Those of you able to view my last post know what this is about. In a few words, I was told I could not contact my local elected leadership. I got the rant out of my system and now realize there is a better way to get my point across. I’m sure that if I’m experiencing this problem, there are other Soldiers experiencing this problem who probably aren’t as high up the ladder as I am. With that in mind, I present a much more organized and concise post about how to deal with out of control and egotistical leaders that think they can run your private lives and infringe on your rights and freedoms.

Army Regulation 600-20 talks about the characteristics of command leadership. Among those, the AR states:

(1) Commanders and other leaders committed to the professional Army ethic promote a positive environment. If leaders show loyalty to their Soldiers, the Army, and the nation, they earn the loyalty of their Soldiers. If leaders consider their Soldiers’ needs and care for their well-being, and if they demonstrate genuine concern, these leaders build a positive command climate.

The problem I experienced is less a lack of concern and more an assertion of power and authority. Duty is obedient and disciplined performance. Soldiers, leader and led alike, work together to accomplish the mission rather than feed their self-interest.

In the military we have a level of leadership that I don’t think exists in the civilian world. We sort of have two chains of command, in a way. We have the direct chain of command, which is a simple and direct chain that facilitates the transmittal of orders from the highest level (Commander In Chief) to the lowest levels (Squad Leader) in a minimum amount of time with the least chance of misinterpretation. These are the people in direct command of a particular Soldier or Soldiers. These people exercise command authority over their troops.

Second, we also have the Noncommissioned Officer Support Channel. The NCO support channel is a leadership chain that parallels and complements the chain of command. This is where the Sergeants come in. These people also exercise command authority over their troops under their responsibility.

Third, there is what we call “general military authority”. General military authority is the authority that comes simply with rank. In other words, an Officer or NCO has the inherent authority that comes with their rank to correct difficiencies or accomplish a particular task even if the target individual is not in their chain of command or NCO support channel. For example, if I see SGT Joe Schmuck walking down the road smoking dope, I have the general military authority to detain him and handle the situation. The individual I had a run-in with was trying to exercise his general military authority over me when I was told I could not contact my elected representatives without going through the Public Affairs office.

Quoting from Army Regulation 600-20, para 5-3a:

a. Obligations as a citizen. Soldiers are expected to carry out their obligations as citizens.
(1) A Soldier on active duty may—
(a) Register, vote, and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Army.

My goal in contacting my county representatives was to ask the commission to declare May 1st as Silver Star Banner Day in honor of our wounded troops. When I made the phone call, and even in the email I sent, I made it very clear that I do not represent the military in any capacity and that I was making the request as a citizen. The regulation makes clear what I also cannot do, same paragraph:

(2) A Soldier on active duty will not—
(a) Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others. (note: no election or political topic was up for a vote here, nor was I seeking contributions)

Some of you may be saying, “CJ, I’m not in the Army.” For you, DODDirective 1344.10, dated Feb 08, applies. It states that a member of the Armed Forces on active duty may “sign a petition for a specific legislative action” provided it is done as a private citizen and not as a military representative. The troop must give full time and attention to the performance of their military duties FIRST! In other words, you must use your breaks and lunch time to conduct these activities.

General George Washington once said in a speech to the New York Legislature, “When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.”

Some have said that any contact with elected officials should be coordinated or at least briefed to superiors. There is some truth to this. Soldiers should always keep their command informed of their actions, especially if there is the potential of any attention being brought to their efforts. When I contacted the County, I did in fact CC my Commander. He is always well aware of what I do on the outside. He knows I blog, he knows I go to the street corner on Saturdays to protest idiots, and he knows about my extra-curricular advocacies. In fact, my Battalion chain of command is informed of everything I do as well.

However, this is really just a courtesy. I don’t need to let them know every time I decide to yell at my elected officials or call my Congressman to complain about them voting for a bill. My advice here is if you’re doing nothing wrong, why not let them know? What is there to hide? Those that listen to my weekly radio show have heard me say more than once what my father once told me: “As long as you’re doing the right thing, you’ll never have anything to worry about.” Yeah, people may not like it, but there’s nothing they can do about it if you’re doing the right thing and you know your left and right limits. It requires educating yourself about what those limits are and using the tools available to you to make those decisions.

I spoke with JAG and they confirmed that Soldiers are not required to go through Public Affairs or their commands for personal initiatives as long as those efforts are not in uniform or as a representative of the military. However, if those initiatives contain the possibility that the post may have to get involved at some level, it’s a good idea to let them know – but not a requirement.

For those of you that are leaders out there, there are lessons to be learned here. The first is that some of you, as leaders, need to understand the concept of leadership itself.

General of the Army George C. Marshal said this in 1941 while speaking to officer candidates:

When you are commanding, leading [Soldiers] under conditions where physical exhaustion and privations must be ignored; where the lives of [Soldiers] may be sacrificed, then, the efficiency of your leadership will depend only to a minor degree on your tactical or technical ability. It will primarily be determined by your character, your reputation, not so much for courage—which will be accepted as a matter of course—but by the previous reputation you have established for fairness, for that high-minded patriotic purpose, that quality of unswerving determination to carry through any military task assigned you.

It is with that in mind that we leaders ensure that we recognize that our preferred leadership styles do not work well with every Soldier. We must be flexible and aware enough to recognize what motivates our troops to do the right thing. We must also understand our leadership deficiencies. Some respond to screaming and yelling and others just need to be told they screwed up. But, as in interrogations, you don’t start off any conversation with the “Fear Up” approach.

