Leadership, Leader and Command Philosophies: What’s the Difference, Why Does It Matter? Dr. Ted A. Thomas and LTC Gregg M. Haley

Fall 2018 Leadership, Leader and Command Philosophies: What’s the Difference, Why Does It Matter? by Dr. Ted A. Thomas and LTC Gregg M. Haley We each have a leadership philosophy, whether it is written down or not. Tak ing time to reflect on who we are, what we believe, why we act the way we do and how that will affect us in future leadership positions makes us better, self-aware leaders. If we are honest with ourselves, we will identify short comings, strengths and gaps in our ex perience that shape how we will lead in upcoming positions. This introspec tion ensures we become the leader our organization needs, not just the leader we want to become. There are three approaches to present personal philosophies about leading:

• Leadership philosophy;

• Leader philosophy; and

• Command philosophy. Each of the three philosophies is per sonal and unique to the leader. They all contain much of the same content, yet there are important distinctions be tween them we need to understand. Moreover, these distinctions matter because leaders must consider their audience and the context when they begin to compose their personal phi losophy on leading. Leadership philosophy First is leadership philosophy, which is the basis and foundation for the other two philosophies. Many of us are fa miliar with the term, but we assert that this philosophy is redefined as an internal, unpublished guide for the leader on how to lead and what his or her beliefs and priorities are when leading. This philosophy can be elabo rate or simple, but it is founded on the individual’s values, beliefs and past ex periences. It defines and describes the ethos of the leader, regardless of the position or unit assigned, and from here is born the two subsequent phi losophies. Developing a sound leadership philos ophy requires reflection and humility. Reflection is an integral part of

Fall 2018 understanding what the leader be lieves, why he or she believes it and how he or she plans to implement the beliefs. Humility is rarely mentioned in leadership doctrine, but without hu mility there is no reflection. The recog nition and development of humility is often overlooked by senior leaders, es pecially considering how it enhances a person’s value as a leader. Humility is required for self-awareness and self-honesty as the leader reflects on weak nesses and strengths. Reflection and self-awareness are necessary to deter mine the logic and reasoning behind the leader’s beliefs and individual be haviors. All leaders should consider reflecting on and rewriting this “living” philoso phy during transitions in their careers. The reflection and mental work re quired to write a philosophy will im prove self-awareness. The act of writ ing also makes a better leader by forc ing refinement of his or her thoughts to help make ideas stick in the leader’s sub-consciousness. The thought that must go into writing helps organize and articulate thinking, priorities and goals. It helps the leader understand what is important and how to best communi cate it to others. Once leaders com plete writing their personal philosophy, they will have a better idea of who they are, and why they believe and think the way they do. They can then decide what part of their philosophy they want to share with others. The next two philosophies are for ex ternal consumption. These philoso phies are published so others can read and process the information. They be come a guide for an organization’s members to understand their leader and how he or she operates. However, anything more than two pages is too long because, beyond that point, mem bers of the organization will neither read it nor retain it. Leader philosophy The second approach is a leader phi losophy that operationalizes the indi vidual’s leadership philosophy to his or her current supervisory role. It tells the organization’s members what they need to know about their leader and what they can anticipate from him or her. This helps set expectations. For example, is the leader a detail person or a big-picture person? Does he or she like to empower or control? It uses the leadership philosophy as a basis and foundation, but it is tailored to a par ticular audience (unit or organization) based on the leader’s position, envi ronment, organizational culture and followers. Since all leaders work for a command er or other senior leader, their philos ophy should nest with their command er’s command philosophy. Just be cause the leader philosophy is tailored to fit into the commander’s philosophy and priorities, it does not mean those philosophies are the same, nor should they be since each leader is unique in the way he or she leads. For instance, an operations officer may be very detailed, wanting a lot of infor mation and conducting a couple of meetings each day to stay informed. On the other hand, a commander may be a big-picture leader who does not want the details but would rather be notified only of significant events. The commander may want everyone to go home at a certain time of day, while the operations officer would like to keep people working late into the eve ning when needed. The philosophies should not conflict or cause contention within the command. Obviously, the junior leader should then find other ways of meeting re quirements and bend his or her guid ance to subordinates to accommodate the senior leader’s directives. Command philosophy The last approach is a command phi losophy, which operationalizes the leadership philosophy and applies it to the commander’s unit. We are more familiar with command philosophies since most commanders post them for Soldiers to read. However, the com mand philosophy is just a particular ap plication of a leader’s philosophical ap proach to leading for a specific posi tion and place in time. It contains what the commander wants his or her com mand to do or not do, how to perform and how to act. It contains the com mander’s vision for the unit and how to achieve it. It provides a forum for the commander to help motivate the unit, and it sets a climate for his or her particular style of command leadership to flourish. In other words, command philosophy provides a more holistic view of how to accomplish the mission, to get all of the various parts of the organization to work together and thrive, and to safe guard the welfare of the people in the unit or organization. We believe researching and drafting the leader or command philosophy should be near complete before the leader’s arrival in an organization. However, before publishing a leader or command philosophy, the incoming leader should conduct an initial assess ment, nest it with the higher head quarters as appropriate and then ob tain feedback. Obtaining this feedback from trusted individuals, whether peers or mentors, may give the leader a litmus test for success before execu tion or publication of the philosophy. These individuals are normally able to tell whether the leader’s philosophy is genuine and can provide insight on the clarity of the content, length and de sign. The main difference between a leader philosophy and a command philosophy is the scope. The command philosophy provides the commander’s vision for the unit, while the leader philosophy targets a section’s mission and rein forces the commander’s vision and pri orities. In both philosophies, the lead er or commander communicates the standards he or she wants the unit to meet, what expectations there are and what is important. However, the com mander is responsible for everything the organization does or does not do, while the leaders under the command er are responsible for just their own section and have a much narrower fo cus. As the saying goes, they should “survey large fields, cultivate small ones.” One caution is that the more specific the command philosophy gets, the more commanders may take away the initiative of those they lead. A second caution is that leaders may come into an organization with preconceived no tions on how they are going to oper ate, which can quickly become outdat ed or unachievable. The overall philos ophy may not need to change, but the

