[December 23, 2025] In the U.S. military, I’ve always noticed differences among unit commanders, especially when I was a field-grade officer. There are two kinds of commanders you could work for if you were in their unit.
There was the commander who kept his thoughts close to his chest, tightly reined in information, and surrounded himself with tight-lipped staff. This kind of commander was always suspicious of his subordinates. He thought they might steal some of his thunder from the higher-ups (his boss) and not give him credit for the unit’s performance. This is the kind of officer who needed to get credit because, in his thinking, his ideas were the most valuable and the best way to advance his career.
Then there was another kind of commander. He shared all his ideas and thoughts about his unit, including what he considered good and bad, as well as how he fit within the structure and his roles as a teacher, mentor, and counselor. It was like a fountain of ideas that flowed freely yet in a coherent, orderly, and thoughtful manner. This commander fostered the intellectual development and career of his subordinates.
What happened to the commander who shared ideas and fostered others’ careers? This officer was surrounded by enthusiastic subordinates who were happy to work for him and to be involved in whatever he was doing. That was rewarding for everyone, and so this kind of unit commander quickly grew into a much better officer, commanding more effectively because he had people who volunteered and worked happily for him. And this commander got even better.
I worked for many of both types, and from the former, who closely guarded information, I learned what not to do. Throughout my time as a commander, advancing through the ranks to General Officer, I did my best to be open, to give subordinates opportunities, and to train them to advance their careers by improving their skills and gaining experience. Many had never had someone educate them on the “secrets” of advancing in the military (across all services).
To me, this was the epitome of a great gift to others. I did this not to compete with other officers for a higher rank or greater responsibility. It came naturally. Looking back, I can now see where I fell within this simple dichotomy.
There are still two basic kinds of military officers. I know where I stand. I know who were the best of the best, and they shared their ideas and thoughts. Getting into their heads was beneficial. I gained a profound understanding of how great leaders think, and that is why I can now write about it.
————
Please read my books:
I hate to admit it, but I’ve worked under mostly great leaders throughout my time, and still work with wonderful senior bosses. That doesn’t mean I won’t have one of these “more narcissistic” future bosses. I don’t look forward to that. But, Gen. Satterfield should give us some good info on how to overcome this problem, and not just identify it as a problem.
One of the “advantages” of learning how to led better is having worked for both these kind of commanders. They teach you about as much of what to do, as what not to do. That is the way should operate and perhaps why the military is not so quick to get rid of either kind of unit commander. Or at what level they operate. However, on a similar line of thinking, the US military has been promoting some mighty weak commanders to senior grades, and just because they happen to be good managers (IMHO). Happy early Merry Christmas and happy New Year.
Good point, Navy Vet, but it is painful to work for those who have thier own career as their main goal; not us.
Yeah, thinking the same. Merry Christmas to all.
One commander: “I’m career focused.”
Second commander: “I’m mission focused.”
Sir, well said, and something I never gave much thought to. There are plenty in the business sector just like this.
Hmmm, I see what you’re trying to say here. There are those that are open and want you to do well & that is great for the unit overall. And, then there are those who are closed to anyone but a few trusted confidants & that is great (in their opinion) for the unit; but usually not. I’ve seen these types always, and the former is always the best to work for, and of course it would be. If you believe you are wanted and valued as a member of the unit (or any business or organization), then you are more likely to work harder and smarter. The latter we sometimes call narcissistic, since they are only interested in themselves being promoted.
I’ve found the same, Army Captain, and thank you also for your service. Gen. Satterfield is spot-on with his categorization of unit commanders. Naturally, there are other ways to ‘classify’ unit officers, this being one of the more common. The first kind of ‘open’ commander are generally a pleasure to work for, if you are good at your job and have a positive attitude. The latter is a problem, generally.
Army Capt and Xerxes II, yep. I agree. I would like to note, however, that if we look beyond the commander himself, and at the senior staff, we can see this play out at that level too. Some weak commanders have a staff that is closed to ideas and try to hoard the information themselves, and that weak commander is himself trapped by them. Either way, he is part of a closed system that is bad for his unit members.
……
I’m going to say Merry Christmas early because I might not be on for several days. Family coming over, etc.
……
I’m also going to recommend highly, Gen. Satterfield’s books. Get your copies today. They are linked to at the end of the article.
“55 Rules for a Good Life”
“Our Longest Year in Iraq”