• Online Exclusive Article Archive

Applying Power to Leadership

 

Command Sgt. Maj. Robert A. Nelson, EdD, US Army, Retired
Command Sgt. Maj. Richard J. Russell II, US Army, Retired

 

Download the PDF

 

The following essay is condensed from the tenth chapter of Army University Press’s forthcoming book, The Noncommissioned Officer: A Primer, written by Command Sgt. Maj. (Ret.) Robert Nelson, EdD, and Command Sgt. Maj. (Ret.) Richard Russell.

Orator Robert Ingersoll once captured the essence of Abraham Lincoln’s character with a powerful observation: “If you want to find out what a man is to the bottom, give him power. Any man can stand adversity—only a great man can stand prosperity.”¹ When Ingersoll uttered these words, he was praising Lincoln for not abusing the power of his position. This idea that power is the ultimate test of character serves as our bridge from theory to practice. Having established what power is and the risks it entails, how do effective leaders wield it for a positive impact? The answer often lies in their chosen leadership style. Examining the most prevalent approaches—transactional, transformational, servant, charismatic, laissez-faire, and others, including those that are counterproductive—can demystify different philosophies for inspiring action and achieving results. Self-development and stewardship of the profession manifest when dedicated NCOs do the work to find a leadership style that aligns most naturally with their own personality and values.

Leadership Styles

Transactional. All leaders begin their journey with some form of transactional leadership. When subordinates follow directions simply because of rank, it is a clear expression of this style. Upon arriving at a new unit, soldiers often comply with a new leader’s orders out of obligation rather than loyalty. That, too, is transactional leadership. At its core, the Army functions on a basic exchange: soldiers receive pay and benefits in return for fulfilling duties and following lawful orders. This transaction, money for compliance, provides the structure and discipline necessary for immediate task execution, especially in large, hierarchical organizations like the military.

Transactional leaders use power primarily through legitimate, reward, and coercive means. They set clear expectations, enforce standards, and use rewards such as recognition, time off, or advancement opportunities to reinforce good performance. When standards are not met, they apply consequences such as counseling statements or disciplinary action to correct behavior. This approach can be highly effective in task-oriented or high-pressure situations where consistency, accountability, and swift results are critical. However, it rarely inspires long-term commitment. Soldiers may meet the minimum requirements, but they are unlikely to go above and beyond for a leader who relies solely on rank and authority. That’s why leaders must be cautious not to remain in a transactional mindset. To build trust, loyalty, and high-performing teams, it’s important to grow into more relational styles such as transformational or servant leadership, where influence comes not just from position, but from character, competence, and care.²

Transformational. A transformational leader uses power to inspire and elevate others, not to control them. This style of leadership is rooted in vision, purpose, and the ability to motivate followers to achieve more than they thought possible. Transformational leaders harness referent power (stemming from admiration, trust, and personal appeal) and expert power by earning trust through integrity, modeling high standards, and demonstrating genuine care for their team’s growth. They use power to create a shared sense of mission, encouraging innovation, creativity, and ownership at every level. Rather than relying on authority alone, they empower others by aligning individual goals with a greater cause, fostering an environment where people are not just compliant but deeply committed. In this way, power becomes a tool for transformation of individuals, teams, and entire organizations.³

Servant. Investing time and effort in caring for soldiers does not detract from mission readiness; it enhances it. A well-cared-for soldier is more focused, resilient, and prepared to accomplish the mission. Think about how you felt when you had a leader who put your needs before their own. That leader probably had a lot of influence over your desire to complete difficult tasks. This synergy is the foundation of servant leadership, a philosophy that places the needs of others first while still achieving organizational goals.⁴

Servant leaders use power not to assert dominance or authority, but to support, uplift, and develop their people. Their influence is grounded in trust, respect, and demonstrated competence. Rather than positioning themselves above the team, servant leaders walk alongside their soldiers, listening actively, removing obstacles, and creating environments where individuals feel valued and empowered. Their strength lies not in command, but in service. By putting others first, they foster loyalty, build strong teams, and ultimately drive mission success, not despite prioritizing people but because of it. Servant leadership transforms power from a tool of control into a force for growth and shared achievement.⁵

One thing to remember is that servant leadership does not mean abandoning your mission for the sake of your soldiers. Author Richard Russell demonstrates the danger of this in a personal vignette:

I remember a squad leader who championed servant leadership to a fault, to the detriment of himself, his soldiers, and his unit. His soldiers felt like they could get away with anything because their leader was so worried about their feelings regarding being asked to work that he never asked them. Instead, he tried to do everything required of his squad by himself.

