Military Review English Edition March-April 2014

STRENGTHS-BASED LEADERSHIP some people may motivate their subordinates through gruff means naturally. Regardless of the approach, the key is to ﬁnd a leadership style that works, and embrace it, while maintaining a positive outlook for the organization and toward subordinates. Empowering Subordinates At the core of strengths-based leadership theory is the goal of developing and empowering subordinates to be independent, adaptable, and resourceful leaders. Leader behaviors such as task delegation build conﬁdence, encourage independence, and instill a sense of responsibility in subordinates. Strategies for empowering subordinates often overlap with the other leadership functions described in this paper. For example, exposing subordinates to new tasks helps them develop new skills. Moreover, it helps leaders identify their subordinates’ strengths and weaknesses. Thus, assigning a subordinate a new task with minimal guidance or interference is a good barometer of talent as well as a potential source of empowerment for the junior leader. The following statements from the ARI interviews illustrate the relationship between task assignment and empowering subordinates: I think if you’re willing to let the squad leaders and section leaders do what they’re supposed to and take that responsibility, I think you’ll have a better leader . . . If you give that soldier that responsibility . . . [it will] pay off dividends . . . . You’ve got him inculcated more into that unit, [he might think] “hey, I’m not just a trigger puller that does whatever so-and-so tells me. I have a task, a purpose, and a responsibility to stay in the unit, and they can’t succeed without me.”23 Empowering subordinates by helping them discover and leverage their strengths can have many advantages. People ﬁnd more enjoyment and satisfaction in doing things at which they naturally excel. Identifying and using one’s strengths can also increase levels of happiness, fulﬁllment, and conﬁdence at work and home. Subordinates who receive positive task assignments and support from superiors and co-workers experience decreased burnout and increased productivity. Moreover, MILITARY REVIEW March-April 2014 one soldier interviewed believed that inspiring and empowering subordinates with a sense of responsibility led to fewer behavior problems in his unit.24 These advantages all run parallel to the Army’s goal of attracting highly talented individuals, developing adaptable soldiers, and retaining high-quality soldiers beyond their initial enlistment or commission.25 Obstacles to Strengths-Based Leadership While this paper strongly advocates for a strengths-based approach to leadership, the author recognizes the obstacles to its implementation within the Army. Army leaders interviewed by ARI acknowledged the importance of understanding and utilizing soldiers’ strengths, yet they also emphasized the need to identify and remediate weaknesses, as the next quotation from the study illustrates: I think to get after [a] leadership development through strengths concept, you also need to identify the weaknesses. You can’t just tell somebody they’re great at this and not tell them what they are bad at. And if they’re bad enough to the point where it needs to go down on paper, there needs to be an effect . . . We need leaders to make that honest assessment and do the hard thing of checking that block that says refer to report on OER.26 Soldiers interviewed by ARI repeatedly indicated that leaders who focus exclusively on positive or negative feedback create systemic problems for the Army. According to participants, when leaders spend the majority of their time focused on poor performers, they are effectively ostracizing stellar performers.27 Under these circumstances, mid-totop performers receive little-to-no formal or informal development and may even ﬁnd themselves being rewarded with more work. This lapse in subordinate development—combined with a failure to reward soldiers for their good efforts and an over-reliance on top performers—likely contributes to burnout and attrition among the best soldiers. Focusing only on strengths can be just as problematic as focusing solely on deﬁcits. Army leaders, whose jobs may hold life-or-death consequences, cannot overlook the negative. They 11

Military Review English Edition March-April 2014 | Page 13