“Someone got Sir off topic again…” Forty of us, students at the Infantry Basic Officer Leader Course (IBOLC), were huddled into a corner of Building 466A listening to our platoon tactical trainer. We were supposed to be discussing engagement area development through the lens of Musicians of Mars, a popular vignette published by the Center for Army Lessons Learned. However, a question from a lieutenant had sent our instructor off-topic. This accidental detour led to a conversation that forever shaped my view of leadership and influenced my conduct as an Army officer.

Replying to an inquiry on how a platoon leader could be responsible for so much, Captain Keith Hannah answered simply, “You’re a company officer first.” He explained that though a platoon leader should be concerned with the performance of the platoon, the platoon will not succeed if the company isn’t running smoothly. The additional duties, needs of the command, and company systems have to be fulfilled first. He warned us to not neglect these duties, to be prepared to work in a capacity larger than just the platoon leader, and to perform these duties regardless of their impact to our individual platoons or our own personal gain.

I took his words to heart. This was my introduction to leading up, a concept of influence beyond one’s boundaries, duties, or scope. It’s an idea comparable to “extending influence beyond the chain of command” identified in the Army Leader Requirements Model of ADP 6-22. However, it shouldn’t be simply construed as “solving higher’s problems” or “pleasing the boss.” Leading up is much broader. It’s an approach affected through communication, competence, commitment, and character that yields organizational success in all directions, not just upward. This is how one leads up.

Communication

Leading up requires stellar, honest communication in all directions. Presence and transparency are the bedrock of this with peers, subordinates and superiors alike. Leading up means being present with these different groups of people, sharing hardship and sharing one’s self. This inherently builds rapport and trust. By being transparent, leaders can showcase their upbringing, their perspective and their beliefs. When the inevitable mistakes and interpersonal conflicts arise, leaders should view these missteps as opportunities to admit fault, to seek reconciliation, to clarify and be honest.

As a Battalion Logistics Officer juggling a deployment loadout, equipment dispositions and many other tasks, I told my team I didn’t care about one of the items on our section to-do list: a unit inspection. I thought my decision was rational. I had a great logistics section — I wasn’t concerned that our paperwork was in order, and our systems were to standard. I didn’t think we needed to prepare and I was willing to take a hit on the inspection because I believed other tasks deserved more attention. However, in announcing “I don’t care about the inspection,” I had unintentionally offended my soldiers and NCOs—this inspection was my supply specialists’ opportunity to shine. My NCOIC pulled me aside later in the week and told me I had trashed the very core of the team’s function. While that wasn’t my intention, it was perceived that way. At our next huddle, I addressed what I had previously said. I apologized and I moved the inspection up in our priorities. 

Throughout this interaction I was authentic, even in disagreement, and it yielded a positive outcome not just for the unit but for the team. My lessons learned are this: be yourself, protect time with troops and prioritize regular touchpoints with teammates, supervisors and peers. Deliberateness in these endeavors ensures shared understanding up, down, and center.

Competence

There’s a reason why “competence is my watchword” is in the Army’s NCO creed, a code of conduct reminding leaders of their responsibilities. Competence in leading up means knowing a role and owning it. Duties and responsibilities may be outlined in a doctrinal publication, an oath, or a creed, but what about the aspects that aren’t so obvious?

A simple stakeholder analysis goes a long way to identify the true requirements and hidden responsibilities of a position or role. Just as project managers in the business world conduct in-depth analysis in the planning phase of a project, those who lead up assess each aspect of their role when they assume a new position. At the company level, the mission essential task list (METL) crosswalk is a similar endeavor, but this analysis can be enhanced with the following steps.

1. Write the mission and vision statements three levels up and three levels down.
2. List lines of effort and arrange key tasks of each organization above and below your own.
3. Counsel, then outline desires and career needs of subordinates.
4. Identify the commonalities between these.

This business-like approach, coupled with what Army leaders already have available in FM 7-0, helps to focus organizational efforts. Understanding the needs of team members helps elicit buy-in. Knowing the aims of organizations above and below allows a leader to be a better teammate. Finally, identifying who and what has influence in the operating environment helps one advocate for initiatives and efforts with greater effect.

Competence in leading up speaks to making a concerted effort to understand the needs of others and how to consistently fulfill them. With this level of preparation, we can better design leader development programs, training glide paths, systems, and efficiencies to achieve results and extend influence.

Character and Commitment

The United States Military Academy, in its character development strategy of 2014, defined character as the “set of beliefs and values which serve as guideposts for how that person behaves, decides, and acts.” Commitment implies dedication or obligation. With respect to the military, it is the unwavering adherence to one’s Oath of Enlistment or Oath of Office. This means one is completely dedicated to living out the Army Ethic—a life imbued with a strong sense of character. Utilizing these qualities in how we live and lead brings to bear the full power of good communication and competence. These four aspects work in concert.

Leaders who lead up are deliberate in character and commitment. These qualities are akin to a clay pot, with leaders as potted plants. The water and food that nourishes the plant soaks through the soil. The plant’s roots absorb a portion, but a lot of the water drains through the bottom of the pot, so some plants must be watered every day. For leaders, the elements of character are the water that feeds them, and they must learn, evolve, and practice good virtues consistently. Every mistake, errant word, and compromise has the possibility of draining the strength of those qualities, just like the holes in a pot allow the water to drain. Like any Army value, character is not permanently instilled in us during initial military training. Instead, it requires a constant commitment to replenishment. This translates to action—action by continuous education through reading and reflection, and action by deed in daily life. No truer test of these qualities exists than in the grind of the Company Commander.

In my own time in command, my unit struggled with maintenance. Geographically separated from our division and short on personnel and equipment, we struggled to gauge and repair weapons. I could have easily blamed our unit’s maintenance section or our circumstances for the issues. Instead, I chose to lead up. I, like many others, created a company staff out of my platoon leaders and offloaded some of the duties of my Executive Officer (XO) to the other lieutenants. XO’s sole responsibility became maintenance, and I also directed him to assist our sister companies by sharing our systems, maintenance hours, and parts and tools. Finally, I volunteered my rifle platoons to assist with maintenance inventories and efforts.

At the end of the day, we succeeded spectacularly, but instead of taking credit we recognized maintainers from our support company with coins and awards. The takeaway? We handled business and in the end benefited not just ourselves, but our battalion. My desires and personal aspirations took a backseat to the needs of the organization. At that moment, like my IBOLC instructor had explained years before, we were battalion officers first and not just company leaders.

Conclusion

This idea of leading up isn’t new or groundbreaking. However, it’s never time wasted to think about how and why we lead the way we do, the quality of that leadership, and to what degree we fulfill the oaths we took upon entering service. For me, leading up means constantly asking myself how well and faithfully am I discharging my duties and whether or not I have allowed any reservation or evasion to creep into my own execution. Hopefully, I’ve continued to lead up and these thoughts can help you do the same.