This created lazy soldiers who learned to cut corners. Like a doting parent, the squad leader refused to see his soldiers as anything short of perfect. One day, one of his team leaders decided to cut a serious corner and gave a false report that a task had been completed. The squad leader signed a document saying that a task was completed to standard, but when it was discovered that the task was never completed, an investigation ensued. At this point, I was sure the squad leader would recognize the issue and take actions to fix the problem. Instead, he threw himself on his sword, saying that it was his fault for signing the paper stating the task was complete.

He refused to name who had told him it was complete. This eventually led to the squad leader’s removal for cause. The shady team leader was put in charge of the squad. Even after all this, the squad leader believed he had done the right thing, and that taking the blame was how he demonstrated love to his unit.

Six months later, the new squad leader was found to have committed serious acts to include sexual harassment and forgery.

The original squad leader did not take care of his organization by taking the bullet for his soldier. Instead, he created an unethical unit where things like sexual harassment cultivated. The point is, while servant leadership means standing with your team and getting things done, it should never be mistaken for likership, where the leader cares more about if their team likes them than accomplishing the mission.

Charismatic. Charismatic leadership can be highly effective. Charismatic leaders wield power through personal magnetism, emotional intelligence, and a strong ability to connect with others. Their influence is rooted primarily in referent power, and rather than relying solely on rank or rewards, charismatic leaders inspire those around them through passion, vision, and confidence. They communicate with clarity and purpose, creating a sense of shared identity and mission that motivates followers to go above and beyond. Many also demonstrate expert power, earning credibility through competence and insight, and often use informational power to clearly articulate goals that resonate across the team.

When applied ethically and authentically, charismatic leadership becomes a powerful force for motivation and change. Charismatic leaders have a unique ability to rally teams during periods of uncertainty, energize innovation, and elevate morale. This approach is particularly effective when bold vision or cultural transformation is needed. However, its effectiveness depends heavily on the leader’s integrity and intent.⁶ For NCOs, embracing charismatic leadership grounded in authenticity and ethical values can foster deep commitment, encourage innovation, and inspire exceptional performance within their teams. However, it’s important not to confuse charismatic leadership with its ineffective counterpart, likership. While charisma motivates through respect and shared purpose, likership relies solely on being liked, often at the cost of standards, accountability, and long-term influence. True leadership is built on trust, not popularity.

Likership. Everyone likes to be liked. When leaders place themselves being liked above enforcing standards, maintaining discipline, or even accomplishing the mission, it’s called likership. Likership does not appear in Army doctrine, but it exists in practice. Likership is the tendency to lead by seeking approval rather than earning respect. Unlike charismatic leadership, which is grounded in authenticity, vision, and values, likership centers on being liked, often at the expense of standards, accountability, and mission focus. Leaders who fall into the trap of likership may avoid difficult conversations, compromise discipline, or make decisions based on popularity rather than principle. While being approachable and well-liked can be assets, leadership built solely on likability is fragile and often unsustainable. For NCOs, it’s critical to prioritize respect over approval, and to remember that true leadership sometimes means making the hard call, not the popular one.⁷

Likership, as a misguided leadership approach, tends to misuse or overly rely on referent power.⁸ Reward power can also be misapplied, with recognition or benefits given based on favoritism rather than merit, undermining fairness and trust within the team. Additionally, likership leaders rarely develop expert or informational power since their influence is rooted more in personal charm than professional competence or clarity of communication. This creates a fragile leadership dynamic, one that lacks the depth and structure needed for long-term effectiveness and fails to uphold the standards required for mission success.

Leaders trapped in likership often avoid confrontation, but being firm and fair earns lasting respect. Communicate transparently, clearly explaining your expectations and the reasoning behind your decisions. Soldiers don’t have to agree with every choice, but they should understand that your actions are rooted in integrity and commitment to the team. This is the essence of the type of trust that enables mission command.⁹ The most difficult challenge in addressing likership is learning how to have difficult conversations. Ultimately, the goal is to seek respect, not approval. Respect is earned through consistency, fairness, and professionalism. When you lead from your values and responsibilities, not your desire to be liked, you build trust and effectiveness that likership alone can never achieve.

Laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leadership can be the ugly stepsister of likership, or it can be an effective method of leadership in formations that are highly skilled and motivated (Rangers, Special Forces, physicians, etc.). Laissez-faire is a hands-off approach in which the leader provides minimal guidance and allows subordinates to make decisions and manage their own tasks. While this style can work well with highly experienced, self-motivated teams, it can also lead to confusion, lack of direction, and decreased accountability when applied inappropriately. Relying too heavily on laissez-faire leadership can create gaps in discipline and performance. Soldiers may lack the structure and support they require to succeed. This style should be used sparingly and only when the team can operate independently with a clear understanding of the mission and standards.¹⁰

Counterproductive. At some point in their career, nearly everyone has encountered a boss who demonstrated counterproductive leadership. For those fortunate enough to have avoided it, counterproductive leadership, formerly known as toxic leadership, is a set of behaviors long recognized as harmful and discouraged both in word and action. According to Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession, counterproductive leadership consists of actions that “violate one or more of the Army’s core leader competencies or Army Values.”¹¹ These behaviors undermine a positive command climate, damage trust, and ultimately impair mission accomplishment. These behaviors can result in long-term damage to organizational morale, cohesion, effectiveness, and readiness.¹² Although sometimes triggered by stress, high operational tempo, or chaotic conditions, counterproductive leadership tends to create toxic environments in which trust deteriorates, subordinates disengage, and performance suffers. It can also feed problems of burnout, low morale, and even psychological harm to team members.

The Army identifies several broad categories of counterproductive behavior: abusive behaviors (e.g., bullying or degrading others), self-serving behaviors (e.g., taking credit for others’ work), erratic behaviors (e.g., volatile or unpredictable actions), leadership incompetence (e.g., poor judgment or neglect of duties), and corrupt behaviors (e.g., violating regulations or ethical standards).¹³ Not every mistake or isolated incident qualifies as counterproductive leadership; rather, it is the recurrence or severity of negative actions that defines the behavior as harmful. The Army emphasizes the need for leaders at all levels to recognize, prevent, and correct such behaviors to uphold trust, integrity, and mission readiness across the force.¹⁴

Counterproductive leadership often misuses the bases of power, relying heavily on coercive and legitimate power while neglecting the more constructive forms such as referent, expert, and informational power.¹⁵ Counterproductive leaders may enforce compliance through fear, threats, or punitive measures, creating a climate of anxiety rather than trust. They lean on their rank or position (legitimate power) as justification for their actions rather than earning influence through competence or respect. In some cases, they may even manipulate information to maintain control, distorting informational power for personal gain. By focusing on authority and fear rather than credibility and connection, counterproductive leaders act in opposition to the scope of NCO duties and responsibilities outlined in the NCO Creed.¹⁶

Nothing Around Here Ever Changes: Learned Helplessness

Learned helplessness is a psychological condition in which individuals come to believe they have no control over their circumstances, even when opportunities for change or improvement exist. This mindset often develops after repeated exposure to negative or uncontrollable situations where efforts to succeed or escape failure have been met with consistent defeat. Over time, individuals may stop trying altogether, assuming that their actions are futile. Originally studied by psychologist Dr. Martin Seligman in experiments with animals, learned helplessness has since been recognized in humans, particularly in contexts involving chronic stress, poor leadership, or environments where autonomy and recognition are lacking.¹⁷

For NCOs, understanding learned helplessness is critical because it directly affects morale, motivation, and unit performance. Soldiers who feel their efforts do not matter, whether due to counterproductive leadership, lack of recognition, or consistently unattainable expectations, may disengage, stop taking initiative, or become passive in the face of adversity. This can erode discipline, teamwork, and mission readiness. In Army units, NCOs play a key role in preventing this by fostering a climate of trust, empowerment, and support. By setting realistic goals, recognizing effort, providing meaningful feedback, actively listening to concerns, and giving soldiers a sense of ownership over their work, NCOs can combat the effects of learned helplessness and cultivate a resilient, confident, and mission-focused team.

I Can Make a Difference: Learned Optimism

Learned optimism is the idea that individuals can train themselves to respond to adversity with a more positive and resilient mindset. This concept became the foundation of many Army resiliency programs, all of which aim to strengthen soldiers’ mental toughness and adaptability.¹⁸ Unlike blind positivity, learned optimism does not ignore hardship; instead, it encourages people to acknowledge negative events without becoming overwhelmed and to interpret setbacks as temporary, specific, and changeable rather than permanent or personal.

