This is a great topic to explore. I tend to believe the Army is more comfortable confining leadership discussions to the school house because that’s the only place you can use metrics to measure deliverables. In the field leadership becomes murky and hard to capture. Today’s Army is engaged in capturing metrics that are definable and repeatable. Leadership is too complex to fit inside a TRADOC rubric.
Leadership development is a long term project. Thus it’s not well suited to the Army’s personnel system that rotates Soldiers to new posts/camps/stations every 24–30 months. To know if a leadership development program is working there has to be a means of observing individuals over time. Right now the Army doesn’t have a means to do that.
Frankly, leadership development is time consuming and a messy business. Most “leaders” today don’t want to get their hands dirty doing it.
Just the thoughts of the old guy.