General Edward Meyer compared leadership to a diamond. A diamond needs three properties for its formation – carbon, heat, and pressure. Likewise, a successful leader must posses three properties to be effective – character, knowledge, and application. If we choose the wrong application in executing our duties as leaders and mentors, the diamond is forever lost.

In order to be effective we must listen actively. I didn’t get that. Instead, the first thing out of the mouth of this leader was accusatory and negative in tone. When we communicate, we must ensure that we have a shared understanding about the topic at hand. I had no clue what I was to expect when I got in there and assumed no fear or apprehension as I knew I had done nothing wrong. Right off the bat, I was confused and disoriented – not a good environment in which to learn and grow.

A true leader sets the conditions for a postive climate and tries to build teamwork and cohesion. Luckily, I don’t work with or for this individual or the work environment would have been awkward. I’m also not intimidated by rank. I respect it, but I’m not intimidated by it. Leaders should also encourage initiative, not stifle it with accusatory tones and lack of information. NCOs are supposed to genuinely care about other people, especially those junior in grade or position to them. By doing this, we help people learn and build strong team skills and cohesiveness. Soldiers are more likely to do more than the bare minimum and truly make this country a better place to live. All Soldiers are sons and daughters of the patriots who sacrificed them for a greater good.

Command Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army Reserve, CSM Douglas E. Murray once remarked that “NCOs like to make a decision right away and move on the next thing…so the higher up the flagpole you go, the more you have to learn a very different style of leadership.” What worked as Corporal or a Buck Sergeant doesn’t necessarily work as a First Sergeant or Command Sergeant Major. The NCO Creed reads, “All Soldiers are entitled leadership; I will provide that leadership.” Far too many of my fellow senior NCOs seem to have forgotten this.

“There is a great deal of talk about loyalty from the bottom to the top. Loyalty from the top down is even more necessary and much less prevalent.” – General George S. Patton, from the book ‘War As I Knew It’ (1947)

The problem with today’s military is that we have far too many leaders who think that they need to lead by fear. I have never once had to curse at my troops. I’ve found that it is more effective to calmly explain to them when they screw up and be firm about getting the issue resolved. If that doesn’t work, there are ways of influencing that don’t require harsh treatment. I have a quote on the door to my office by Major General John M. Schofield. In an address to the United State Corps of Cadets in 1879, MG Schofield said the following:

The discipline which makes the Soldiers of a free country reliable in battle is not to be gained by harsh or tyrannical treatment. On the contrary, such treatment is far more likely to destroy than to make an army. It is possible to impart instruction and to give commands in such manner and such a tone of voice to inspire in the Soldier no feeling but an intense desire to obey, while the opposite manner and tone of voice cannot fail to excite strong resentment and a desire to disobey.

The one mode or the other of dealing with subordinates springs from a corresponding spirit in the breast of the commander. He who feels the respect which is due to others cannot fail to inspire in them regard for himself, while he who feels, and hence manifests, disrespect toward others, especially his inferiors, cannot fail to inspire hatred against himself.

Isn’t that so true? For those of you that had the opportunity to read my original post on this topic, did something stand out to you? Do you think I felt a little urge to be “disobedient” and disrespectful because of the way I was treated? Some leadership traits don’t disappear after more than 100 years.

Respect for the individual is the basis for the rule of law – the very essence of what the nation stands for. As in life, respect is treating others, regardless of their rank, as we would want to be treated – the Golden Rule. People are our most precious resource, especially in a time of war.

One of the Army Values is Personal Courage. It is a willingness to stand firm on values, principles and convictions. It enables all leaders to stand up for what they believe is right, regardless of the consequences. These types of leaders aren’t necessarily NCOs and officers. Any Soldier or service member can display this sort of leadership.

I recently posted an essay from Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In that essay he said the following:

We are seeing people unafraid to challenge assumptions or old ways. Our midgrade noncommissioned officers and young captains love what they do. They have led in combat. They are remarkably resilient, and they do us all proud. Junior officers and enlisted men and women need to know that it is right to question the direction of their service and seniors. In fact, they should be rewarded for it. That sort of feedback is healthy, and it foments the kind of change we need.

I encourage you to read the entire piece later. This doesn’t mean that Soldiers must question their leaders for the mere sake of questioning them or “sticking it to the man”. Quite the contrary. Remember what I said about values, principles and convictions.

Okay, I’ve just written a 2500+ word essay here. I didn’t think it would be this long, but every time I went to proofread it, I added more to it. I’ll end with a final quote from former Sergeant Major of the Army, SMA William Connelly, one of my favorite SMA even though I was elementary school when he was leading the NCO Corps.

The concept of professional courage does not always mean being as tough as nails, either. It also suggests a willingness to listen to the soldiers’ problems, to go to bat for them in a tough situation and it means knowing just how far they can go. It also means being willing to tell the boss when he is wrong.

Real courage exists in those people who do everything they’re told to do, while questioning those orders when they are ethically, legally, or morally wrong. Telling a Soldier they cannot speak with their elected leadership without jumping through hoops is ethically and legally wrong. I, therefore, question and reject that notion.

People join the Army as Soldiers and Army civilians with their character, pre-shaped by their background, beliefs, education, and experience. Becoming a person of character and a leader of character is a careerlong process involving day-to-day experience, education, self-development, developmental counseling, coaching, and mentoring. While individuals are responsible for their own character development, leaders are responsible for encouraging, supporting, and assessing the efforts of their people. Doing the right thing is good. Doing the right thing for the right reason and with the right goal is better.