Research suggests that those who consistently practice optimistic thinking are more likely to persevere through challenges, perform better under pressure, and maintain better mental and physical health. This mindset enhances not only individual well-being but also team cohesion and performance. Perhaps most importantly, optimism is not viewed as an inborn personality trait; it is a skill that can be developed through deliberate reflection, training, and habits. For soldiers and leaders alike, learned optimism offers a practical, science-based approach to facing adversity with strength, purpose, and hope.¹⁹

Learned optimism is a powerful concept for both personal resilience and effective leadership that NCOs should understand. Military service often involves hardship, uncertainty, and stress, conditions that can wear down even the most capable soldiers. NCOs who practice learned optimism are better equipped to stay mission-focused, recover from setbacks, and maintain their composure in difficult situations. Their ability to reframe adversity not only keeps them grounded but also influences their team. Soldiers look to their NCOs for emotional cues; when leaders demonstrate realistic hope and forward thinking, it encourages the same mindset in the formation. This has a direct impact on morale, cohesion, and the ability to adapt to complex or high-stress environments.

Moreover, NCOs can teach learned optimism to their soldiers by modeling it and incorporating it into mentorship and training. Notice how doing the right thing and modeling ethical leadership principles is a recurring theme. Encouraging soldiers to reframe failure as an opportunity for growth, or to view temporary setbacks as part of a larger learning process, builds mental toughness and reduces the risk of burnout or disengagement. It also fosters a culture of accountability and continuous improvement, one where individuals feel empowered to overcome challenges rather than be defined by them. In an Army that values resilience, adaptability, and mission readiness, learned optimism is not just a personal asset, it’s a leadership multiplier that strengthens the entire unit.

If You Are Not One of Us, You Are One of Them: The Robbers Cave Experiment

The Robbers Cave Experiment, often referred to as the “Boy Scout Experiment,” was conducted by psychologist Muzafer Sherif in 1954 to study intergroup conflict and cooperation.²⁰ In this study, twenty-two boys were brought to a summer camp under the impression they were simply going on a retreat. Unbeknownst to them, the researchers divided them into two groups and kept them separate for the first phase of the experiment. During this time, each group bonded internally, developing its own identity, name, and leadership structure. Does this sound like anywhere you might work? In the second phase, the groups were introduced and placed in direct competition through a series of games and challenges. Hostility quickly escalated, name-calling, vandalism, and physical altercations occurred, despite the boys having had no previous conflicts. Only after introducing shared goals that required cooperation between the groups did the tension subside and teamwork begin to form.

The Robbers Cave Experiment demonstrated the powerful psychological pull of in-group versus out-group dynamics. When people identify strongly with a group, they are more likely to show favoritism toward their own members and hostility toward outsiders. The study also revealed that competition over limited resources can intensify these divisions, leading to conflict, aggression, and entrenched biases, even among those with similar backgrounds and values. However, it also showed that intergroup hostility can be reduced when both groups are required to work together toward a common goal, emphasizing the importance of unity, communication, and shared purpose.²¹

Understanding the implications of the Robbers Cave Experiment is essential to building cohesive teams in diverse and high-pressure environments. Units are often composed of individuals from various backgrounds, military occupational specialties, and belief systems, and cliques or rivalries can form easily if not actively managed. If left unchecked, in-group favoritism and out-group exclusion can lead to toxic subcultures, degraded morale, and diminished unit effectiveness. NCOs must foster inclusive environments where shared goals outweigh personal or group divisions. Encouraging collaboration, emphasizing the mission, and recognizing every soldier’s contribution helps dissolve barriers and reinforces unity. By understanding how group dynamics work, NCOs can preempt conflict and strengthen cohesion within their formations.

I Had No Choice, I Yelled at You Because You Were Late: Stimulus and Response

Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist, explored the depths of human suffering and resilience in his groundbreaking book Man’s Search for Meaning. One of his most profound insights is that while we cannot always control our circumstances, we can always choose our response to them. He wrote, “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances.”²² Frankl developed this philosophy while enduring unimaginable hardship in Nazi concentration camps, where he observed that those who maintained a sense of purpose and inner control were more likely to survive. His belief in the power of personal agency, that we always have the ability to control our inner world even when the outer world collapses, is a cornerstone of modern existential psychology.²³

For NCOs, Frankl’s insights offer an essential leadership lesson: self-control is not only a personal strength but also a professional responsibility. In high-stress environments, soldiers look to their leaders not just for orders but for emotional cues and moral grounding. An NCO who maintains composure, perspective, and integrity during adversity reinforces stability and trust within the unit. Frankl’s teachings remind NCOs that even in the face of chaos or frustration, they have the power to choose patience, courage, and compassion over anger or impulsiveness. In this space between stimulus and response is where good leaders become great ones.

