Effective Leadership

[FederalSecurity]

After reading one of the other threads, this thought crossed my mind. I'd like

to throw one of my opinions out to see what all of you think. In my

experience, I find that most often the most effective supervisors are

the ones who have started from the bottom and worked their way upward.

On the other hand, the supervisors who landed their jobs because they were

only "highly educated", were hired because of their high position in an

unrelated field of work, or were hired because they are buddies with the

person in charge of hiring, are ineffective and sometimes harmful to the

organization. Y'all are now free to applaud me, throw rotten tomatoes at me,

or otherwise let me know what you think.

[sgtnewby]

I think most supervisors that started from the bottom are very effective, but to add to that, they need to be able to sepparate themselves from the "buddy" list. Supervisors that play favorites drive down morale in other officers.

[Christopherstjo]

The point you address is actually a very good one.

In one respect, promoting from within has its' merits such as knowing the officer and his / her abilities and the pre-established professional relationships with other officers. However, this can also be a downfall as sometimes an officer is not able to accept that with the promotion comes an immediate change in the relationship due to the responsibilities and authority. It is not always easy to reprimand someone you once called your "friend" but as supervisors you cannot afford to act in bias ways in how you treat the other officer's.

Hiring from outside the company can bring in a fresh set of eyes and new outlooks. It can also cause problems since there are almost always going to be the immediate doubts from the other officer's of "what does he know" or "this is how we do things here - he just wants to change everything."

[SgtUSMC8541]

Training..... its about training. Going by your example, US Military Officers would not do well..... no prior exp needed andall you need is a high GPA with a college degree. So, except for their training they fit the profile. You need to teach most to be leaders. Give them the tools needed. This goes for everyone... bottom up. THe "advantage" that those who rise through the ranks have...and I am one of them..... is that they learn leadership over time. THey had to work their way up... the others are generaly "thrown" into it.

My .02

[GCMC Security]

Training..... its about training. Going by your example, US Military Officers would not do well..... no prior exp needed andall you need is a high GPA with a college degree. So, except for their training they fit the profile. You need to teach most to be leaders. Give them the tools needed. This goes for everyone... bottom up. THe "advantage" that those who rise through the ranks have...and I am one of them..... is that they learn leadership over time. THey had to work their way up... the others are generaly "thrown" into it.

My .02

Agreed, but to go by your example....some of the best officers I served under in the Marine Corps were prior enlisted

[SgtUSMC8541]

Agreed, but to go by your example....some of the best officers I served under in the Marine Corps were prior enlisted

I agree. My Company Co in Iraq was a prior enlisted.... best leader I ever had, and he said the biggest mistake he ever made was only earning his Officers Sword. He took his commish when he was a Lance Criminal.

[FireEMSPolice]

I can agree with that. I started from the bottom and remained there in a few other companies. When I got hired at my current job, I got hired as a Supervisor/Sergeant.

However, we have another Supervisor, who is slightly above me, who was made a Supervisor/Sergeant when we had a vacancy. He was experienced and had been there a while. It was only supposed to be a temporary thing until we found another person for the job. Its funny how he advanced so quickly to be in a position above me. He doesnt communicate, does not reprimand, is most peoples friend and in my personal opinion is not qualified for his job now. He is very passive on crucial issues. By his own admission, its against his personal beliefs to hold rank or authority above others. He has expertise in art, not any type of security aside from this job. When his job came open, 3 people applied. Myself (with years of security and some law enforcement/public safety experience), a former Sergeant (who has been there a while but transferred to maintenance, however qualified), and the current guy. 3 applied, 2 of them qualified. He wasnt but got it anyway. Everyone knows he was the "favorite" among management. His skills arent the best and communicating with him is a nightmare buit nobody will believe me.

[copelandamuffy]

Federal Security;
I applaud you.
Excellent

[FederalSecurity]

Sgtnewby, you have hit the nail on the head concerning morale. Low morale

is a good start for frustration and complacency to set in.

[DarkMetalWolf]

Agreed, but to go by your example....some of the best officers I served under in the Marine Corps were prior enlisted

I agree. My Company Co in Iraq was a prior enlisted.... best leader I ever had, and he said the biggest mistake he ever made was only earning his Officers Sword. He took his commish when he was a Lance Criminal.

I would agree with you two. The best Officer I served under in the Corps was a mustang. He was a SSGT before going to a butter bar. It was this man that taught me the most while I served under him. All of his men would have followed him to the ends of this earth and then off to hell if he so commanded. When I was in boot, there was a recruit that was accepted to OCS mid way through. When asked if he was ready to go, he stated " I would like to stay here and graduate so that I know what it is like for the enlisted men to become a Marine" We graduated in 1989 and he went to OCS. I have found that those who start at the bottom often make better leaders. Because they had to work hard for the position instead of just having it given to them.

