What do you think makes a "bad" leader?

[Spekkio]

I don't see how limited resources and personnel refute what I said at all. As a matter of fact, it would only serve to separate the good leaders from the bad that much more according to the criteria I presented.

 

[Brett327]

I don't see how limited resources and personnel refute what I said at all.

Obviously.

Brett

 

[Harrier Dude]

I was wondering how the Navy would do with a 360 performance review, or a peer input into fitreps. My first thought is that it would be disastrous (as fellow J-holes can hurt you), but nonetheless interesting. Maybe just as an unoffical tool to say "Hey skipper, this guy is a tool...just thought you should know."

I've always thought that this would be a good idea, but it would have to be considered "data points for the RS to put into context", vice hard and fast scoring. Don't know about how the navy would approach it, but the Marine Corps would probably use the "hard and fast score" approach.

"I thought you did great this reporting period, but you only got a 16.7 on your "peer review score", so the promotion board is most likely going to view this report as negative."

If reporting seniors don't do some detailed analysis of the actual data (peer spear chits?), they'll get the wrong impression and turn the whole process into a popularity contest.

I've worked with some great officers that were unpopular with their peers and subordinates. Mostly personality driven quirks, but at the end of the day they did a great job.

I've also worked with some wonderful people who couldn't lead Rosie O'Donnel to an all you can eat buffet. There needs to be some subjective review from above for this to work.

I like how the peer spear system worked at OCS/TBS/AOCS. If there was a way to integrate that process, no matter how informally, into our current process, I think that it would have value.

 

[Spekkio]

Obviously.

Brett

I meant that I think what you said fits right in with what I said. If my criteria for a good military leader is one who can train a fighting force and understand warfare strategy enough to beat the bad guys, and you chime in with details about how there are limited resources, time, and personnel, you're only supporting what I said. I didn't go into details because I admittedly don't know what those details are. However, when I think of the great military leaders of our country, I think of people like Patton, Washington, and Nimitz, all of whom dealt with the issues you detailed but ultimately led us to victory.

And for those who think a leader should be judged by subordinate review, don't you think that opens things up too much to a personality contest? The aforementioned Patton had a lot of issues when it came to how soldiers perceived him, but the man knew how to win battles.

 

[Brett327]

I meant that I think what you said fits right in with what I said. If my criteria for a good military leader is one who can train a fighting force and understand warfare strategy enough to beat the bad guys, and you chime in with details about how there are limited resources, time, and personnel, you're only supporting what I said. I didn't go into details because I admittedly don't know what those details are. However, when I think of the great military leaders of our country, I think of people like Patton, Washington, and Nimitz, all of whom dealt with the issues you detailed but ultimately led us to victory.

And for those who think a leader should be judged by subordinate review, don't you think that opens things up too much to a personality contest? The aforementioned Patton had a lot of issues when it came to how soldiers perceived him, but the man knew how to win battles.

My point is that it's not quite as simple or obvious as you make it out to be.

Brett

 

[BigIron]

I meant that I think what you said fits right in with what I said. If my criteria for a good military leader is one who can train a fighting force and understand warfare strategy enough to beat the bad guys, and you chime in with details about how there are limited resources, time, and personnel, you're only supporting what I said. I didn't go into details because I admittedly don't know what those details are. However, when I think of the great military leaders of our country, I think of people like Patton, Washington, and Nimitz, all of whom dealt with the issues you detailed but ultimately led us to victory.

And for those who think a leader should be judged by subordinate review, don't you think that opens things up too much to a personality contest? The aforementioned Patton had a lot of issues when it came to how soldiers perceived him, but the man knew how to win battles.

If you run into your first command with the intent on being Chester Nimitz you are going to get hosed. Navy leadership is an extremely multi-faceted subject. What you need to be concerned about is leadership at the appropriate level. I would suggest no sailor in the Navy wants to be regaled with stories of great leaders. They want to make sure they survive, get the resources they need to do their job and be able to take care of themselves and their families, and to get liberty when not working. If you can lead, inspire and motivate them to get the mission done through adverse working conditions (and believe me it's the norm) then you are good to go. Also what helped the big names you mention lead us to victory were staff folks; who inspired, led and motivated their people in several different ways including most of the ways that Brett detailed several posts back.

While some type of peer review might become a popularity contest, it would still be an interesting feedback tool. At least you would have some type of feedback as a leader: "hey I'm a tool, but my troops respect me, or wow, all my troops love me because I don't make them do squat."

 

[Mumbles]

They don't call me Flash for nothing.......

The best I have heard of in the Navy was fired on ADM Mullen's first day as CNO, I know several people that had dealings with him and the stories apparently are true.

Congressman Sestak mebbe???:icon_wink

 

[Mumbles]

Take a look at his Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Foglesong

Wow!

that is a douche par excellance!