Fall 2018 approach may have to adjust. For in stance, there are different needs and approaches when commanding a unit with civilian and military personnel, as compared to a unit with only military. Commanders need to modify their phi losophy to their current organization while still being true to themselves. ‘Living’ documents All three written philosophies need to be living documents that should be re visited continually. The leadership phi losophy can be more conceptual, while the leader and command philosophies need to be more practical and applica tion-oriented. The leader and command philosophies also need to stay aligned with organi zational policies, core values and high er-command directives. These two phi losophies are public documents the leader wants subordinates to read. Since they are public documents, this underscores the need for leaders to be as honest as possible with themselves in their reflection and to live what they say. Otherwise, the organization will quickly see through the hypocrisy and hollow words. The leadership philoso phy is kept as personal and private as the leader desires but is still the foun dation for the other two. As leaders rise in rank, change posi tions of responsibility and grow in knowledge and understanding of peo ple and leadership, it is natural for their ideas and philosophy of leader ship to evolve. Leaders should not be static. Instead, they need to constantly learn and grow from their experiences. Therefore, they should revisit their leadership philosophy throughout their careers by reflecting on experi ences and knowledge gained, and then capture those lessons-learned by im proving and updating their leadership philosophy. There may not be any ma jor revisions, but certainly there will be some added emphasis or insight due to life experiences and gained leader ship experience. In addition, each time leaders change jobs or bosses, they should revise their leader or command philosophy based on the new require ments and environment. Building trust, respect, confidence The importance of writing these phi losophies is to let subordinates know what their leader expects from them, as well as what they can expect from their leader. By letting subordinates know the leader’s priorities, and how he or she thinks and acts, the leader will help build trust and respect within the command and build confidence among his or her subordinates. The written philosophies provide a fo cus and intent for subordinates when questions arise and the leader is not there to answer them. It also forces leaders to spend some time in self-re flection to understand how they want to lead and operate and how to com municate that to their subordinates. While we believe it is important to pro vide these in written form, it cannot be understated that these documents provide little value to an organization without the proper modeling of their contents early and often by the leader. It is well documented and oft quoted that LTG George S. Patton Jr. developed his leadership philosophy and refined it throughout his career based on the position and duties he had at any giv en time. However, his core principles always remained intact:

• Physical fitness;

• Positive mental outlook;

• Expert in his profession;

• Led by example;

• Went for the jugular (in it to win it; no second-place trophies);

• Audacious;

• Knew his competition/enemy; and

• Selected and cultivated loyal, capable subordinates. There is no doubt Patton lived these principles in everything he did. His ac tions are well documented, and these principles can be seen in almost all of them. Patton was an advocate and practitioner of the formula “promulga tion of the order should take no more than 10 percent of the time, while the remaining 90 percent [of the time should] consist of personal supervision coupled with proper and vigorous ex ecution.”1 Patton was able to make this formula work due to the embodiment of his personal leadership principles into who he was, and the effective and impactful conveyance of these same principles to his subordinates. Conclusions The written leadership, leader and command philosophies are internal and external guides. They provide a beacon to refocus leadership efforts when stress and mission demands cause the leader to lose focus. As has been often said, “if everything is im portant then nothing is important.” Therefore, once written down, these philosophies become important tools for many aspects of the leader’s life, in or out of the military, through leading families, communities and organiza tions. These philosophies will become a part of how leaders set their initial foundation in the unit, how they will be remembered and what their legacy will be. Dr. Ted Thomas, a retired lieutenant colonel, is the director of the Depart ment of Command and Leadership (DCL), Command and General Staff Col lege (CGSC), Fort Leavenworth, KS. Dr. Thomas graduated from the U.S. Mili tary Academy (USMA) in 1978 and served 20 years in various command and staff positions – including battal ion S-3 and executive officer of 307th Engineer Battalion; assistant division engineer, 82nd Airborne Division; and commander, Readiness Group, Fort Leonard Wood, MO – before retiring as commander of 554th Engineer Battal ion. Dr. Thomas taught at USMA as as sistant professor and course director. He holds a master’s of science degree in civil engineering from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a doctorate degree in engineering man agement from Missouri University of Science and Technology. He joined the faculty at CGSC in 2005 and has served as the director of the department since 2007. LTC Gregg Haley is a leadership instruc tor, DCL, CGSC, Fort Leavenworth. His previous assignments include com mander, 3rd Squadron, 89th Cavalry Reg iment, Fort Polk, LA, and Operation Freedom Sentinel in Afghanistan; tac tics instructor, Department of Tactics, CGSC; brigade operations officer, 170th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Baum holder, Germany; and commander,

Fall 2018 Acronym Quick-Scan battalion executive officer and battal ion operations officer, 4th Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, Baumholder, and Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghani stan. His military education includes the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer’s Course. LTC Haley holds a bachelor’s of science degree in polit ical science/international relations from the University of Missouri and a master’s of arts degree in leadership and management from Webster Uni versity. Notes 1 Richard Stillman, General Patton’s Time less Leadership Principles, Richard J. Still man Publishing Company, 1998. CGSC – Command and General Staff College DCL – Department of Command and Leadership USMA – U.S. Military Academy