Military Review English Edition March-April 2014 | Page 13
STRENGTHS-BASED LEADERSHIP
some people may motivate their subordinates through
gruff means naturally. Regardless of the approach,
the key is to find a leadership style that works, and
embrace it, while maintaining a positive outlook for
the organization and toward subordinates.
Empowering Subordinates
At the core of strengths-based leadership
theory is the goal of developing and empowering subordinates to be independent, adaptable,
and resourceful leaders. Leader behaviors such
as task delegation build confidence, encourage
independence, and instill a sense of responsibility
in subordinates. Strategies for empowering subordinates often overlap with the other leadership
functions described in this paper. For example,
exposing subordinates to new tasks helps them
develop new skills. Moreover, it helps leaders
identify their subordinates’ strengths and weaknesses. Thus, assigning a subordinate a new task
with minimal guidance or interference is a good
barometer of talent as well as a potential source of
empowerment for the junior leader. The following
statements from the ARI interviews illustrate the
relationship between task assignment and empowering subordinates:
I think if you’re willing to let the squad
leaders and section leaders do what they’re
supposed to and take that responsibility, I
think you’ll have a better leader . . . If you
give that soldier that responsibility . . . [it
will] pay off dividends . . . .
You’ve got him inculcated more into that
unit, [he might think] “hey, I’m not just a
trigger puller that does whatever so-and-so
tells me. I have a task, a purpose, and a
responsibility to stay in the unit, and they
can’t succeed without me.”23
Empowering subordinates by helping them
discover and leverage their strengths can have
many advantages. People find more enjoyment and
satisfaction in doing things at which they naturally
excel. Identifying and using one’s strengths can
also increase levels of happiness, fulfillment, and
confidence at work and home. Subordinates who
receive positive task assignments and support from
superiors and co-workers experience decreased
burnout and increased productivity. Moreover,
MILITARY REVIEW
March-April 2014
one soldier interviewed believed that inspiring
and empowering subordinates with a sense of
responsibility led to fewer behavior problems in
his unit.24 These advantages all run parallel to the
Army’s goal of attracting highly talented individuals, developing adaptable soldiers, and retaining
high-quality soldiers beyond their initial enlistment or commission.25
Obstacles to Strengths-Based
Leadership
While this paper strongly advocates for a
strengths-based approach to leadership, the author
recognizes the obstacles to its implementation
within the Army. Army leaders interviewed by
ARI acknowledged the importance of understanding and utilizing soldiers’ strengths, yet they also
emphasized the need to identify and remediate
weaknesses, as the next quotation from the study
illustrates:
I think to get after [a] leadership development through strengths concept, you also
need to identify the weaknesses. You can’t
just tell somebody they’re great at this and
not tell them what they are bad at. And if
they’re bad enough to the point where it
needs to go down on paper, there needs to
be an effect . . . We need leaders to make
that honest assessment and do the hard
thing of checking that block that says refer
to report on OER.26
Soldiers interviewed by ARI repeatedly indicated
that leaders who focus exclusively on positive or
negative feedback create systemic problems for
the Army. According to participants, when leaders
spend the majority of their time focused on poor
performers, they are effectively ostracizing stellar
performers.27 Under these circumstances, mid-totop performers receive little-to-no formal or informal development and may even find themselves
being rewarded with more work. This lapse in
subordinate development—combined with a failure to reward soldiers for their good efforts and an
over-reliance on top performers—likely contributes
to burnout and attrition among the best soldiers.
Focusing only on strengths can be just as
problematic as focusing solely on deficits. Army
leaders, whose jobs may hold life-or-death consequences, cannot overlook the negative. They
11