Rules to Live By

[bossi]

Noticed this post in another thread, and thought a new thread might breathe life into our day ...
(as opposed to flogging dead horses ...)

People like this take themselves too seriously.

I wonder how said MWO would feel if a 2nd Lieutenant stood her at attention and proceeded to yell at her for not doing some quirky salutation.

Colonel Glover Johns Rule of Leadership #12:

13. Yelling detracts from your dignity; take men aside to counsel them.

And, so ... here are a few more:

"An officer should never speak ironically or sarcastically to an enlisted man, since the latter does not have a fair chance to answer back. The use of profanity and epithets comes under the same headings. The best argument for a man keeping his temper is that nobody else wants it; and when he voluntary throws it away, he loses a main prop to his own position."
--- Gen. S.L.A. Marshall, 1950

Hereafter, if you should observe an occasion to give your officers and friends a little more praise than is their due, and confess more fault than you can justly be charged with, you only become the sooner for it, a great captain.  Criticizing and censuring almost everyone you have to do with, will diminish friends, increase enemies, and thereby hurt your affairs.
--- Benjamin Franklin:  Letter to John Paul Jones, 1780

 

[Michael OLeary]

An officer should, at all times, be dignified in his conduct. Dignity is nothing more than the avoidance of coarse behaviour. It requires the control of one's emotions. To be profane, boisterous, or "loud-mouthed" is to be coarse. An officer who makes a spectacle of himself by being loud, or by losing his temper on slight provocation, quickly loses the respect of his men. - "Military Leadership," The Infantry School Mailing List, Vol XXVI, July 1943

The military uniform makes a man conspicuous in the eyes of civilians. An officer's uniform, and his position of authority, make him conspicuous not only in the eyes of civilians but also in the eyes of his men. He, therefore, must be doubly careful about his dress, his carriage, and his behaviour. He is looked upon by his men as an example of what is right and correct. - "Military Leadership," The Infantry School Mailing List, Vol XXVI, July 1943

 

[Infanteer]

If you go to the link in my original post, you'll find a list that I think really spells out some salient "leadership principles":

Colonel Glover Johns
Basic Philosophy of Soldiering


1. Strive to do small things well.

2. Be a doer and a self-starter-aggressiveness and initiative are two most admired qualities in a leader-but you must also put your feet up and THINK.

3. Strive for self-improvement through constant self-evaluation.

4. Never be satisfied. Ask of any project, How can it be done better?

5. Don't over-inspect or over-supervise. Allow your leaders to make mistakes in training, so they can profit from the errors and not make them in combat.

6. Keep the troops informed; telling them "what, how, and why" builds their confidence.

7. The harder the training, the more troops will brag.

8. Enthusiasm, fairness, and moral and physical courage - four of the most important aspects of leadership.

9. Showmanship-a vital technique of leadership.

10. The ability to speak and write well-two essential tools of leadership.

11. There is a salient difference between profanity and obscenity; while a leader employs profanity (tempered with discretion), he never uses obscenities.

12. Have consideration for others.

13. Yelling detracts from your dignity; take men aside to counsel them.

14. Understand and use judgement; know when to stop fighting for something you believe is right. Discuss and argue your point of view until a decision is made, and then support the decision wholeheartedly.

15. Stay ahead of your boss.

 

[Alex252]

Good find Infanteer

 

[Brad Sallows]

16.  Pants before boots.

 

[Pieman]

This particular rule is a bit vauge for me, and I am not sure I quite sure I understand it:

9. Showmanship-a vital technique of leadership.

I read on another millitary forum that it was good for an Officer to have something interesting or different about him, that way the men would remember him, instead of just being another officer. It was said that it helps the men relate to you better. I guess this fits under the 'showmanship' arena.

But why is it a "vital technique"? Can anyone give examples how what showmanship is in a leadership role, and would it be used effectivly?

 

[Michael OLeary]

But why is it a "vital technique"? Can anyone give examples how what showmanship is in a leadership role, and would it be used effectivly?

Think of Patton's speech in the movie, or of Montgomery gathering the troops around him to talk to them. It's the added bit of 'performance art' that appeals to the hearts of soldiers, it's not performing simply to be eccentric.  The thing to remember is that this element of 'showmanship' complements good leadership, but equally undermines poor leadership.

 

[marshmanguy]

I'm just a private, but I follow and respect my leaders alot more when our contacts are tempered with humour, (in the correct situations at least).  Not too much, because being in the army is a serious business, but some.

 

[pbi]

Showmanship-a vital technique of leadership

Yes, but used correctly, not overdone or done pointlessly. When I was a subby in 3PP in the early 1980's,   a number of the subbies got it into their heads that officers needed to have a "signature". This was manifested by things like wearing brightly colored scarves, silly colored sunglasses, extremely long hair, purposely sloppy dress, etc.

In other words, stuff that the troops would get charged for. IMHO all this did was perpetuate the double standard that was very evident at that time, as well as revealing that the participants had little understanding of what makes a good and unique officer. IMHO what the troops really want is a soldierly, capable leader they can trust and look up to. Not an idiot dressed like a clown. IMHO this sort of silly behaviour is one of the bad legacies left to us by our British Army heritage. IMHO true uniqueness comes as a development of character, not as an affectation.

Those great leaders of history who had "quiffs" (scarves, hats, etc) are not remembered because they dressed funny: they are IMHO remembered because they were great. Who would recall Patton's scarf or Monty's beret if they had been military failures?

Cheers

 

[Pieman]

  IMHO this sort of silly behaviour is one of the bad legacies left to us by our British Army heritage.

That is interesting you say that, as the person who mentioned to me that it was good for an Officer to have something unique about them was a retired British Officer.

