Quote Originally Posted by SFAT View Post
Interesting article on leadership, discipline, and the morale of fighting men.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...MobAppShare_EM


Can some it up in a few of my own words from recent experience:

10 years ago Leaders were punished and reprimanded for looking the other way when deficiencies were observed; Today, leaders or more likely to be punished for doing just the opposite.

In the “Toxic leadership” age, leaders are constantly having to look over their shoulders and in continuous fear of subordinates ganging up on them with threats of IG complaints and pulling the “toxic” card. It’s a damn shame leaders worry more about what an underachieving subordinate will do after an ass chewing, rather than how said subordinate will adapt and overcome.

Leaders young and old have forgotten the witchery of small unit leadership. This, I think, directly contributes to the downfall of discipline and morale.

Whilst I agree that the current "toxic leadership" issue is of concern, the article does not concern me overly. I'll expand.

If the leader has evidence that a subordiante (I'll come onto this term in a moment!) is underachieving then the "ass chewing" can be rightly defended should the need arise. This, in my mind, is simply one aspect of good management (not leadership).

The leadership should come into play long before the need for the "ass chewing" in the first instance. A function of command, and therefore leadership, is to develop our subordinates and so when one is found to be wanting in a given area the necessary remedial trainng should be made available. Don't get me wrong, where a subordinate, following remedial training, or coaching, or mentoring, or a misture of all three is found to be below the required standard then said "ass chewing" is well deserved and should not be avoided but delivered with gusto!!! I think we, as leaders, have a duty to develop those we lead first and foremost and save the "ass chewing" for those rare moments when it genuinely is deserved, otherwise who will they go to for advice and guidance when they have a realtime issue?

If the aggrieved individual then chooses to try to throw some dirt, make a claim, or bleat and cry about it then at least the leader can demonstrably prove they did their best to develop the individual in question.

(I am aware that I may be coming across as a slight tree hugger here which is amusing me because I'm far from it!)

The term subordinate is one that causes much discussion in many domains and so, not wishing to ambush or derail this thread, I commend the assembled council members to consdier this definition of leadership which brings into debate the term of followership:

"Leadership is a reciprocal relationship between those who choose
to lead and those who choose to follow." (Kouzes. & Posner, 1993)

Finally (at last I hear you cry!), the article is simply presenting an issue that we have been well aware of for decades; that is the old adage that a soldier is not happy unless they are complaining! These surveys simply give another stage within which to do it; it used to be in the NAAFI, or the crew room or the smokers room/shed/area but now it is via online surveys...

Perhaps it is this that we should be more concerned about; the fact that we feel the need to have such surveys??