Walking Tours and Musings On Leadership

“Well, in point of fact you stand the risk of having to earn every little perk

you’ve get. When all the chips are down, when the privates won’t move and the

sergeants won’t move and fear has taken over everything, all the responsibility

falls on your shoulders. You took the rank, you took the privileges, now you

have to pay your dues.”

~David Donovan

Once A Warrior King

Leadership, true leadership is an unknown quality unless a person is put to

the test in such a role. Donovan’s observations and memories in Viet-Nam as a

commander in a local defense force ring true for commanders in the field and at

home. However, the traits of that a leader, someone who others will follow, seems

to be ignored in today’s culture. A true leader understands that with all the perks

of commanding men and women comes the responsibility for their actions even

when the leader is personally unaware of the events. A true leader “gets your

back” to every one in his or her command.

In April of 1989, I was looking forward to graduation from Norwich

University’s Corps of Cadets. Life in Vermont for the past four years had been

grueling at times, but I had grown from a fairly shy freshman into a self-assured

young man. I had weathered the storm as a rook, joined the Mountain Cold

Weather Company and made the Rescue Team. Most of my classmates were

looking at a career in the armed forces but I was among those who chose not to go
into the service. I would take my chances in the civilian world after college and

eventually end up in front of a classroom as a teacher of English and History.

That career was in my distant future. For the time being, I was an officer in

my senior year. Eschewing the higher ranks, I requested to be the rook platoon

leader of Golf Company. I was responsible for seven juniors and 28 freshman or

rooks as they were called on the campus. The juniors at NU, who all held cadet

sergeants rank, did most of the training. The platoon leader was supposed to

provide the guidance and maturity to both the junior and freshman class by

virtue of being a couple of years older. Juniors led most of the formations and

were also responsible for all the mundane day to day tasks of shepherding the

rooks through their first year “on the hill”. It was a hands on leadership

laboratory in every sense of the word. The year had gone fairly well for the rook

platoon. Attrition was limited and most of the freshmen were doing ok

academically. Some of them had struggled with the balance of academics and the

challenge of being a cadet. However, they eventually adapted to their new

situation and did as fair as any other rook platoon. April was the time to get ready

for exams and since I had a fairly light schedule for the end of the term, it looked

like a smooth sail to graduation on May 20th.

Imagine my surprise when I came home from class one morning and

found a discipline notice under my door for one direct tour. A direct tour was one

full hour of marching in a circle in front of the administration building, Jackman

Hall. Tours were for fairly serious violations of the Cadet Handbook and it was

unusual in the least for a cadet officer to get a tour unless the infraction was

severe. The slip indicated that my platoon had not shown up for physical
training the day before at 0600. A rook in the hallway informed me that they had

indeed woken up, but there was no cadre in the hallway. They had simply gone

back to bed. Sleep is a precious commodity to a cadet. Any chance at a bit more

shut-eye is jumped on by all concerned and I had succumbed to the “rack

monster” many afternoons when it seemed appropriate.

I had better things to do with my time than walk around in an oval for an

hour in the morning, so I hotfooted it over to Mo’s dorm room. Mo was the

regimental XO and the person who had signed the tour slip. Although he and I

didn’t see eye to eye on many things, I did respect him for his almost fanatical

sense of duty. He tended to be a bit too martial for my taste, and evidently others

agreed. He was stripped naked and his clothes burned the previous spring when

he unsuccessfully tried to stop a bonfire from happening just before graduation.

This aside, he was bent on being a career officer and by all indications, he was

going to be a good one. He spent time in the enlisted ranks as a medic and

completed Ranger School the summer before. Mo understood what the “real”

military was like from an enlisted standpoint, something that didn’t seem too

relevant at that point in time.

I wrote a note explaining what had happened on the back and expressed

my displeasure about the whole affair. It was a junior formation and therefore my

juniors should be punished. As far as I could see and rationalize, a direct tour was

a bit harsh given the circumstances. I thought demerits would be more

appropriate rather than a tour. Tours were for cadets who had major issues with

the rules and were not for seniors unless there was a flagrant violation of the

Rules and Regulations. Drinking in the dorm- yes. Missing a formation- no.
 Mo responded the next day. The tour would stand. He pointed out that

despite the fact that it was a junior formation, I, as the platoon leader was

responsible for the actions of my subordinates. I should have made sure that my

NCO’s were following the duty roster and that the freshman were taught that it

was better to wake me up than do nothing at all. It wasn’t the failings of my

cadets: it was my failings as leader and therefore I should take the fall. With the

privilege of command come the rewards of success and the consequences of

failure. A commander is always responsible for the actions of his or her

subordinates whether or not he or she knows what happened or didn’t happen.

