Leader Behavior: How to Identify Good Leaders

Leader Behavior: How to Identify Good Leaders by Retired Lieutenant General Walter F. Ulmer Jr. Leaders can be studied from various perspectives. We sometimes examine values, traits, aptitudes, personality, ambition, intellect, energy, and personal goals to find out what makes them tick. However, in practical terms, the process of lead ing is best measured not by attributes or characteristics, but by the specifics of what leaders do. This was a major premise of a recent U.S. Army War College study that looked at the leadership of four division commanders who had just completed tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The study, “Leadership Lessons at Division Command Level-2004,” attempted to “…identify behaviors that are crucial for contemporary leader effectiveness.” The ultimate measure of effectiveness of course is mission success — both short and long term. To achieve that success, leaders must create and sustain robust, focused, resilient organizations. The team that created this study also recognized that operations in Iraq present an environment that epitomizes two fundamental challenges for leaders of all organizations: the need to attain immediate tactical success while maintaining the long-term health of the force; and establish the necessary centralized control to ensure integration of operating systems while encouraging and supporting the required initiative at subordinate levels. The first conceptual issue in the study was to design a method of isolating specific critical leader behaviors. Which behaviors really make a difference between the “good” and the “poor” leader? To answer this question, the team reviewed U.S. Army leadership doctrine, which included U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 22-100, Army Leadership, and Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, Army Command Policy, as well as publications from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army War College, and significant past studies of Army officer leadership. Studies included the U.S. Army War College’s “Study on Military Professionalism” in 1970 and “Leadership for the 1970s” in 1971; the Center for Strategic and International Studies report, “2000 American Military Culture in the Twenty-First Century;” and the 2001 Army Training and Leadership Panel Officer Study.1 Also reviewed were contemporary articles, such as the 2004 paper by Leonard Wong, “Developing Adaptive Lead ers: The Crucible Experience of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”2 An interesting but not surprising finding from that exploration of previous studies was that certain behaviors kept surfacing as crucial to “good” leadership. There is no doubt that Army officers over the years have had a solid feel for what “good” looks like. While there are some differences of opinion on the relative importance among behaviors, there is remarkable agreement across grades and branches on which set of behaviors really make a difference. It is also important to note that in distinguishing “good” leaders from others, the distinction did not fall between leaders on one side, who focused on mission, and leaders on the other, who focused on people. Rather, it was how leaders approached mission and people that accounted for the perceived differences in the quality of their leadership. One major preliminary task, then, was to assemble a list of behaviors that seemed to be critical. That list would be used in surveys and discussions with the study participants. While this study focused on division commanders, the requisite behaviors were typically relevant to any level of the organization, and discussions with participants, who ranged in grade from captain to lieutenant general, went beyond the exclusive behavior of division commanders. (As one indicator of the relative universal applicability of basic leader behaviors, an Army Research Institute study a few years ago on leader effectiveness in light infantry platoons showed many critical behaviors at that level were similar to those seen important for division commanders.) The study team eventually isolated 29 behaviors, derived from current leadership doctrine and the synthesis of prior studies. That preliminary list was further reviewed by a number of active duty and retired officers who had extensive leadership experience. An Army War College class and some scientists familiar with Army leadership principles and methods also helped to refine the list. The final list became one of the survey instruments used in the study, see Figure 1. These 29 behaviors were seen as relevant and comprehensive by the 77 officers from the four divisions, who eventually participated in the study at their home stations within a few weeks of returning from OIF. To gain an external view of division mission accomplishment, two corps commanders and a deputy corps commander were queried about the combat performance of the divisions and the styles of Leader Behavior Preferences (LBP) Worksheet (Behaviors that create a command climate that supports operational excellence and motivates competent people to continue military service.) Specific leader behavior (for a division commander)

1. Adapts quickly to new situations and requirements.

2. Understands and employs current Army and Joint doctrine.

3. Keeps cool under pressure.

4. Knows how and when to involve others in decisionmaking.

5. Clearly explains missions, standards, and priorities.

6. Sees the big picture; provides context and perspective.

7. Sets high standards without a “zero defects” mentality.

8. Encourages initiative and welcomes new ideas.

9. Backs up subordinates; confronts the boss if necessary.

10. Is trustworthy; keeps promises or explains why he can’t.

11. Employs units in accordance with their capabilities.

12. Can handle “bad news.”

13. Gets out of the headquarters and visits the troops.

14. Coaches and gives useful feedback to subordinates.

15. Sets a high ethical tone; demands honest reporting.

16. Will share the risks and hardships of his soldiers.

17. Knows how to delegate and not “micromanage.”

18. Is consistent and predictable in his behavior.

19. Shows respect and consideration for others of any rank.

20. Puts mission and people ahead of his own career.

21. Is approachable; listens to questions and suggestions.

22. Can make tough, sound decisions on time.

23. Shares the limelight; gives due credit to others.

24. Senses unproductive policies and makes prompt adjustments.

25. Builds and supports teamwork within staff and among units.

26. Holds people accountable for their actions and results.

27. Is more interested in doing good than looking good.

28. Is fair; doesn’t play favorites with units or people.

29. Is positive, encouraging, and realistically optimistic.

30. Write in: Figure 1. Note: This list may be reproduced with credit to AWC Study “Leadership Lessons at Division Command Level–2004.” the division commanders (individual or unit data was not specified in the report; subordinate participants provided survey input anonymously). In each division, the division commander, the assistant division commanders (when available), the chief of staff, eight members of the division staff, and from six to ten subordinate commanders completed survey instruments and participated in lengthy and wide-ranged discussions with study team members. These participants had observed the division commander during most or all of the division’s deployment to OIF. The study report provided a number of conclusions and recommendations. The study concluded that we have a lot of impressive people in today’s very busy Army! The study further concluded that we still have some development and selection work to do. In particular, we must have the interpersonal skills to gain trust and build the essential horizontal and vertical teams needed to take full advantage of the high level of tactical and technical competence that typically exists in our Army.3 Twelve behaviors, validated by officers returning from a combat theater, were selected as the most important factors in creating a command climate that supports operational excellence and motivating competent people to continue their military service. These behaviors, referred to in the study as the “Big 12,” also best differentiate between “good” and “poor” leaders. Note that the criterion included both short- and long-term mission requirements: tactical success today; a strong Army tomorrow. The “Big 12” list, shown in Figure 2, is not proclaimed to be the silver bullet that answers all leader development questions. Different situations, different resource levels, different states of organizational training, and coherence, all dictate particular leader behaviors best suited to the moment. This list can provide a useful starter for officer professional development discussions among other things. Notes 1U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 22-100, Army Leadership, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 31 August 1999; Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, Army Command Policy, GPO, Washington, D.C., 13 May 2002; U.S. Army War College, “Study on Military Professionalism,” Carlisle Barracks, PA, 1970, U.S. Army War College, “Leadership for the 1970s,” Carlisle Barracks, PA, 1971; the Center for Strategic and International Studies report, “2000 American Military Culture in the Twenty-First Century,” U.S. Army War College, 2000; and Report to the U.S. Army, “2001 Army Training and Leadership Panel Officer Study,” Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 2001. 2Leonard Wong, “Developing Adaptive Leaders: The Crucible Experience of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA, July 2004. 40 — January-February 2006