Moreover, understanding Frankl’s philosophy equips NCOs to mentor their soldiers through personal and professional challenges. Life in the military is filled with moments where control is limited, orders are given, conditions change, and setbacks occur. But when NCOs model and teach the idea that meaning can be found in service, sacrifice, and perseverance, they help soldiers develop resilience. By embracing Frankl’s belief in the power of self-determination, NCOs can foster a culture of personal accountability and emotional strength, two qualities vital to mission success and long-term well-being in any organization.

I Want Results, and I Want Them Now: The Marshmallow Test

The Marshmallow Test, a famous psychological experiment conducted by Walter Mischel in the late 1960s and 1970s, explored the concept of delayed gratification in young children. In the study, children were given a choice: they could eat one marshmallow immediately or wait a short period and receive two marshmallows instead. Follow-up studies showed that children who were able to delay gratification tended to have better outcomes later in life, including higher academic achievement, better emotional regulation, and more stable relationships. The core takeaway is that the ability to delay short-term rewards in pursuit of greater long-term gains is a critical predictor of personal and professional success.²⁴

Great NCOs know that the principle of delayed gratification is highly relevant both in leadership and personal development. Military life is full of opportunities where immediate desires must be set aside for the sake of long-term goals, whether it’s enduring a difficult training cycle to build readiness, postponing personal comfort for team success, or investing time in mentoring a struggling soldier. If you are challenged to find an Army concept related to delayed gratification, think about those soldiers who are going to school in the evenings rather than going out, or those who spend additional time at the gym to improve their readiness. NCOs who consistently model delayed gratification show their teams that discipline and patience are marks of maturity and leadership. By doing so, they also help cultivate a mindset among soldiers who values long-term mission success over short-term comfort or recognition.

Furthermore, understanding and teaching delayed gratification can play a powerful role in shaping resilient, forward-thinking soldiers. In an era of instant gratification and constant distraction, helping individuals develop the discipline to stay focused, set goals, and wait for meaningful results is more valuable than ever. NCOs can use real-world examples—like saving for future opportunities, investing in education, or training for career progression—to show how delayed gratification pays off over time. By reinforcing these habits within their formations, NCOs help build not only better soldiers but also more capable, responsible, and future-ready leaders.

Mind Reading Does Not Work: The Theory of Mind

Theory of mind is the psychological concept that refers to an individual’s ability to understand that others have thoughts, feelings, beliefs, desires, and perspectives different from their own.²⁵ This cognitive skill typically begins developing in early childhood and is fundamental to empathy, communication, and social interaction. Theory of mind allows us to predict and interpret the behavior of others by recognizing their mental states, even when those states differ from reality. It is the foundation for understanding motives, intentions, and emotional responses in complex social situations, making it essential for effective leadership and team dynamics.²⁶

For NCOs, a well-developed theory of mind is a critical tool in building trust, resolving conflict, and fostering cohesion. The ability to recognize what a soldier may be thinking or feeling, even when it is unspoken, can help a leader respond with empathy, guide more effective communication, and anticipate challenges before they escalate. Whether it’s understanding why a soldier may be underperforming, anticipating how a team might react to a new policy, or navigating the emotional impact of personal hardships, theory of mind enables NCOs to lead with emotional intelligence and tact. This insight is especially valuable in diverse formations, where experiences and perspectives vary widely.

In addition, teaching and modeling theory of mind can help strengthen the overall emotional intelligence of a unit. By encouraging soldiers to consider how their words and actions affect others, NCOs promote empathy, mutual respect, and more thoughtful decision-making. This is not only important for maintaining morale and discipline but also for cultivating a culture where team members support each other, especially in high-stress or high-stakes environments. Understanding theory of mind equips NCOs to lead not just through authority, but through connection, emotional awareness, and shared understanding, qualities that are essential in both garrison and combat environments.

