Army leaders are responsible for a litany of tasks intended to care for Soldiers, their families, equipment, mission accomplishment, training, and a multitude of other charges. From the specialist first assigned as a team leader to the four star General designing full-scale war, all carry the title of leader. Both are answerable to another leader who is responsible for the same issues and more. Direct leadership is the first level of leadership. Defined as hands on, face-to-face leadership, direct leadership is the preamble for an Army leader. Organizational leadership shapes direct leadership. Organizational leadership develops the policies and procedures that serve as the scaffold for direct leadership. The two leadership levels are
…show more content…
The Army uses a time honored in-house promotion practice; leaders train in and advance from within their own ranks. Lateral transfers into the army are not possible without some loss of rank and position. Organizational leaders were once following the orders and policies of Soldiers in their current positions. Those same leaders must hark back to their time as a direct leader and remember the Army achieves victory in battle at the direct leader level. In his book Transforming Leadership: From Vision to Results, author John D. Adams identifies the importance of direct leadership “Passive followership, although perhaps a traditional perspective, is neither functional nor preordained for today’s probabilistic world” (Adams, 1986, p. 12). Meaning, direct leaders must be proactive and constantly discuss their situation, wants, and needs for mission accomplishment, while organizational leadership’s obligation is to be receptive and probing of their direct leadership. Field Manual 6-22, Army Leadership, defines the term leadership as “providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.” (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2006, p. 1-2). Those last three words are arguably the most important. The organization will not improve without the leaders at the top listening to the direct leadership at the bottom. Without realistic input from the leadership who is face to face with the gunners and drivers, the fighters and the doers, organizational leaders will make blind decisions with disastrous
The Army uses a time honored in-house promotion practice; leaders train in and advance from within their own ranks. Lateral transfers into the army are not possible without some loss of rank and position. Organizational leaders were once following the orders and policies of Soldiers in their current positions. Those same leaders must hark back to their time as a direct leader and remember the Army achieves victory in battle at the direct leader level. In his book Transforming Leadership: From Vision to Results, author John D. Adams identifies the importance of direct leadership “Passive followership, although perhaps a traditional perspective, is neither functional nor preordained for today’s probabilistic world” (Adams, 1986, p. 12). Meaning, direct leaders must be proactive and constantly discuss their situation, wants, and needs for mission accomplishment, while organizational leadership’s obligation is to be receptive and probing of their direct leadership. Field Manual 6-22, Army Leadership, defines the term leadership as “providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.” (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2006, p. 1-2). Those last three words are arguably the most important. The organization will not improve without the leaders at the top listening to the direct leadership at the bottom. Without realistic input from the leadership who is face to face with the gunners and drivers, the fighters and the doers, organizational leaders will make blind decisions with disastrous