Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., seen in Ste. Mere-Eglise on July 12, hours before he died of a coronary thrombosis. Arthritis caused him to walk with a stick. The 4th Infantry Division commander described him as “the most gallant soldier and finest gentleman I have ever known.”
I am expanding on the recent topic of building trust by being approachable. In his article, the author stated, “Be open and readable … What you see is what you get. No false pretenses or pretending to be something you’re not.” I submit that two key components of approachability are self-awareness and sincerity. Being self-aware and sincere helps leaders humanize themselves and become more relatable to the rest of their team. While some professional distance between leaders and subordinates is required for good order and discipline, most approachable leaders will see more buy-in and initiative from their team members. A close team, full of mutual trust, will be more successful in garrison or combat than a team that is distant and micromanaged.
SELF-AWARENESS: IT TAKES COURAGE TO BE YOURSELF
As a primary staff officer, one of my goals is to generate high engagement across my team. To enable this, I ensure my section is a learning organization, and not working in a zero-defect environment. We all make errors from time to time. We must underwrite and learn from honest mistakes – and as a field grade officer, I do not have all the answers. Despite being relatively seasoned, I am not exempt from making mistakes myself. Importantly, I learn from failure.
As a lieutenant and junior captain serving on battalion and brigade staffs, I remember being intimidated by most majors. Many of them were not approachable, and in some cases were downright abrasive or standoffish. Upon reflection – while some might have been rude, unpleasant people – I am convinced most unapproachable majors held their subordinates at arm’s length because they were incompetent. Those majors feared their incompetence would be revealed if their subordinates saw what they were doing (or weren’t doing).
It was rare and refreshing whenever I worked for a major who was approachable, and transparent about his or her weaknesses and limitations. I never feared to give them bad news, and I appreciated how empowered I felt to solve problems at my level. Whenever they asked me questions, they were not only encouraging me to take ownership of my responsibilities – they were honestly asking and we’re not pretending to know the details of a certain task more than I did.
During my years in the Army, I have repeatedly heard (hopefully in jest) of the “field grade lobotomy” that occurs whenever captains are promoted to majors. I offer any perceived stupidity is the result of the Peter Principle, wherein people are promoted to positions for which they are incompetent. Any incompetence, inadequacy, or shortcomings are difficult to conceal when serving as organizational-level leaders – unless we are lying to ourselves and our subordinates. In the words of GEN Paul Funk, “The higher you go up the flagpole, the more your ass shows.” I was not exempt from the Peter Principle.
I went straight into a key developmental (KD) assignment after finishing CGSC and was unprepared for the job when I first arrived. Looking back, I am unsure what more I could have done to prepare myself; at the time, I would not have known what questions to ask. Upon arriving as a new EOD Group S4, my experience was not so much a learning curve as it was a sheer cliff face. While I had considerable knowledge of conventional logistics doctrine and tactical-level sustainment, I knew almost nothing about the GPC (government purchase card) program. I knew almost nothing about GCSS-Army, having been “offline” in the schoolhouse during the active Army’s transition from legacy systems. I knew almost nothing about EOD-specific equipment, not personally being an Explosive Ordnance Disposal technician, and never having supported those formations. Add to this the complexity of “separate mission command” (our units are dispersed over many installations – something else that was new to me) and not receiving any handoff from my predecessor, and I quickly grew flustered.
I am arguably at the stage in my career where I don’t need to be an expert in every new logistics system because my aperture is too wide to personally manage all of them, but I still need to know enough to hold others accountable. I was unable to do that when I first arrived at the unit. I have always counseled my subordinates that I am not afraid to admit when I don’t know something. I never want them to tell me what they think I want to hear. I need them to feel comfortable enough to speak their minds when asked for input.
A group or brigade S4 is a leader but also a manager of managers, and there were several personnel among my staff (warrant officers and non-commissioned officers) whose technical expertise exceeded mine. I was frank and honest about this; at no point did I pretend to know something, and I freely admitted how many of our systems and responsibilities I was unfamiliar with. My challenge was learning enough to be “dangerous,” without becoming a micromanager or telling my subject matter experts how to do their jobs.
I humbly submit I have come a long way and become far more effective since starting my KD time, but I needed to reveal my shortcomings to learn as much as I did. It takes courage to admit having a vulnerability, but we must be honest with subordinates about our shortcomings, and leverage the entire team’s strengths to succeed.
APPROACHABLE LEADERSHIP: SINCERE, AUTHENTIC, AND GENUINE
Much has been written on the so-called “authenticity gap.” One article defines it as the difference between how we see ourselves and how others see us. I define the authenticity gap as the difference between what leaders say and what leaders do. To truly be sincere, authentic, and genuine, leaders’ words and actions need to match. We cannot just call ourselves approachable; we must actually be approachable. We cannot just claim we “take care of Soldiers”; we must truly take care of Soldiers. To ensure we are being true to ourselves and our subordinates, I recommend establishing non-negotiable daily actions we can use to hold ourselves accountable.
In a podcast, Drew Dudley (who gave a popular TED Talk on Everyday Leadership) said leaders need non-negotiable daily behaviors. He gave an example of a recovering alcoholic who vows never to have another drink in his life. To fulfill this promise to himself, every day the recovering alcoholic makes a choice to commit to his decision like it is his first day in recovery. Perhaps that is an unusual example, but I appreciate the intent behind it. Daily, we make a deliberate decision to either be ourselves or not. Personally, my top three non-negotiable daily leader actions (all contribute to my approachability) are: be sincere; show gratitude; and allow my subordinates to “occupy leader space.”
I see no need for leaders to “throw their weight around” or remind others they are in charge. When in uniform, it is obvious if you outrank someone. Being self-aware and sincere does not mean we should expect our subordinates to come to us every time, and you must find ways to connect with your team while being true to yourself. I would generally encourage you to get out from behind your desk, talk to your team, and learn what makes them unique individuals. However, don’t try being an outgoing, gregarious leader if you really aren’t. Find ways to be yourself and leverage your strengths while working to improve your weaknesses.
In our personal lives and in our organizations, we should seek excellence, not perfection. Perfectionism is self-defeating because it often demands avoidance and risk aversion more than anything constructive. I sometimes struggle with recognizing those moments when good enough is good enough, which is necessary before moving on to the next task. Self-aware and sincere leaders can seek excellence while acknowledging they still have opportunities for growth and improvement
Major Ryan Cornell-d’Echert is an Army logistics officer with three deployments and nearly 13 years of active duty experience. He has previously been stationed at Fort Bliss, Fort Drum, and Fort Lee. He currently serves as the S4 for 71st Ordnance Group (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) at Fort Carson. He has an MS in Adult Learning and Leadership from Kansas State University and a BA in English from the University of Delaware. He enjoys spending time with his lovely wife, good beer, cruel and unusual workouts, first-person shooters, and film theory and criticism. His next assignment is to the Army Management Staff College at Fort Leavenworth.