Another place where theory of mind is especially powerful is in the commander/NCO relationship. NCOs are introduced to this dynamic around the time they are promoted to sergeant first class. Suddenly, besides being a leader of their unit, they become an advisor to an officer counterpart who outranks them but has much less experience. Many NCOs do not handle this abrupt change in dynamics well. It is all too common to see a sergeant first class mock or belittle their second lieutenant counterpart. This is absolutely the wrong move. Not only does the NCO miss a golden opportunity to begin to understand the new dynamic that will be constant throughout the rest of their career, but they may also create resentment within the platoon leader that could color the remainder of the officer’s military service. The platoon sergeant should make an attempt to understand their platoon leader and recognize that the lieutenant’s motivators and character may be very different from theirs. By recognizing this and starting with the common ground of mission success and the welfare of the platoon, the platoon sergeant is better able to do what they are there to do, mentor the young lieutenant and ensure that they are successful in their first command. Working on this at the platoon level will pay dividends for the NCO at the first sergeant and command sergeant major levels. They will have learned to recognize their officer counterpart’s needs, moods, and beliefs and will be better able to advise them in a meaningful way on matters of importance.

I’m Not Qualified for This Position: Impostor Syndrome

Have you ever felt like you were not good enough to be in a certain job or position? If so, you are like most of us, and that feeling is known as imposter syndrome. Impostor syndrome is a psychological pattern in which individuals doubt their accomplishments and fear being exposed as a “fraud,” even when there is clear evidence of their competence and success. People experiencing impostor syndrome often attribute achievements to luck, timing, or the help of others rather than to their own skill or effort. They may constantly feel as though they don’t belong or haven’t earned their place despite external validation. This internal struggle is surprisingly common, affecting high achievers across all professions, including military leaders, who quietly carry self-doubt while appearing confident on the outside.²⁷

Understanding impostor syndrome is important both for personal development and for leading others effectively. Leaders who experience these feelings may hesitate to take initiative, avoid opportunities, or undermine their own authority by overcompensating or seeking constant reassurance. On the other hand, NCOs who recognize impostor syndrome for what it is, a distortion of self-perception, can begin to challenge those thoughts and grow more confident in their role. Just as importantly, by understanding this phenomenon, NCOs are better equipped to recognize it in their soldiers. They can offer support, reinforce individual strengths, and create a climate where honest conversations about confidence and self-worth are not only accepted, they are also encouraged. In a profession that demands both competence and composure, addressing impostor syndrome helps ensure that capable individuals are not held back by their own self-doubt.

The Accomplishment of My Mission and The Welfare of My Soldiers; Both/And Thinking

Both/and thinking is a cognitive approach that encourages individuals to hold and navigate multiple, seemingly conflicting truths at the same time. Rather than being constrained by the limits of either/or thinking, where one must choose between two opposing options, both/and thinking allows leaders to recognize complexity, balance competing priorities, and arrive at more nuanced solutions. This mindset is especially useful in dynamic environments like the military, where challenges are rarely black and white. For example, a leader can prioritize both mission success and soldier welfare; these values are not mutually exclusive but rather interconnected components of effective leadership.²⁸

Practicing both/and thinking is essential to navigating the tensions and tradeoffs that come with responsibility. Too often, junior leaders feel pressured to choose between discipline or empathy, standards or flexibility, authority or approachability. In reality, strong leadership often requires holding both at once, maintaining high expectations and showing compassion, enforcing rules and understanding personal challenges. It is completely possible to do two things at once. Both/and thinking helps NCOs lead with balance, adaptability, and wisdom, especially in diverse units where perspectives, needs, and goals may differ. By modeling this approach, NCOs can also help their soldiers think more critically and make sound decisions in complex situations, enhancing overall resilience and mission effectiveness.

Tying It Together

This article described several psychological studies on human behavior, discussed how they can apply to the military leader, and offered a glimpse into the wealth of knowledge that is beyond what Army regulations offer. Newly promoted NCOs will always need to first study the regulations to understand what the Army expects of them. Applying power to leadership, however, requires continued learning. Psychologists have studied how to shape behavior and drive actions toward desired outcomes, and this article only scratches the surface.

It doesn’t matter if a leader chooses to add reading in their spare time, taking college classes, or even just researching the areas of leadership, behavior, and learning, the important thing is that the leader continues to learn how to be more effective.

