Sgm Wallace's Leadership Style

Leaders motivate their team to perform at a high level and set the example. Throughout my career as a soldier, I have experienced several styles of leadership. Many of the leaders that I’ve worked for did not take the time to lead by example but instead chose to abuse their power of authority and delegate rather than motivate. One of those leaders is my supervisor and Sergeant Major (SGM). Throughout my career, I’ve been assigned to work for SGM Wallace three times. SGM Wallace’s perception of motivation is actually demotivating to the majority of the team thus affecting the productivity of the battalion as a whole.
His autocratic and often inconsistent leadership style was the deterring factor that influenced the lack of production from the team. His directive style of communication minimized some of the effectiveness
and productivity of the team thus damaging the entire team structure. An autocratic leader is defined as one who has unlimited authority, power, or influence in any group. SGM Wallace’s constant pushing, pulling and prodding was beneficial to the success of the mission but not for the morale of the team. Some days he’s encouraging and comforting and the next day he is inconsiderate, spiteful, coercive and belittles his team who supports the mission.
Out of all the different powers to have, coercive is the only one with obvious negative connotations. Every leader has his or her strengths and weaknesses. SGM Wallace’s strength as a leader, in large part, comes from his experience and ability to achieve mission success. He often encouraged those who fell behind but he wasn’t shy about lashing out at his soldiers if he felt their work ethic was in question. Leadership has its weaknesses too.
SGM Wallace’s weaknesses were of the coercive nature.
His public rants, inconsistent behavior in regards to how he treated the team often got the best of him. Aggressiveness is like a double-edged sword. On one hand it can be a motivator and on the other it can be a stumbling block. Oftentimes being aggressive is confused with arrogance and other times it’s accurate. I feel he was more of a manager than a leader. Managers are process oriented and believe that good systems and processes produce good results. SGM Wallace’s management style was task oriented. He believed in micro managing the entire organization until his goals were met.
It’s debatable if you have to be a leader to be a manager or vice versa. Although I think SGM Wallace was too emotional and defensive whenever his “authority” was challenged. A leader believes everyone in the team is capable of attaining their goals and his or her job to provide appropriate training and resources to help the team achieve their goal. He/she should communicate consistently with their team to identify any misunderstandings. A leader pushes everyone in the same direction while keeping them
engaged.