From the Green Notebook

This post originally appeared on the Strategy Bridge on August 17, 2016

How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon. Rosa Brooks. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016.

In June 1945, 850 delegates representing 50 nations gathered in San Francisco to start the process of drafting what would eventually become the Charter of the United Nations. This wasn’t some exercise in bureaucratic protocol; this was a desperate attempt by humans to bring about stability to a world ripped apart by war, to draw distinct lines between war and peace, and to keep war inside its box. For the ashes were still smoldering on the continent of Europe, and the war in the Pacific wasn’t yet over.  Sixty million of the planet’s sons and daughters perished during World War II with another twenty five million wounded. The work of these delegates and their staffs took two months to complete, and by October 24, 1945 the U.N. officially came into existence. For the last 71 years, the Charter, this international body, and the norms they have established for warfare, have contributed to the prevention of the level of destruction experienced in the early 20th century.

Continue reading →

By Zachary Mierva

The cabin was very quiet. A few passengers made phone calls or sent text messages to loved ones. Some were saying their prayers. Others would say they were making peace with the situation. If they were going to die, they said, there was nothing they could do about it, and so they tried to accept it.

Some later told me that they were glad I didn’t give them too many details. That would have made them even more frightened.

It wasn’t until about 90 seconds before we hit the water that I spoke to the passengers.

I wanted to be very direct. I didn’t want to sound agitated or alarmed. I wanted to sound professional.

“This is the captain. Brace for impact!”

–Cpt Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger

Continue reading →

From ARMY Magazine, Vol. 66, No. 9, September 2016. Copyright © 2016 by the Association of the U.S. Army and reprinted by permission of ARMY Magazine.

By the end of August 1944, Gen. George S. Patton Jr.’s Third Army had left a swath of destruction across Europe. They had captured or destroyed over 4,300 German tanks, artillery pieces and vehicles while losing fewer than 500 of their own tanks and artillery. Even the death toll was lopsided. As of Aug. 23 of that year, the Germans had lost 16,000 soldiers, killed at the hands of III Corps, compared to approximately 2,000 U.S. service members killed in action.

Patton’s rapid 500-mile trek across Europe can be summed up in one word: Attack! The speed at which he moved left the Germans confused, and it paved the way for the Allies’ race to the Rhine.

Continue reading →

In 1920, as commander of 3^rd Squadron, 3^d Cavalry, then Colonel George S. Patton Jr. held a series of sixteen lectures in which we he imparted the lessons he had learned from a mixture of self study and his own experiences in World War I to the junior officers in his formation. When I think about these professional development sessions, I imagine Patton standing in front of a room full of officers with his notecards in hand, and the young captains and lieutenants scribbling furiously in their notebooks. Almost 100 years later, this method of imparting knowledge to the next generation of military leaders hasn’t changed much in our organizations.

Continue reading →

Photo of an Australian Soldier reading during a break in operations during #ExHamel. Courtesy of the Australian Army

By Jim Greer

After 15 years devoted to low intensity conflict in the form of counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism and foreign internal defense the U.S. military, and more specifically the U.S. Army, is now focused on restoring the lost capability to conduct mid-to-high intensity maneuver warfare. Restoring capabilities for maneuver warfare is only possible through the leader development, training and cultural adaptation that enables leaders, Soldiers and organizations to think, plan, analyze, decide, communicate and act effectively in combat situations that are incredibly complex, conducted at extremely high tempos and far more lethal than the operations of the last fifteen years. Recognizing that future maneuver warfare will not be the same as that of the latter half of the 20^th Century, the following reading list is offered as a start point for those who wish to educate and prepare themselves to lead our Army in preparing for and if necessary conducting large-scale maneuver warfare in the future. Each of these books shaped my own thinking and understanding about maneuver warfare and enabled me to prepare leaders, Soldiers and units to plan and conduct successful combat operations employing maneuver warfare in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Continue reading →

By Joe Byerly

Last summer, I wrote a short article about promoting reading by simply talking about it. I believe the best way to encourage leaders to pick up a book is through conversation, not mandatory reading assignments. So this year, I thought I would continue the tradition by asking folks from around the national security community to share what they are reading this summer.

I love this list because it’s a mix of history, fiction, poetry, and current events. With vacations upon us, I encourage you to check out these books, and grab one for yourself as you prepare to hit the beach!

Continue reading →

By Joe Byerly

Company Command and S3/XO time are two critical seasons in an officer’s career, and one of the keys to being successful is to show up prepared. Below are three resources that leaders can tap into to help prepare ahead of time for these positions:

Continue reading →

The Batallion Staff

By CPT Scott Nusom

There are few assignments in the Army that produce the same unique leadership challenge as commanding a headquarters and headquarters company (HHC) and what makes the HHC command so challenging is learning how to productively integrate and interact with the battalion staff. To be fair, the company-battalion staff relationship is complicated. First, members of the staff have a diverse group of leaders competing for their time and resources that you don’t normally find in a traditional company. Second, the battalion staff usually works in a separate building, physically dividing the company. Finally, the perception of how the company headquarters communicates can be just as bad as the perception of the staff failing to attend company training.

