Leadership

 There's been a lot of talk about leadership of late; I see it on my twitter feed, in Facebook and in the news.  Good leadership seems to have taken a backseat to the terrible examples of bad leadership.   I thought I'd chime in with a few of my own observations.  I've been the minion, and in middle management, but I've also worked with the military long enough to have a pretty good perspective of leaders of all ranks, ages, sexes, makes and models.  

There are so many books that talk about leadership, what good leadership looks and acts like.  Yet, there are still many who do not get it.  Recent examples include an Army Sergeant Major getting the axe for "unprofessionalism"and just yesterday an Appeals Judge was nailed for creating a toxic work environment.  

One would think that the military would be a good place to create good leaders.  You could be forgiven for thinking that, but alas, it's not true.  The military creates terrible leaders, just the same as the civilian side of the workforce does.  As I'm a historian, let's take a look at some examples of leadership and see where this goes.  Hang on, could get bumpy. 

From the personal papers collection of Major General Paul Fontana, we find this gem.  While titled, "In a Nutshell," it really should be titled "Some Basic Leadership Skills."  Broken into three parts (Six Ways to Make People Like You, Twelve Ways of Winning People to You[sic] Way of Thinking and Nine Ways to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment" it really is sound advice for leaders.  

Thinking as an employee for a moment, I think of those I've had in leadership positions above me and how this was (or wasn't used).  Part 3, Rule 4 is the first one I learned.  I learned it from Paul and Christine Grisamore, owners of Grisamore Farms -- my first job.  I was never told what to do, rather asked to help, or to perform some task.  No matter what it was, it was always in the form of a question.  When I was in a leadership position, I tried to use this always when needing someone to do something (I wasn't always able, but I tried).  

Part 3, Rule 1: Begin with praise and honest appreciation.  When this is absent, respect goes right out the window.  Resentment fills in the void.  The lack of appreciation from your higher-ups is a sure fire way to turn a good employee into a free-loader.   This also goes hand-in-hand with the mantra "Praise in public, correct in private."  

Part 2, Rule 8: Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.  This is another form of respect; again, when omitted turns the person against you, and often will turn them into a non-communicator.  Why would they want to tell you anything if you're not even going to consider their point of view?  You don't have to agree with them in the end, but listen--honestly listen and try to understand where they are coming from.

Part 2, Rule 3:  If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.  This is huge!  The inability to (first) recognize you're wrong and (second) admit that you're wrong, is sheer and simple arrogance.  Your people will run from you quickly if you refuse to take this principle to heart.

 All parts and rules from Gen Fontana's list are applicable and wise for leaders to embrace.  I freely admit I was not aware of this list when I was in a leadership position, and could have used it.  I still have a great deal to learn.

So what about leadership lessons from two of the great leaders of the Corps? Lejeune? Butler?  Why not.  I created a presentation on their leadership stylings and it has been postponed, so why not tell you a little about what I picked up.

 

After years of studying these two and the history of the Corps, it's clear that Lejeune is the 'thinking' leader and Butler is the 'doing' leader.

During his career, Lejeune was assigned to a variety of posts and stations and encountered from many senior enlisted Marines--one such Marine was Sergeant Major John Quick.  By the time the two served together, Quick had already served 22 years, and Lejeune only a few more; however, Lejeune still took notice of Quick's interactions with his men. 

"A calm, forceful, intelligent, loyal and courageous man he was.  I never knew him to raise his voice, or use profane language, and yet he executed and obtained prompt and explicit obedience from all persons subject to his orders."  Maybe SgtMaj Quick had a list similar to that of Gen Fontana?

Butler, on the other hand, learned leadership under fire.  Butler's first duty as a Marine officer (a green one, and very young at that) was in the midst of the Spanish-American War, in Cuba.  His company commander was a 54 year old Captain Mancil Clay Goodrell, a veteran of the Civil War and a Marine for more than 20 years.  Goodrell took the young officer under his wing.  While no actual skirmishes or combat took place while Butler was in Cuba, he was occasionally subjected to sniper fire.  Demonstrating initiative, Butler asked Goodrell if he could join the Captain on his nightly inspections.  The request was approved.  During one of these nightly inspections, Goodrell strode ahead of Butler across open fields, seemingly indifferent to potential dangers.  Snipers began to fire at the two men.  Butler splayed himself on the ground, while Goodrell remained standing. 

"What the hell is the matter?" he snorted.  Goodrell demonstrated courage under fire and Butler soaked it up!  Years later, Butler noted that "whatever luck or skill I've had in the soldiering business I attribute to the teaching and example of that splendid officer."

