What makes a good leader? Countless articles, books, videos, blogs and doctrinal publications attempt to answer this question, and they are all probably correct to some degree.
However, upon reflection, it occurred to us that as young soldiers, we often developed strong feelings about our leaders and their ability to lead. These feelings were not based on some formal application of leadership style or doctrine, but rather, on the quality of time they spent with us.
In early assessments of our leaders, squad leaders were the most frequent targets of our judgment. Our mental leadership abacuses created a point scale for every leader we had, up to and including our battalion command sergeants major. If you find the idea of a young specialist passing judgment on their leadership’s collective ability to perform their duties disturbing, look at your unit’s most recent command climate survey.
Leadership, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Regardless of a leader’s position, their subordinates will always find ways to assess, evaluate and pass judgment on those appointed above them. We did. Our soldiers did. And, chances are, you and your soldiers did, too.
Pattern Proves True
So, what came of our need to critique and judge leaders? As we considered our time as specialists, and as team leaders, we had an epiphany. The best leaders we had invested their time in us, both on a personal and professional level. Currently, we have cumulatively over 55 years of military service, and that pattern still holds true.
After reading countless books on leadership, studying Army leadership doctrine ad nauseam, obtaining multiple degrees in education and leadership principles and serving in every enlisted leadership position the Army has offered us, we have come to one conclusion: The time invested in developing subordinate soldiers should be measured in quality and impact, not in the accumulation of hours.
Precious Asset
Time is the most precious asset we have. Unlike money, which we have the potential to make back after it is lost or spent, time is a liquescent currency that once spent is gone forever. Therefore, it should be no surprise that people tend to respond positively when someone gives them their time.
When we were specialists, this giving of time looked different based on each leader we interacted with. The command sergeant major got major leadership points on the time scale when he spent five minutes speaking with us about our families and career aspirations during a chance encounter in the motor pool that day, instead of just trying to sell us on why “motor pool Mondays” were the most important thing in the Army.
On the other hand, some squad leaders earned few points during their interactions with us even though they spent a great deal of time with us. Why? Because they were just there. Being there and being present are not the same thing. A leader can spend countless hours with a subordinate and never truly make an impact on what kind of soldier or leader they will become. Even worse, poorly spent time can shape a future leader into one who replicates the behavior with their soldiers.
In retrospect, our squad leaders were competent, they knew the units, they had more experience than we did, they knew what we needed to do to be successful, and they were successful themselves. We are sure they did not wake up each morning asking themselves how they could be poor leaders, yet through their actions, that is how we saw many of them. The problem was that they did not invest their time in us, or in our development as young soldiers.
Quality, Not Quantity
Thus, it is the quality of the time invested that is important, not the quantity. Interestingly, it took us a long time to figure this out. If we could tell our younger selves one thing, it would be to develop a sense of urgency in the provision of our time to others. You will never have enough time to do everything you want to do if you don’t start now. Leadership is time … be urgent and deliberate in its expenditure.
Beyond our own anecdotal experiences, a multitude of research exists about the time dynamics of leadership. Quality communication is developed through building relationships, and building relationships requires time. In his 2010 paper on improving communication processes, “Communication: The Process, Barriers, And Improving Effectiveness,” professor Fred Lunenburg of Sam Houston State University, Texas, pointed out that school principals spend 70% to 80% percent of their time in interpersonal communications with “various stakeholders.”
This is interesting because many of the principals that Lunenburg studied only spent one to three minutes at a time in any given conversation, yet the principals were successful leaders. Thus, an investment in time does not have to be a great expenditure of one’s day. Instead, small, focused investments can yield positive results.
Investments in time can also improve communications through a reeducation of unintended meanings. In 2018, in his research on communication issues called “Illocutionary Force in Speech Theory,” Georgia Southern University professor emeritus Richard Nordquist suggested that unintended meanings are the byproduct of ineffective communication when the receiver of a message interprets the meaning in a different way that the sender intends it. Unintended meanings are shaped by one’s background, education, job, culture, etc., and are the main reason why communication is so difficult. Unintended meanings also are a primary reason why people think they are great communicators, but the people they work with are not.
Therefore, if a leader really wishes to improve communication in their unit, they must address the unintended meaning problem by increasing their attempts at clear communication.
Similar to Nordquist, Lunenburg alludes to the fact that the practice of active listening by leaders can also help quell the unintended meaning problem. By increasing the number of communication attempts and by actively listening, leaders can identify areas in which the meaning of their communications becomes convoluted, and, once identified, they can work to fix it. Notice that we said “work”—unintended meanings will not fix themselves. However, as with all things worth doing, this takes time.
From the doctrinal perspective, in Army Doctrine Publication 6-0: Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces, the Army suggests that Mission Command is the ultimate form of communication, as it allows the people with access to the most relevant information to act through the establishment of a shared understanding of the commander’s intent. This action is called disciplined initiative, and it relies heavily on mutual trust and a shared understanding of the commander’s intent.
However, leaders must be aware that it takes time for commanders and units to enact the true spirit of Mission Command. This is because Mission Command is central to each commander’s specific intent, and it takes an investment in time by both leaders and subordinates to construct a shared understanding of that intent. Therefore, it is important for leaders to invest time conversing with subordinates if they wish to take full advantage of the combat multiplier that is Mission Command.
Human Nature
Today, we find ourselves judging leaders on their leadership abilities. While our metrics for outstanding leadership have grown more complicated over the years, we still find that the time leaders spend engaging soldiers in relevant conversation carries the most weight. We also are sure that others still judge us in similar ways. It’s human nature, after all.
In addition, we still find that investing our time in those with whom we serve not only improves their well-being, but also ours, and the unit’s as well. For leaders of soldiers, it is always important to remember that investments in quality communication and soldier development remove barriers to communication, increase capabilities and enable an authentic incarnation of the supporting principles of Mission Command, and are therefore a worthy investment of our time.
Command Sgt. Maj. Robert Nelson, U.S. Army retired, is a curriculum developer at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy, Fort Bliss, Texas. He served 30 years in the Army and held leadership positions ranging from squad leader to battalion command sergeant major. He made operational deployments to Kuwait, Haiti and Honduras. He holds a doctorate in education from Vanderbilt University, Tennessee.
Sgt. Maj. Richard Russell is an instructor for the Department of Command Leadership, U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy. He has served 24 years in the Army and has held leadership positions ranging from team leader to battalion command sergeant major. He deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. He has two master’s degrees: one in public administration from the University of Texas at El Paso and one in instructional design, development and evaluation from Syracuse University, New York.