More likely than not, there is one of two reasons why you were selected to command and HHC. You were either a successful commander rewarded with a second command or you were selected because the brigade commander believed you were professionally capable of handling the complexities of leading an HHC. Regardless, how you choose to handle the company-staff relationship will probably be the difference between having a successful and enjoyable experience or being continuously frustrated and falling into the stereotypical HHC mentality of “us versus them”. Although command philosophies and styles of leadership differ, focusing on these three techniques will help an HHC command team build a strong, integrated relationship with the battalion staff.

Establish realistic expectations through simplicity and redundancy. Let’s be honest, you are not training the staff for a major collective exercise, as a matter of fact, you aren’t really training the sections at all. Any training they do as a collective entity will be planned by the field grade officers who have daily oversight over the sections. As the HHC Commander, your training role as it pertains to the staff is to ensure that all Soldiers meet the individual requirements needed to deploy (and to function effectively as a Soldier). Your company’s training plan for the staff needs to solely focus on individual training. It can be challenging enough to complete the basic requirements in an HHC, much less accomplish more audacious training objectives. If your training plan requires a majority of the staff to be pulled away from their primary responsibilities, you will end up frustrated and disappointed. In order to maximize staff participation at company training events, remove the guess work from the training schedule. Establish a weekly training battle rhythm where a few simple training events are occurring on the same days each week (or each month) and ensure you build in redundancy as it is an unrealistic expectation to think that the entire staff can attend a company training event simultaneously. For example, conducting Sergeants Time Training in the morning and again in the afternoon will allow the staff sections to rotate their Soldiers to training without shutting down the battalion. Additionally, scheduling mandatory training twice a week will give the staff flexibility and greatly increase the level of participation.

Build relationships and practice strategic communication. Building effective relationships with battalion leaders will set the foundation for your success at integrating the staff with the company training plan. As a result, you need to get to work on this as soon as you assume command. The two field grade officers understand the difficulties of leading an HHC and they will want to ensure you and the company succeeds. However, they can’t support what you don’t tell them and their priorities of running the battalion will always be their main focus. It is important that you sit down with both field grade officers after assuming command and let them know your plan for ensuring the staff remains trained and ready for deployment and ask them for their input and feedback. Be willing to make adjustments and always let them know about important events in advance so they can apply the appropriate amount of pressure when needed. Further, you should make it a priority to develop a positive relationship with the operations sergeant major. No one understands the importance of training like senior non-commissioned officers and he/she can be very influential at getting the staff to company training events. Another important leader on staff that you should build a strong relationship with is the assistant S3 (AS3). As a peer, you can be more candid with the AS3 if the situation warrants, they can influence the staff, and as an officer waiting in the command queue, they will have an appreciation for ensuring company training is completed. Finally, keep in mind that a majority of the primary staff officers are junior captains or lieutenants that come from a variety of different branches. Although the field grade officers are primarily responsible for their development, you should still assume a mentoring relationship with them as well. Provide assistance if they are struggling and always give them the courtesy invite when you are conducting leader development training as staff officers (and NCOs) are almost always forgotten when it comes to company professional development.

If you discover that there is animosity between the staff and the company leadership after you assume command just accept that the company headquarters is just as much as fault as anyone on staff. Almost certainly, the main cause of any animosity is probably a lack of effective communication. In a traditional company, communicating tends to be easier when unit leadership is co-located and subordinate organizations are more or less focused on the same mission. In an HHC, this is not the case. As a result, it is extremely important that you and the company leadership establish a strategic system to communicate with each staff section and that you identify one leader in each section that is responsible for disseminating information to their Soldiers. This is an area you will want to assess often to ensure the company is communicating effectively. As the company commander, send a weekly SITREP to the field grades and primary staff officers to let them know what issues you are having, where you need support, and to remind them of upcoming training events. The first sergeant and operations NCO should maintain constant communication with the operations sergeant major and the other sections NCOICs and the company executive officer should be the primary source of communication with the support shops. Ensuring you have multiple touch points within the battalion headquarters will fix the communication problems and will alleviate a majority of the animosity between the staff and the company headquarters.

Be an ambassador in addition to a commander. An HHC is not a traditional company and you are not a traditional commander. Succeeding in an HHC requires more collaborating and mediating than in other types of commands where the commander and first sergeant have more control over the circumstances. Constant face-to-face interaction with the staff is the best way for you and the company leadership to subtly remind the section leaders of upcoming company priorities and it is far more impactful than sending constant e-mail reminders. Feeling that Soldiers in the company blew off training is frustrating and may trigger the desire to march up to the headquarters building and blow up on the staff…don’t. This is unprofessional and counterproductive. There are three things to keep in mind when it comes to dealing with the battalion headquarters. First, unlike a traditional company where every subordinate organization is concentrated on a similar mission, the staff is going to be more aligned and focused on the battalion METL than they are with the company METL. Second, battalion staffs are constantly hit with last minute tasks that can derail even the most supportive staffs. Third, HHCs are leader-heavy organizations so going on a tirade inside one of the “S” Shops is not going to earn you any credibility with the section or the battalion leadership and will degrade your efforts to build effective relationships. Just like in any other organization, leaders on the battalion staff struggle to complete all their tasks during the duty day and constantly interacting with the headquarters will ensure sections practice economy of force and rotate their Soldiers to company events while still completing their daily operations. Finally, there are a lot of factors that force the staff to become separated and divided from the rest of the company. In order to keep the unit connected and to foster esprit de corps, use your position as the commander to schedule events that unite the entire organization. For example, having a monthly physical training challenge during PT hours is a great way to bring the entire company together in the spirit of competition and does not impact the work day.