Learning by example goes both ways--you can learn traits from good leaders, and as a leader, you must remember that others are watching and learning from your example--good or bad!

There are many traits of good leaders.  A great book one should pick up is The Servant Way: Leadership Principles from John A. Lejeune by Maurice Buford (or as I know him Chaplain Buford).  It really is quite fantastic.  Servant Leadership comes from Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s and much of what you see in Gen Fontana's list, is incorporated in the 10 Principles of Servant Leadership.

Regrettably, leadership courses aren't offered as a standard education; often it's left to on the job training, which doesn't always yield the best results.  In the Federal hiring system, newly minted leaders (supervisors, managers, directors, anyone with subordinates) are not required to attend leadership 101 courses, or "how to manage civilians" course.  I know, because I wasn't.  I also know that those who are hired into civilian positions are often former and retired military, and just because they wore the uniform does not mean they know anything about being a supervisor, especially a supervisor of civilians.  

Further, those in uniform, in leadership positions, may not have the skills needed to lead outside of combat.  Today's military is more than just "motivate them to fight."  One must also learn to manage, inspire, encourage, and build up your subordinates without screaming, belittling, disrespecting or creating a toxic environment.  However, these (thinking of the Sergeant Major mentioned at the front of this) folks often learned by example--they were screamed at, cussed out, threatened and disrespected and therefore think that is the proper way to motivate. 

Are there examples of positive leaders in your life? What did they do that really impacted you positively and drove you to do more than the bare minimum? I'd love to hear!

Second Chances

In today's military, and most especially those of the enlisted ranks, second chances are few and far between.  I'm thinking of a particular case close to me, but will not speak of names at the moment.  Suffice it to say, a screw up that occurred while the enlisted person was very junior (and at least a decade has passed by) has succeeded in stunting a promising career--one where the person learned from their mistake, made the appropriate repentance, and has gone on to become a good leader of others.  However, because of this early career mistake, any further advancement is sadly impossible.  One would argue that the second chance was being allowed to reenlist and serve long enough to retire; however, what more could be learned from this person had they been allowed to move forward having seen the error of their way, and what damage has been done by disallowing this?

I was reminded of this person while digging through my list of Polar Marines again.  Marine X (names withheld again) enlisted on 31 July 1928 and went through the recruit depot at Parris Island.  When recruit training was complete, Marine X went to the 87th Company, Signal Battalion at Quantico where he attended Radio School.

Just four months later, Marine X was enroute to China to serve with the American Legation in Peking; while there he was assigned as a student operator at the radio station.    In September 1930 he was sent to Cavite to attend the radio school there, and the it was back to China to serve until December 1931.

Once back in the US, Private X was assigned to the 2d Signal Company at San Diego.  And in May 1932, we see a very short entry in the muster rolls.  

Unfortunately, the entry doesn't give any specifics and the previous month muster roll doesn't have any clues either.  However, a pattern begins here in May 1932.  No punishment it seems, but this will be the last time that forgiveness occurs.

In June he is transferred to Aircraft Squadrons, West Coast Expeditionary Forces in San Diego; he's assigned to air-ground instruction, which I suspect is radio communication between aircraft and ground forces.  On 1 August 1932, Private X reenlists.  

In October 1932, Private X is reassigned to VJ-7M (Marine Utility Squadron 7) as radio operator and plane mechanic.  Through the middle years of the 1930s, Private X serves with VS-15M (Marine Service Squadron 15) on the USS Lexington.  On 26 July 1934, he is promoted to Corporal and served in August begins being allowed to fly (even though he's not rated as a Naval Aviation Pilot).

While serving with VB-4M (Marine Bombing Squadron 4) at San Diego, his enlistment expires and his is discharged, and awarded the Good Conduct Medal with bar.  Eight years of service marred only slightly in 1932, and therefore Corporal X is reenlisted on 6 August, and promoted to Sergeant.  However, just weeks later, he goes AOL (absent over leave) for three days and is busted.

While he's busted, he does not lose his newly received Sergeant stripes, and goes on to serve with VB-4M (redesignated VMB-2 in July 1937) until another hiccup in February 1939.  This time he was AWOL (absent without leave) for three days and thus the consequences were stiffer.  

The loss of a stripe, and back to Corporal sounds as thought it would be sufficient to stymie any future issues.  However, this wouldn't be as interesting if it ended here.

