Army Leaders Strengths And Weaknesses

Army leaders must influence their soldiers to carry out mission goals that are set before them. These same leaders have a plethora of methods that they may employ to obtain these results. In my 16 years of experience, I have found that I gravitate to certain methods of influence time after time. This being because of greater success rates, ease of combination, and greater team unity. Each method I use has both strengths and weaknesses under different situations. The ability to understand these strengths and weaknesses become a crucial aspect of knowing when to employ them. The five methods I use are rationalizing, inspiring, negotiating, bridging, and asserting.
Today’s Army leaders are entrusted with the responsibility of leading soldiers into battle and ensuring they meet whatever mission goals are set before them. To get the results they

Inspiration involves several different little aspects such as staying positive, setting goals, encouraging, and listening to others as mentioned by Hite, Nandedkar, Mercer & Martin (2014). These leaders work with the team hand in hand to reach the goals needed as oppose to just delegating what needs to be performed. Being part of the team also creates a sense of common ground, exemplifies what the leader is trying to portray and proves to the team that anything the influencer is asking for is capable. Individuals tend to work well with this method because they do not feel that they are being taken advantage of, performing mundane tasks that are unnecessary, and feel as if their ideas and opinions are relevant (Bernard, 1988). Even though this works well in the sense of creating bonds within groups, this method takes time to develop and is not something that occurs over a short period of time. With that being said, this method works best when the people you are dealing with have a good understanding of what is expected (Pascal, Prochilo, Steffens, Zacher, Haslam,