Kwame Boateng served as commander, 307th Airborne Engineer Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division from 2020 – 2022. His career began deployed with the 37th Engineer Battalion (Combat)(Airborne) in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan 2006 –2007. LTC Boateng’s military education includes the National War College, School for Advanced Military Studies, Command and General Staff College, Engineer Company Command Course, and the Engineer Officer Basic Course. LTC Boateng is also a graduate of the Sapper Leader Course, US Army Ranger School, Advanced Airborne School. LTC Boateng was born in Newark, New Jersey and is the oldest of seven highly decorated siblings. He and his wife have two young girls, and a puppy named Jersey. He is currently assigned as the Mission Assurance Director, Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA.
“It’s hard to lead a cavalry charge if you think you look funny on a horse.” — Adlai E. Stevenson
An uneasy silence filled the cold executive meeting room; even the humming projector seemed uneasy. General X glared at his staff, his visage directly reflecting his souring mood. The PowerPoint slides were incorrect, some even out of order. There was almost no greater sin on this staff. A junior officer tried to get the meeting, one of many that day, back on track.
"Sir...? Perhaps I can just explain our strategy here-"
His words unleashed the waiting ire: "Explain....? WHO TOLD YOU TO TALK?!" The General boomed. "That's the problem, you always think you need to say something! It's ok just to shut up and be silent while I think!"
There's a saying in the military that a bad leader teaches you as much, if not more, than a good one. This particular senior flag officer – let's call him "General X" – became a lesson in exactly how not to lead or mentor. On paper, General X was everything you'd expect from a top-tier officer: trim, sharp, articulate in the latest business platitudes, and always ready to rattle off the latest strategic buzzwords with confidence. Even his confrontational leadership style had a home in the military, where a certain brand of polished bravado was still celebrated. But behind the professional veneer, General X's deeply flawed leadership style earned him the title of Worst Mentor Ever.
Ostensibly, General X fit the central casting description of "Good Leader." He had the familiar persona aligned with a certain military archetype: fit, polished, and risk-averse. He avoided hard decisions, preferring to drown issues in protracted discussions and analysis, where no action was taken unless it was sufficiently staffed, scrubbed, and synchronized (often a months-long process). This "inattention to results" stalled progress and substituted internal processes for consequential action (Lencioni 2002).
General X also had to be the smartest person in the room. It was always clear he had "The Opinion that Mattered." Discussions stalled when ideas weren't his own, or (worse yet) he couldn't understand them. He interrupted mid-sentence, questioned minor details of presentations, and let frustration boil over when people disagreed. His emotional outbursts would leave teams scrambling, unsure whether to push their ideas or simply conform to his opinions. This "command by ego" approach suffocated creativity and eroded trust across the organization. Leaders who can't regulate their emotions undermine team morale and hinder effective communication, two key ingredients for innovation and success (Goleman, 1998).
Beyond his emotional volatility, General X lacked a coherent vision. He masked this deficiency with the veneer of executive busyness: endless meetings, pre-briefings, preparatory slides, and talking point reviews that consumed hours but contributed little to strategic outcomes. The predictable result? His organization ran on an omnidirectional treadmill of tasks without clear direction. Lacking a driving purpose, staff burnout became common. Countless meetings, white papers, slide reviews, and sanitized talking points led to strategic paralysis, and the organization failed to make real progress on key objectives.
This example illustrates the pitfalls of traditional mentorship within hierarchical organizations like the military. However, the rise of AI tools offers a promising alternative. Imagine a digital mentor, devoid of ego and emotional biases, capable of providing personalized guidance, objective feedback, and access to a vast knowledge base. This AI mentor could track an individual's progress, identify areas for improvement, and offer tailored resources and advice. It could even simulate real-world scenarios, allowing mentees to practice decision-making and leadership skills in a safe and controlled environment.
This isn't just a futuristic vision. Companies like Google are already using AI to enhance mentorship programs. Their internal tool, "MentorBot," analyzes employee data to identify individuals who would benefit from mentorship and suggests suitable mentors based on skills, experience, and career goals. Early results show increased employee engagement and retention rates. Beyond personalized matching, AI tools can provide real-time feedback on leadership behaviors. Platforms like "Bunch.ai" use natural language processing to analyze communication patterns in meetings, identifying areas where leaders can improve their emotional intelligence, clarity, and inclusivity. Studies by the Harvard Business Review show that such AI-powered feedback can lead to a 15% increase in team performance and a 20% reduction in employee stress.
By leveraging AI, we can democratize access to effective mentorship, ensuring that everyone, regardless of rank or background, has the opportunity to reach their full potential. This technology has the potential to revolutionize leadership development, creating a future where mentorship is not just a privilege but a right. Unlike General X, who relied on intuition and personal biases, AI-powered mentorship offers a data-driven approach, fostering a more objective, equitable, and ultimately successful leadership culture.
It’s a solution even General X might approve.
Citations:
Goleman, D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
CIPD. (2020). Developing effective leadership in organizations. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge. John Wiley & Sons.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.
Comments