On the first of March (yes, just the next month), Corporal X was transferred to Headquarters and Service Squadron 2, 2d Marine Aircraft Group, and just four days later he is AWOL once again.  This time, four days lapsed before he returned.

This time, the court martial sentenced him to the "Big Chicken Dinner" and he was confined in the brig through the rest of the month (PAL=prisoner at large).  In the next month, we find out his fate.

It seems while serving confinement, the bad conduct discharge was remitted by the Secretary of the Navy under the condition that Cpl X maintain a satisfactory record for six months. (name redacted)

I started wondering if Cpl X was going to be able to serve six months without another hiccup, but I already knew he served until 1946 (at the least) because of his name on the polar expeditions, so he must have done something right.

15 January 1940 comes along and Cpl X is once again promoted to Sergeant, and on 6 August 1940 he is discharged with character as VG (very good), not the EX (excellent) that is normally seen but I'm surprised that it's not worse considering all that has transpired.  He reenlisted 10 days later and on 9 December 1940 his is promoted to Staff Sergeant.  

Anyone else seeing a pattern? For two days in January 1941, SSgt X goes AOL again!  Keeping count? That's 4 times in a span of nearly 12 years.  This time, SSgt X is tried and sentenced to a loss of pay for two months, but not a loss of rank or confinement, surprisingly.

By October 1941, we find our Marine assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 21 and sporting the rank of Technical Sergeant.  TSgt X continues to serve in San Diego through 1941 and into 1942.  On 25 October 1942 he is promoted to Master Technical Sergeant.  Does the pattern hold? I know you're wondering!

The January 1943 muster roll demonstrates that the pattern of behavior holds true.  Once again, loss of rank--back to Technical Sergeant he goes.  It's not long lived though, as by July 1943, his is promoted to Master Technical Sergeant once again, while serving with Marine Base Defense Air Group 43 at El Centro.

MTSgt X continues to serve and deploys to the Pacific in mid-1944 with MBDAG-45 (later MAG-45).  With the end of the war, he returns to El Centro and to MAG-35.  It is in October 1946 that his service with the polar expedition (as part of Fleet Air Wing 5) brings him to the crossroad of my attention.  By January 1947, while on the expedition, he is promoted to Master Sergeant.

In January 1948, MSgt X is assigned to VMR-152 (Marine Transport Squadron) where he finishes his career as a Marine; on 31 July he is transferred to the reserves for retirement after 20 years of colorful service.  

This brings me back to the point at the beginning; MSgt X has a record of being AWOL or AOL five times throughout his twenty years, but is allowed to continue to advance through the enlisted ranks (to the most senior rank possible at the time).  While he is admonished, and makes amends, he is not stifled from advancement, or held back from deploying when needed.  

One might argue that it is because it was wartime and all men were needed.  However, the personal case I mentioned earlier, was also during wartime (Afghanistan and Iraq), and yet, this enlisted man was stifled at every turn regardless of glowing reports from his superiors and who never stepped out of line again, rather he turned the leaf and is now a fine example of a good SNCO.  His career will end there at 20 years, and I guess one must be grateful for being allowed to retire, but what could have been achieved by this enlisted man, or what could have benefited those around him by his example?  We'll never know.

Second chances, instead of "zero tolerance", often are far better examples.  History is full of shining examples of those who overcame their own mistakes to achieve far loftier goals, but what of those who are stunted because of zero tolerance, and what about those who are unable to see that one can learn from their past and go on to bigger and better things?

Changjin 70 Years Later

Because nothing I could say would ever be better than what has already been written, I am keeping this post brief.  Suffice it to say, this is in honor of those who fought, those who died, and those who have yet to come home from this battle 70 years later.

 

Many think of Changjin (Chosin) as a Marine only battle, where the Corps fought "in another direction" to get out of the frozen hell.  However, there were many members of the US Army fighting and dying right there with the Marines, and one must not forget the Bootnecks of 41 Commando (said as Four One, not forty one).  

 

If you're inclined to read more, might I suggest the following:

U.S. Marines at the Changjin Reservoir: Frozen Chosin

Nightmare at the Chosin Reservoir 

41 Commando/Task Force Drysdale at Chosin

If you really want to get down in the weeds of it, look at Vol III of the US Marines in Korea Series  

Now, for all those who didn't come home from Changjin, and are simply waiting for us to be able to get back there to find them.  We remember you; you are not forgotten.

 So, when you're feeling a little bumbed about some snow, or your dinner got cold because you were busy or you're bitching about having to stay in your warm house because of COVID, read some of the accounts of these men and remember, there are far worse things that you could be doing.