MAJ Jone’s article concerning leadership in the U.S. Army resonates with me greatly. The development of a leadership philosophy that considers personal and organizational level application is important for achieving the qualities articulated through his words. I share with you the latest iteration of my own beliefs concerning such development in the hopes that it may invigorate discussion on the subject.

I believe that successful leadership involves the application of both inherited and learned traits. I will discuss each as they pertain to me. Specific attention is placed on how I have taken advantage of, mitigated, or worked to achieve particular qualities. My leadership philosophy does not change regardless of the level at which I operate. Indeed, sustainment of my core beliefs is a fundamental requisite for successful application of leadership practices I have deemed best. These principles are not immutable; their relevance is predicated upon adherence to personal morals and societal norms that may—and has—changed. Consider women’s suffrage and civil rights. An ability to recognize the need for changing one’s beliefs when such values run counter to good order is important; humbleness is not weakness. I have developed (and continue to improve) such behavior through experience and observation. To this end, the discussion of four pillars (ethics, effective communication, balance, and humility) in relation to the Army values frames my leadership philosophy.

My ability to lead cannot be virtuous or effectual without proper foundation. Ethics is important here. It provides the basis for all behavior, the effects of mental instability notwithstanding. The development of ethics is exceedingly subjective. I have attempted to mitigate this issue by restricting—to the greatest extent—possible influences that remain extremely personal in nature. While my father was Catholic and my mother Buddhist, neither enforced the core beliefs of their faiths. Rather, I was imparted with benevolent values of each and provided the wisdom to respect the rights of others while striving in the development of harmony. Perseverance trough adversity is strengthened through dedication of moral principles with loyalty, respect, and integrity exemplified in such action. I believe successful leadership is contingent upon these considerations. Its application knows no boundaries; thus, its use at the organizational level remains the same.

Effective communication skills are important for all leaders. I work hard to ensure that what I say is what I mean and that my actions reflect the truest sense of my convictions. Communication is thus implied to mean both verbal and physical expressions of my beliefs. In this sense I am striving to “set the example” for others so that adherence to duty becomes an emulation benefitting organizational objectives. This trait is inherited from my parents and sets the second pillar for my leadership philosophy. The ability to communicate effectively can also be learned and I have endeavored routinely to improve my abilities in this regard. Simple truth in mind and deed is to convey sincerity in thought and action. Confusion that may arise through discordant communications is mitigated. I always strive to speak and act in harmony.

My actions routinely endeavor to yield balance, my third pillar. Balance is sought through harmonious action. Rocking the boat, breaking the paradigm, and shaking things up are all sometimes necessary but equilibrium is eventually required. Patience, reflection, forethought, empathy, and truthfulness are powerful sources I draw upon to yield this end-state.

Stability in life is constantly challenged by personal, professional, and societal pressures. I believe it is important that leaders recognize and take action to rise above these obstacles and to use such opportunities to strengthen their spiritual and/ or psychological well-being. I faced the loss of a parent at an early age but witnessed through this tragedy the fortitude of my mother to provide for and raise five children. She epitomizes selfless service and personal courage. More importantly, as it relates to my leadership philosophy, her actions have instilled within me the belief that leading requires the will to endeavor boldly in spite of seemingly overwhelming trial. Sustaining balance against harmful forces is one of my enduring goals and I continually strive to achieve it every day. Successful organizational-level leadership does not negate this necessity; rather, it requires that I increase its application. It is constant regardless of the level to which it is applied.

Humility is the last and most extensive pillar of my leadership philosophy as it covers a wide array of concerns. Fundamentally, it requires that I truly recognize the limits of abilities and understand and accept the conditions necessary to improve them. These shortfalls run the gamut from knowing when to ask for help, when to step back and let others lead (successful leadership sometimes means following others), and when to acknowledge mistakes and taking action to correct them appropriately. In leadership, perfect (truly is) the enemy of good enough. Indeed, faultless leadership should be accepted with caution for overconfidence routinely masks ineptitude. My ultimate endeavor is to be held in honorable consideration. It is a trait exceedingly desired but hard to attain from others. Strengthening my conviction at maintaining humility helps me to achieve this quality and avoid the pitfall of impudence.

Successful leadership admittedly entails qualities not specifically mentioned in this short essay. However, omitted points can find placement within my framework. For instance, the desire to complete training towards effective leadership is an unquestionably noble endeavor. While not mentioned outright, I did make reference towards recognizing the limitations of my abilities and understanding and accepting the conditions necessary to improve them. Another consideration involves the ability to influence people towards common objectives in the hopes that returns may improve one’s organization; this is a paraphrasing of the Army’s definition of leadership per AR 6-22, Army Leadership: Competent, Confident, and Agile. I agree with this concept and submit that my framework affords ways in the development of traits necessary to meet such ends.

Leadership is defined in many ways, applicable in varying degrees, and executed and evaluated subjective to the observer, the observed, and the affected. Thus, I use ethics, effective communication, balance, and humility to frame and simplify my leadership philosophy. Further, I apply these qualities towards the development of Army Values (Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage). Following this model strengthens my ability to manage personal and professional endeavors at both the individual and organizational level. While not applicable to all, I believe that others may benefit from adherence to some of the considerations discussed herein. If for nothing more than reflection of my ideals, the matter will have been worth the effort.

MAJ Thomas McCarthy
Student, Command and General Staff College
ILE-CC, Fort Belvoir, Virginia

“The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”

As a veteran and former Army Commissioned Officer, I have always been a firm believer in duty, honor and country. But after reading the recent novel by Jon Krakauer “Where Men Win Glory”, and the complete mishandling of the whole investigation and “misinformation” fed to the Tillman family by the upper command echelons, it just sickens me to realize I was part of an entity that was supposed to be held to a higher standard.
It makes me glad I got out when I did…To realize that certain Commissioned Officers who tried to “cover-up” what really happened were not only allowed to keep their jobs but promoted is dispecable.
War is hell and such friendly fire incidents will always be an unfortunate part of war, but to lie to about what actually happened and purposely destroy key evidence is criminal.