LPD #2: Building Adaptive Leaders
Educating Leaders Who Can Learn, Fight, and Win
This is the second in the series of Leader Professional Developments shared with the CC/PL team. The first LPD focused narrowly on creating tactical proficiency at the small unit level; this session looks more broadly at how to build adaptive leaders capable of functioning in multiple Army roles. Here’s a teaser:
Leader professional development is the most important responsibility that we have as commanders and leaders. Leader development allows us to build the culture required to effectively train for combat, build readiness, and care for paratroopers and their families. It is the critical enabler for executing the mission command philosophy. Without timely and effective leader development, we cannot confidently delegate authority to our subordinates to train platoons, squads, teams, and individuals; we cannot trust them to build and maintain readiness; we cannot be confident that they will adequately care for paratroopers and their families. If we do not delegate, then what are we left to do? Micromanage…do it ourselves? This is not only less effective but it also fails to be self-replicating meaning that we, personally, will have to do it over and over again. We know that this is not adequate for combat and thus it should not be our model for training or garrison life, if we intend to train as we will fight. My purpose is to provide some context for why leader development is important, explain how it is an essential component to mission command, and provide my guidance on how I intend to do it.
The Army regulation dictating command policy states on the first page that the characteristics of command leadership are that “The commander is responsible for establishing the leadership climate of the unit and developing disciplined and cohesive units…Commanders are also responsible for the professional development of their Soldiers.” Whether leading a battalion or a fire-team, leaders are responsible for all their unit does or fails to do. Commanders can delegate authority (who’s in charge) but not responsibility (who is accountable). The reality of combat as well as garrison life and training is that commanders, but all leaders to varying degrees, are often responsible but not in control. Commanders have a responsibility legally, ethically, and morally to ensure that their subordinates have the character, competence, and commitment to operate independently within their intent. Our ability to identify, to nurture, and to develop that character, competence, and commitment is largely dependent upon the climate and, more importantly in the long-term, the culture we create. The culture is “the shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize the larger institution over time…it is the spirit and soul” of the unit. Climate “refers to soldiers’ feelings and attitudes as they interact within the culture.” For the development of character, competence, and commitment to occur, there must be a culture that values paratroopers and their development and has goals, attitudes, and practices that both demonstrate and enhance that value. Additionally, the culture must value learning and engender from soldiers a climate conducive to learning.
We have one type of soldier in our ranks: developing leaders. Every soldier is a leader. If there are two soldiers, one has taken charge and they are ruling their little corner of hell. The nature of our profession, and in particular our unit, demands that we take this approach. Chance, chaos, calamity, and character will ensure that the responsibility to lead will be violently thrust upon young soldiers in combat. It was true at Bastogne and it was true in the Triangle of Death and at COP Zerok. We know that this going to happen, so we should prepare for it and develop leaders for it now. The Army defines a leader as “anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish organizational goals. Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.” Note: it does not delineate by rank. So some of us are further along in development than others but none of us have arrived, none of us are beyond being developed.
If commanders are going to delegate authority to subordinates to kill in combat, to train soldiers for combat, to get soldiers ready for combat, and to care for soldiers and their families, then we have a legal, moral, and ethical obligation to educate and train those subordinates to do it.
Members of the CC/PL Forums can read the whole document and supporting readings here. Leadership Counts!