 

---

Notes

1. “At the National Capital: Bob Ingersoll, On Lincoln,” Wisconsin State Journal, 16 January 1883, https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/404269327/.
2. “Mastering the Art of Dynamic Leadership,” NCO Journal, 20 August 2018, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2018/August/Dynamic-Leadership/.
3. Marc A. Lopez, “Reinforcing the Pillars: How Organizational Behavior Can Improve the Self-Development Domain,” NCO Journal, 22 June 2020, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2020/June/Reinforcing-the-Pillars/.
4. James C. Hunter, The Servant: A Simple Story About the True Essence of Leadership (Prima Publishing, 1998), 2.
5. Jennifer Mattson, “‘Sergeant’ Means ‘Servant’: How NCOs Typify the Servant Leader,” NCO Journal, 14 May 2013, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2013/May/05-14-Servant-Leader/.
6. Karl Umbrasas, “Charismatic Leadership as the Bulwark Against Unit Disintegration,” Land Warfare Paper No. 142 (Association of the United States Army, 25 February 2022), www.ausa.org/publications/charismatic-leadership-bulwark-against-unit-disintegration.
7. Sean C. Sweeney, “Leadership vs. Likership—Why Not Both?,” NCO Journal, 5 July 2024, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2024/July/Leadership-vs-Likership/. 
8. John R. P. French and Bertram H. Raven, “The Bases of Social Power,” in Studies in Social Power, ed. Dorwin Cartwright (Institute for Social Research, 1959), 150–67.
9. Kariwebster76, “Leadership vs. Likership: No One Wants to Be Led by a Jerk,” Human Nature, Leadership (blog), Chesterfield Strategy, 21 August 2018, https://chesterfieldstrategy.com/2018/08/21/no-one-wants-to-be-led-by-a-jerk/.
10. Kendra Cherry and Steven Gans, “The Pros and Cons of Laissez-Faire Leadership? When Hands-Off Leadership May Be Best … and Worst,” Verywell Mind, updated 13 November 2025, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-laissez-faire-leadership-2795316.
11. Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession (US Government Publishing Office, July 2019), 8-7.
12. ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession, 8-7.
13. ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession, 8-8.
14. ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession, 8-8.
15. OpenStax, “Types of Leaders and Leader Emergence,” in Principles of Management (Rice University, 2019), 415–20, https://biz.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Management/Principles_of_Management; Sheril Mathews, “Coercive Power: A Double-Edged Sword in Modern Leadership,” Leading Sapiens, 11 September 2024, https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership. 
16. “NCO Creed,” US Army, accessed 20 April 2026, https://www.army.mil/values/nco.html.
17. Kendra Cherry, “What Causes Learned Helplessness?,” Verywell Mind, updated 12 March 2026, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-learned-helplessness-2795326.
18. “Master Resilience Training,” Army Ready and Resilient, US Army, accessed 28 April 2026, https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/ard/r2/Master-Resilience-Training.html. The Master Resilience Trainer Course is part of the Army Ready and Resilient program, which falls under the Directorate of Prevention, Resilience and Readiness, part of the Army’s strategy for building strong, combat-ready soldiers by focusing on mental, emotional and relational well-being, in addition to physical fitness. “The Army’s Comprehensive Approach to Building Soldier Strength,” US Army, accessed 28 April 2026. Thirty-four R2 Performance centers, thirty-five Armed Forces Wellness Centers, and fifty brigades participating in the Holistic Health and Fitness Soldier Performance Readiness Centers all highlight the importance of optimism. See also “The Science of Optimism,” Army Ready and Resilient, US Army, accessed 28 April 2026, https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/ard/R2/The-Science-of-Optimism.html.
19. Martin E. P. Seligman, Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life (Knopf, 1990), 95–98.
20. Muzafer Sherif et al., Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment (Wesleyan University Press, 1988).
21. Sherif et al., Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation, 208–12.
22. Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (Beacon Press, 2006), 66.
23. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning, 45.
24. Walter Mischel et al., “Cognitive and Attentional Mechanisms in Delay of Gratification,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21, no. 2 (1972): 204–18, https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0032198.
25. David Premack and Guy Woodruff, “Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind?,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1, no. 4 (1978): 515–26, https://www.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512.
26. Premack and Woodruff, “Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind?”
27. Crystal Raypole, “You’re Not a Fraud: How to Recognize and Overcome Imposter Syndrome,” Healthline, updated 14 November 2024, https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/imposter-syndrome. 
28. Wendy K. Smith and Marianne W. Lewis, Both/And Thinking: Embracing Creative Tensions to Solve Your Toughest Problems (Harvard Business Review Press, 2022), 45.

 

 

Back to Top