I was thinking about this, and I realised that the skill of showmanship, is not restricted to boosting the image of the Officer. One could use possibly use showmanship to increase the image of the troop, or platoon by doing something to identify the platoon as being special or unique...a source of   common bond between the men.

For example, an officer is assigned Platton 'A'. To give platoon 'A' the feeling of being a special group the officer says "We are the 'A' platoon because we are the first and best platoon!" and the soldiers can identify with being A platoon as something to be proud of.

This is a very subtle action, but really what is going on is the Officer would be guiding the troops into thinking that Platoon 'A' is something separate and unique, a form of individualising a group of people. Which is probably shaky ground in the Army.

I could be totally off on this next point, if so just tell me I watched too many war movies:

Let's say if the Officer were to take things a step futher. Say the Officer decided to set slight differences in dress code (assuming he could get away with it)   to act as a symbol to bond the men.

"We are 'A' Platoon! We tie our shoes this way!   Not the normal way like the other platoons."

If I am correct in thinking this is a good method to bond the men? If so, at what point does the Officer draw the line on using "Individualizing" to bond a platoon?

 

[pbi]

Pieman: I'm not really against what you are describing. What my post was condemning was the more silly, superficial fixation with trivialities that substitute for true uniqueness, which IMHO is uniqueness of capability and character. I do not like seeing officers purposefully flaunting dumb behaviours that the troops would be punished for.

Cheers

 

[big bad john]

Rule 1) Look after your Men.
      2) See rule number 1

 

[Highland Lad]

Rule 1) Look after your Men.
2) See rule number 1

Hear Hear!

All is secondary to this one... No matter what else you do, if you can't look after your men, there will be 0 respect for you as a leader. All you'll hear is something like "Great officer, if you want paperwork, admin, entertainment, etc. done, but stay away from him in the field..."

Always remember as a leader: They are your troops, and although you are with them and among them, you are not one of them. If you remember that, and respect the lines, you're off to a good start. If you don't respect those lines, or your troops, you've already lost them. (I paraphrase my Pl WO from ISCC in Wainwright - a great guy, with some great lessons to teach outside the classroom.)

 

[bossi]

The safety, honour and welfare of your country comes first, always and every time.
The honour, welfare and comfort of the men you command come next.
Your own ease, comfort and safety come last, always and every time.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Horse, saddle, man.

2B

 

[Pieman]

Pieman: I'm not really against what you are describing. What my post was condemning was the more silly, superficial fixation with trivialities that substitute for true uniqueness, which IMHO is uniqueness of capability and character. I do not like seeing officers purposefully flaunting dumb behaviours that the troops would be punished for.

Yes, I see your point.   I suppose that the troops would be able to see right through a planted superficial characteristic anyway, and may consider it to be 'trying too hard'.  

 

[garb811]

9. Showmanship-a vital technique of leadership.

I once was present for the COs backbriefs for an upcoming Op and the Comds intent was to have all the key pers from all the units involved present so that there would be no doubt in anyones mind as to what was going on during the Op.   Most of the COs got up and stood there like mannequins as if they were reading off the script and the sole excitement that would happen would be when they used a laser pointer to designate a unit marker on the vastly oversized relief map.   Unfortunately at the end of it all my feeling was the majority of the audience would have been hard pressed to relate back that Units plan in any meaningful detail below the sub-unit level.   Until one CO stepped up...   I had been dreading his brief as I'd been exposed to him numerous times before and I had formed the opinion that he was the model of a pretty pompous conceited little individual who pretty much liked to hear himself talk just for the sake of it.   Additionally he seemed to go to great lengths to talk over the head of whatever audience he was addressing not because it was natural for him to do so, but simply to impress upon everyone present that he was superior in some way.   But this time, my god...did the gentleman ever turn it on.   He did not brief us on his plan, he put on a pretty elaborate show which involved using each Pl Comd as their Unit marker as he talked (not briefed) in detail what that sub-sub-unit was tasked with.   The other COs briefed us, this one sold us on his plan and at the end of it, I was ready to buy snake oil from him at $50 a bottle.   Most importantly though, I not only understand his plan but could remember the vast majority of it and I was able to visualise which sub-sub-unit was doing what, where and when at each stage of the Op.   There was also no doubt in my mind that this was â Å“hisâ ? plan and he was fully in control of it whereas the other COs had appeared to be reading off of briefing notes supplied by their Ops O.   Talk about inspiring confidence in those around you, and I believe he gave the same show to his own unit.   Quite the experience I must say and it showed me the value of showmanship and it totally changed my opinion of him.

 

[Infanteer]

which involved using each Pl Comd as their Unit marker as he talked (not briefed) in detail what that sub-sub-unit was tasked with.

How did he do this?

 

[big bad john]

Pieman: I'm not really against what you are describing. What my post was condemning was the more silly, superficial fixation with trivialities that substitute for true uniqueness, which IMHO is uniqueness of capability and character. I do not like seeing officers purposefully flaunting dumb behaviours that the troops would be punished for.

Yes, I see your point.   I suppose that the troops would be able to see right through a planted superficial characteristic anyway, and may consider it to be 'trying too hard'.  

Lord Lovat would be a good example.   He insisted that all his men take normal precautions, while he strode around at full height in his white fishermans jumper, his hunting rifle in the crook of his arm and his Piper by his side.   I am told by some of the Old Boys from WWII   that just seeing him, inspired you!

 

[Marauder]

The Corporals' Creed:

Never Volunteer.
Find A Private For That.
If We Aren't Getting Fucked, We're Getting Screwed.
When All Else Fails, Deny, Obfuscate, And Make Counter-acccusations.
Yes, Master Corporal/Sarn't/Warrant/Sar-Major/Sir.