Upon reflection sixteen years later Mo was right and I was wrong. I taught

William Golding’s Lord of the Flies last school year to my sophomores and posed

the question to them: “What is a leader?” They had a difficult time naming

anyone that really fit the standard definition of leader as I was taught. They had

plenty of people that they could emulate, or serve as a role model, but few that

they could honestly say they would follow. This surprised and disappointed me.

None of them could think of anyone in popular culture that they would willingly

follow. I posed the question to them in a different format: “Who would you follow

in the book, Jack or Ralph?” Again the debate raged. They centered on the fact

that Ralph had been elected, just as they had been taught, but failed to catch the

key point I was trying to make: just because someone calls themselves a leader

does not make them a leader. A leader, I tried to tell them, should inspire the lead

to a higher level of action and gain respect by setting an example to all concerned.

They were so used to seeing people being called leaders without understanding

what being a leader meant!

They were also surprised when I related my experiences at Norwich. They had

never heard of someone doing what Mo made me do: take responsibility for the

actions of subordinates by the virtue of being responsible. Their experiences with

leaders was limited to elected class officers, sports captains and appointed

leaders in the classroom. Most of these experiences taught them that leaders are

chosen on the basis of popularity rather than skill at motivating others. They

didn’t understand that a leader has to make decisions that may go against the

group initially, but serve the purpose in the long term.

My students had no concept of the idea of responsibility for someone else’s

actions. They, as a group could not understand how anyone would take the

punishment for the failures of others. When I presented this idea to them, the

looks of incredulity were priceless. They had absolutely no idea that one of the

prices of leadership was the fact that sometimes you would be held accountable

for things outside of the leader's control. One of them even used a current event

as support for their argument. Abu Gharib was in the news and this student sided

with the general who tried to pass responsibility off on her subordinates and onto

her superiors.

With Mo in mind again, I presented the argument that a true leader would

have made sure that there was inappropriate, or outside the rules of war, going

on in his or her watch. It there was, then it was the leader's responsibility to

correct the problem, or get higher guidance to clarify what should be done. I also

explained that it was the responsibility of the troops to seek guidance when there

were questions about the actions that they should have realized were against the

Geneva Convention. A true leader or one who is capable of having people follow
him or her, must be able to inspire loyalty and responsibility in his or her troops.

There is a strong difference, I explained, from being a leader and being someone

who is in charge. Abu Gharib, I pointed out, was an example of poor leadership.

The commander was unwilling to accept responsibility for what happened under

her command and she did not inspire enough loyalty in her troops for them to

come to her when there were questions about procedures. Command must be a

two way street between the leader and the people underneath.

As David Donovan pointed out in his book, Once A Warrior King, a leader

has to take personal risks in order to earn the perks associated with the title. He

learned that lesson academically at first and then had to apply it in a firefight. He

earned the title of a leader in that moment. The ghost of Mo came back to me

once again. The message he was trying to drive home to me in his fairly blunt way

wasn’t one from the regimental XO to a wayward classmate: it was a lesson from

someone with experience as a follower to what was expected of a future leader. I

never appreciated this lesson more than when I had to present the concept of

leadership to students and then stand by a definition that was outside of their

experiences.

This led to another lesson for my class: leadership is something that can be

taught in theory, as Donovan learned in his basic schools, but is best learned

when exercised when there is risk involved. With that risk comes the possibility

of failure and with that failure comes the consequence of responsibility.

Unfortunately in our current climate today there is a great avoidance of

responsibility for one’s actions. Every day I, and more importantly my students

see examples of people using semantics to avoid admitting wrongdoing, failing

and then blaming others, being punished for doing what was right, and avoiding

any responsibility for one’s own actions. There are many people in our culture

today who self-proclaim themselves “leaders” but are they willing to take the risks

and then admit wrongdoing when problems arise? Do they take the heat when a

subordinate does something wrong on his or her watch?

There are good leaders today who the lessons of leadership by example,

supporting subordinates and taking responsibility for the actions of a command.

Unfortunately our current climate focuses on the negative aspects of people

rather than the positive. It simply sells more papers, and fortunately my students

are cynical and savvy enough to recognize this. They’re pretty savvy about the

world today and what is presented to them. They still stay seated when I need

someone to take charge though.

As for my tour? I called a meeting of the platoon and asked what went

wrong and outlined my expectations for the rest of the school year. It would have

been my right to assign punishments for those under me and I considered it for a

while, but eventually did nothing. I did get up early one morning and joined the

other malefactors at the guard post and drew an M-14. I then walked my tour a

bit wiser, though I didn’t realize it at the time.

And if you’re out there Mo: thank you. It was a good and important lesson

in leadership that I use in class even today. I didn’t appreciate it then, but I do

now. And I have a long list of people who could use a few hours doing some

tours..