[Qarlo X64]

Well... anytime life is lived from the ground up and not the top down, (usually) things will be as they should. In the security field this is indeed even more true. Thing is though, most ppl in authority don't like the entry level PSOs who are so on the ball both their reports/DARs and visible execution of operations becomes evident to clients or even higher ups (sometimes) that they fear losing their position. When I worked for a particular [unnamed] PSC back in 2003 it took almost a year to make Corporal, while others who did less work, couldn't write a report worth a damn, and goofed off made SGT and LT. in the same time frame. But then that also had to do with the "butt buddy" thing already mentioned too.

Bascially it's like I've learned over the years (yes I'm burnt out) the old adage of having a solid work ethic and speaking the truth to set you free is bull**** lie. Instead ppl want barely-there meat puppets in uniform. But it doesn't stop me from going above and beyond for the mission.

[Mall Director]

My leadership traits..

I happen to agree that a seasoned ground pounder working their way up to leadership for that area is key. They have a true understanding of the operations as they have been at the front lines dealing with the issues.

As in my position, being the Director at a Mall Security department, I was placed into my position on a strange basis. There are of course two sides to every story. The corporate story is that they had a failing department, and needed leadership that was competent to take over and build up, therefore under job requirement qualifications, a Director must have atleast a two year degree, and law enforcement or military background. I had all the above, and was essentially "forced" into my current position. This leads to the other story, which is prior to enlisting into the service and serving in that fun invasion, lol, I had worked for this agency and made my way up to Sergeant. Then coming back from my enlistment, I entered into the civilian market. Again, while going and finishing up college, I re-employed with the same agency. After completing my first degree, I was approached and advised that I would be taking the position of Director. There afterwards, I was shuttled around to different locations, fixing problems.

As I stand today, my department, which I take such great pride in the awesome staff I have, are the best I have ever seen. I have the lowest turnover rate for the entire agency, even with the less then ideal wages and funding. Now, I have spoken before about my people, and wont go on again even though I love to talk about them, as yes.. I am very proud of them, but they seem to be quite content with me.

I understand where they come from, their ideas are always top priority as they know best, and I teach the supervisors I have under me, that the most important individual is the Officer. The officer is the one who makes things happen. They are there all the time first hand and responding. The Officer knows the area well and the atmosphere in which he/she operates in. They know the stores and their staff, their behaviors and habits, as well as the visitors. So, when one of my Officer's approaches me with an issue that may or is present, and with an idea to resolve or solve, they take top priority as they know best. As a Director, I do not get the pleasure any longer of being out and around, but stuck as a desk jockey mostly. This is one area that many supervisors forget as they climb up the ladder.

I say let the Officer be the one to make the decision, as not all the facts can be made present at a later time or on a different area, as the Officer truely is in the midst and knows more then what can be relayed in a report.

A good supervisor is there not to dictate how others should operate on a micro-management style, as their sole duty as a supervisor is to provide support to the officer when requested or needed. Sometimes Officers do not have all the answers, and a seasoned supervisor can step in and offer advice when needed.

So, I have discussed what an Officer's duty and position is, what a Supervisor's duty and position is, but the Director?

Of course there are the political ends that must be handled from this cute administrative end, but most important aside from the companies needs of policy enforcement, is that a good top leader's position, is to filter and field "heat" from the Supervisors and Officers. The top leader should be there to provide overall protection to the operating staff from the political agendas of other management and outside sources, so that the staff may continue to perform without the stress of upper level issues and politics while they are already dealing with the outside stressors of the normal job encounters. A good top leader sould also be there to do all the fighting for the needs of the staff as well as providing for them so they can continue their efforts to the best of their ability.

Where have I learned this? Being prior service in a combat operations, you leanr quickly what good leaders are from bad ones. Being at the ground level of any operation, you appreciate those that help you, not dictate you in your daily duties. The military instills values in a person that are not typically common in the civilian world. These values could be a whole other book, LOL! But the basics are:

For your battle buddy, your team, your unit, and for the overall common wealth. Take this, and having been at the bottom.. You have excellent grounds to be a good leader. But, one thing I remind myself daily, as I have seen it in others.. Dont forget where you came from, and what you had to deal with. Then dont become one of those you had the least support from!

My .25 cents worth!

[sgtnewby]

Sgtnewby, you have hit the nail on the head concerning morale. Low morale

is a good start for frustration and complacency to set in.

Unfortunately, current experience makes me somewhat of an expert in this area.

But one thing I refuse to be is complacent. Frustrated yes, complacent, no.