Military Review English Edition March-April 2014 | Page 10

You want a different type [of] leader for different situations. So if I had five leaders and
each of them had a specific strength which I
could use in very different ways—they don’t
all have to be the well-rounded, Johnny AllStar . . . If you can employ all that [you are
given by the Army] . . . it turns out to be a
very successful unit/very successful operation once you get all the pieces clicking.11
As the second leader suggested, it would be
unreasonable to expect every soldier to excel at
every task, or to know all there is to know about
each system or organization within the military.
Leaders must realize that in today’s complex
operational environments, neither they nor their
subordinates will possess all the necessary skills
or knowledge to accomplish every task. Therefore,
good leaders intentionally surround themselves with
the right people for the task at hand. By arranging
subordinates in a way that capitalizes on strengths
and mitigates personal or team weaknesses, leaders
can build capable junior leaders while simultaneously creating more efficient and effective units.

Building and Maintaining a
Positive Climate
Many of the soldiers interviewed by ARI identified techniques leaders can use to build and maintain
a positive climate. Techniques mentioned included
being approachable, controlling personal emotions,
tolerating risk and mistakes (approaching them as
learning opportunities whenever possible), and
being open to ideas from all personnel within the
organization regardless of rank or position. Psychologists Caren Baruch-Feldman, Elizabeth Brondolo, Dena Ben-Dayan, and Joseph Schwartz report
that techniques such as these establish a foundation
for individual growth, while also reducing burnout
among junior leaders, increasing job satisfaction,
and leading to improved individual and group performance within an organization.12
Leaders interviewed by ARI repeatedly highlighted the importance of listening to all perspectives and allowing subordinates to voice honest
opinions without fear of retribution. Subordinates
feel valued when leaders listen to their ideas in
briefings or mission planning meetings. In contrast,
belittling a subordinate for an idea or suggestion
stifles creativity and problem-solving within a unit.
8

The next quotation from the ARI interviews illustrates how leaders in the field can establish a positive climate by permitting discussion and feedback:
I think the ability to listen, not just to your
superiors and your peers, but also your
subordinates, is pretty critical to success. If
you’re too stubborn to acknowledge that fact
that, “hey I might be wrong, or somebody
else has a better way of doing it,” regardless
of their rank or who they are—you can set
yourself up for failure . . . Every person is
going to have something . . . to affect your
performance as a unit, so being able to
listen and being able to grasp those pieces
of knowledge [is important].13
Consistent with prior research, participants
viewed regulating one’s emotions as another tool
military leaders can use to cultivate a positive work
environment.14 A leader’s mood and emotional state
can affect how the unit is operating and is often
contagious. In their 2010 Military Review article
“Toxic Leadership: Part Deux,” authors George
Reed and Richard Olsen point out that leaders
often are under immense pressure from their chain
of command to accomplish a goal or task; yet, the
most successful leaders are those who prevent the
pressure from above from infiltrating their organization.15 One soldier interviewed by ARI described
how two different leaders managed their emotions
under pressure and how each affected his unit:
I guess whatever problems or stress that he
had coming from higher, he kind of brought
it down to everybody in his shop. [In contrast,] the second guy was more of a mentor
because even though he was taking it from
higher, he wasn’t bringing it to the shop—so
that allowed him to empower more people
inside the shop, and they never really saw
that negative side.16
In their article, Reed and Olsen identify a concept they call kissing up and kicking down.17 They
explain that people tend to be more considerate
and courteous to those who sign their paycheck—
kissing up—and less civil when interacting with
their subordinates—kicking down. In the example
above, the second leader avoided the kicking down
spiral. By acting as a buffer for his subordinates,
this leader was able to establish the conditions for
success within his unit.
March-April 2014

MILITARY REVIEW