section Sgt, he knew everything about our radio systems and imparted that knowledge on me. Taught me the value of taking care of my equipment. Also very into army history, he showed me the connection from Washingtons troops at Valley Forge to me and why I should live up to and carry on all traditions that had been passed down.

3. LTC Richard Flowers (now a retired General) - Bn Cmd of the 307th Engineer BN of the 82nd ABN Div. Led from the front, took care of his troops, he could converse with Pvt Scooby about the individual fighting postion he was digging or an ambassador about the road project in his country and make both of the think"this man knows what the hell he is talking about. The best Bn Cmd I have ever served under.

4. MSGs Ron Ruhle and Scott Douglass - the best SF team Sgts I ever served with. Both men led from the front, subject matter experts, great teachers, and damn fine soldiers.

5. SGM Ed Certain - Combat proven leader. He would not ask us to do what he would not, which sucked because he would do just about anything. Stood up for his soldiers and did not put up with petty request from higher ups.

The traits that these men had were moral courage, a love for the spirit of the US army, physical and mental toughness, tactical and technical expertese and they were just good people.

Blue