 

[Brett327]

While some type of peer review might become a popularity contest, it would still be an interesting feedback tool. At least you would have some type of feedback as a leader: "hey I'm a tool, but my troops respect me, or wow, all my troops love me because I don't make them do squat."

I'm not opposed to input from peers, but it should be used as a tool by the senior rater and not an arbitrary "score" that gets attached to a FITREP.

Brett

 

[BigIron]

I'm not opposed to input from peers, but it should be used as a tool by the senior rater and not an arbitrary "score" that gets attached to a FITREP.

Brett

concur. otherwise it would be a complete disaster.

 

[picklesuit]

We had anonymous peer inputs at Vance during Primary. Having seen how they turned out I don't like the idea. Some people write more than others, some put more effort into the peer review and others just write "Good" (much like the dreaded after-course survey)

I spent about 5 hours writing honest evals of my peers for about 13 studs. It was anywhere from a paragraph to a page for each person. I put my name on the reviews because I don't believe in anonymous input. That turned out to be about 90% of the peer evals (the other 10% came mostly from one other Navy guy)

Our flight commander based most of his opinion of the class on 2 guys evals, and in the AF commanders ranking is about 40% of the final score for them. We sat around with our AF Fitreps after the class track selected. I saw my views lifted verbatim in several of the commanders comment section, even my own (yes I wrote an eval for my self)

If you guys haven't noticed, I don't pull many punches, and I think my strong opinions may have affected the careers of several AF 2nd LT's. While I believe in my opinions I also realize that they are from the position of a student, not an IP or a fleet pilot. There is the main problem of peer reviews is perspective...especially in JO land. How is the guy working in NATOPS going to review his cohort in Safety or QA?

I think there should be some process involving an interview with the reviewing senior, but it should be face to face, or at the least, not anonymous. It would force you to validate your position/opinion with examples/facts.

Just my thought on the subject

 

[bunk22]

I don't think that this would necessarily give accurate input. Sometimes you have to make decisions that your subordinates will not like, even though the end result is good for them.

Can't please everyone all the time. If they are basing one event for everything, well, again, can't please everyone. If the event is something so extreme, then maybe it should be the primary decision on how to judge the leader. Besides, the current system is flawed (IMO) and needs some sort of change. If company's like Boose Allen use it, maybe it's a doable system.

In the business of fighting wars, I would say a good leader is someone who ensures that his men are in prime fighting condition and understands warfare tactics and strategy enough to win battles. Everything else is secondary to that. Since we're most likely not going to face a full scale Naval war anytime in the near future, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern who those people are.

What does having an understanding of warfare tactics and stragey to win battles have to do with leadership? Give an example please. So how does identify a good leader if not in a full scale Naval war?

 

[bunk22]

I meant that I think what you said fits right in with what I said. If my criteria for a good military leader is one who can train a fighting force and understand warfare strategy enough to beat the bad guys, and you chime in with details about how there are limited resources, time, and personnel, you're only supporting what I said. I didn't go into details because I admittedly don't know what those details are. However, when I think of the great military leaders of our country, I think of people like Patton, Washington, and Nimitz, all of whom dealt with the issues you detailed but ultimately led us to victory.

And for those who think a leader should be judged by subordinate review, don't you think that opens things up too much to a personality contest? The aforementioned Patton had a lot of issues when it came to how soldiers perceived him, but the man knew how to win battles.

Starting to see the Ens limited knowledge and experience coming through here. You seem a bit worried about this one, what folks might think of you. Is winning battles good leadership? Some folks excel during peacetime but don't during wartime. Things like stress and having an ability to not only understand how to fight but how to best lead your people into that fight. Works the other way as well, a seasone vertern and leader in wartime sometimes does not excell in the less stressful environment of peacetime. It's certainly not easy leading folks. I've experienced mainly via detachments and you've got a bunch of enlisted folks that come in all shapes and sizes then a bunch of JO's with big ego's (I was the same way). It has to only get more difficult as one ascends to higher authority. I get that sometimes you have to make the tough descisions, tough calls that folks may not. One of the best CO's I've worked for was the hardest to work for. One thing that stood out throughout his career was he took care of his folks but was difficult to deal with and work for. Throughout his career, he was known to be like this so maybe, a review process could be implemented to track these individuals. Make those peer comments a possible determining factor to future command.

 

[helolumpy]

(Bringing an old thread back to life)

Came across this and thought you may get a chuckle.

I love how folks who have never been in the military think leadership can be boiled down to a few pithy quotes...

http://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/220667?cm_mmc=Market-_-Outbrain-_-NA-_-NA#10

 

[Jim123]

I dunno Lumpy... top ten lists are cliché, but this is a halfway decent collection of quotes. And there is something to be said for brevity when trying to express profound stuff.

The stuff that can't be boiled down to pithy quotes would either take to long to write down or is better left to be experienced firsthand.

Just being a little contrarian- and the link did give me a chuckle