Excellent response!Originally Posted by Fuchs
Must post it here is full:
There is a lot to discuss here, but let's select a few items.My key thesis is that you can spot natural leaders easier by watching people around them than by watching the potential leader himself.
You will not spot them if you put together a group of potential leaders, but if you put them into a normal sample group they might arise into natural leadership, kind of take over the group and lead it (at least in regard to specific problems).
Why not in a group of potential leaders? I experienced that before. They fight for power or at least reject unfounded claims for power or for having the lead voice.
A normal sample group finding its natural leader is quite close to having a squad well-trained and then seeing their only NCO die in battle. Who of the enlisted men -qualified by training as all of them- will take the lead, and be followed?
The German army began to prepare exactly for this before the First World War, and very often accepted such emergency leaders into NCO rank if they did well enough.
Such natural leaders are not necessarily the best decision-makers, but at least they get loyalty much easier than others (who might need the authority and powers given by the institution to lead men). This should result in superior team morale.
Your first comment is good and is what can normally be observed during a recruits course for entry level soldiers. But not all (and in many countries) and indeed a small minority of officers are produced through the ranks (with Israel being a notable exception). And yes how others react to them (the potential leaders) is almost more important than how they themselves act in certain circumstances.
The people who apply to go on an officers course generally believe they are 'leaders' (by some definition which makes them believe so) or they have been told by parents and/or teachers that they are leaders or have leadership potential.
So they arrive en masse for the AOSB or pre-course selection (as applicable in different countries) and the DS (directing staff) have to shift through the assembled multitude. In my experience this normally starts with a paper sort into syndicates/groups of six-eight candidates.
I believe that the leaderless group activities allow the more forceful (not necessarily the best leaders) to assert themselves over the group but once a level of 'stress' is added (normally in tasks which require physical effort) the leadership pattern often changes/alters within the group. In the programme of the longer Brit type AOSB there are also physical group activities where specific candidates are nominated as group leader. And yes here you watch the nominated leader and also the rest of the syndicate very carefully. You learn so much about a person by simply observing them in different circumstances.
I suggest you are looking for leaders who will rise to the occasion and be accepted as leaders when they are given command of a platoon in due course. There has to be a spark (of leadership potential) in there from the outset.
While I agree in principle with theory on leadership succession in small groups squad/section the officer situation is that we need to select for leaders who can be inserted halfway up the rank structure and take command of an infantry platoon in battle (which would typically have a combined total of 100 years plus of military service amongst the men in the platoon). This is significantly different to hierarchical succession in small groups IMHO.
OK so finally, when you have a course full of leaders you can filter for decision making ability. Some of this is attempted on a Brit style AOSB.
Thank you for your input. It is thought stimulating and I respond with what seems logical to me right now. Feel free to debate my assumptions.
Bookmarks