Figuring out how to interact with the battalion staff and integrate them into the company is a challenging and complicated undertaking. Although there is no blueprint for guaranteed success, being mindful of these three techniques will greatly assist in alleviating frustration and will help to ensure that commanding an HHC is an enjoyable and rewarding experience.

From ARMY Magazine, Vol. 66, No. 6, June 2016. Copyright © 2016 by the Association of the U.S. Army and reprinted by permission of ARMY Magazine.

By Joe Byerly

As military professionals, one of the most critical components of our personal growth is the time and energy we spend on self-development. Whether it is through reading, reflection, or deliberately placing ourselves in experiences that force us out of our comfort zones, we must be relentless in this endeavor. The men and women we lead need us to be the most competent and confident versions of ourselves.

So how can we improve our leadership abilities? By looking to the past. History is a landscape full of commanders who led soldiers through extreme conditions and faced great fear and uncertainty yet accomplished amazing feats. Their leadership made the difference, and we can improve ourselves by studying their successes as well as their failures.

Some might argue that we get enough leadership training and development from our everyday experiences in the military. They believe these experiences provide enough of the raw materials to build ourselves into better leaders. This can be evidenced by a claim that Lt. Col. Drew Steadman recently made on his blog at TheMilitaryLeader.com, arguing that we’ve taken leadership out of leader development. I believe this is why many military professionals rarely pick up a book. I’ve met several officers through the years who read only during professional military education courses. They’ve been platoon leaders, squad leaders or company commanders; what more do they need?

I see three problems with viewing our narrow experiences as enough to maximize our leadership potential.

Time

In the grand scheme of things, we do not have a lot of time to perfect our leadership abilities. For most of us, positions of leadership come quickly and then are gone in a blinding flash. We’re leading platoons—bam! We’re an assistant S-3. We’re leading companies—bam! We’re preparing slides for the next day’s brief on a brigade staff—bam! Let’s face it: For officers, command is the exception, not the norm.

Now let’s examine our time in actual leadership positions. We spend the first couple of months figuring stuff out. Then, we get in a groove and an event or person happens—a lost weapon, a death, new boss, troubled subordinate—that consumes us. We shake it off and get back in our groove, and then we finally feel like we’ve got this leadership thing down. Time’s up; now, we must begin prepping for the next person to take over our organization. We start looking toward the handover to make sure it goes smoothly. We say goodbye to our squad, platoon or command. It’s over; back to staff.

It is for this reason we need to arrive prepared, ready to hit the ground running when we are in charge, and make the most of our time leading others. One way to do this is to think about the type of leader we want to be ahead of time. Nothing helps drive introspection better than studying past leaders.

Additionally, we can come loaded with vicarious experiences that will greatly improve our decisionmaking abilities. British Field Marshal Sir William Slim can help us think through the value of calm and cool-headed leadership when we are up against insurmountable problems. Gen. George S. Patton Jr. can teach how aggression on the battlefield affects enemy decisionmaking. Finally, Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant can prepare us to effectively exercise Mission Command when one of our subordinates is a Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman and the other is a Maj. Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren.

Whatever investment we make ahead of time in self-development will ensure that we arrive better prepared to lead our formations. Additionally, the interplay of the leadership experiences of others mixed with our own will help us quickly develop into the leaders our organizations need.

Great and Horrible Bosses

We learn a lot from and are largely influenced by the leaders we encounter in the military. Most of the bosses I’ve worked for have been good, and I consider myself fortunate to have served under them. But in 12 years, I can give the title of “great” only to a limited few. The same goes for horrible bosses; I’ve had only a small number along the way.

Just like we need a harsh winter to appreciate a wonderful summer, we need both great and horrible leaders in our lives to help mold us into the best version of ourselves. We don’t run into too many of these in our careers. This is the second reason we must turn to military leaders from the past to help shape our leadership identity.

Great leaders such as British Vice Adm. Horatio Nelson can inspire us to truly achieve Mission Command in our organizations. Gen. George Washington teaches about the importance of self-study and the character required to lead in the face of friction and uncertainty. Sir Winston Churchill’s early career was rife with failure; he teaches that failure does not have to define us but can develop us. And Maj. Gen. Fox Conner, who was a role model to then-Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower, highlights the importance of mentorship.

While I’ve learned a great deal from the leaders listed above, I’ve also learned much from the horrible bosses of history as well as rising stars who fell from grace. Maj. Gen. Charles Lee, who was permanently dismissed from the Continental Army, is a great example of what happens when we fail to follow others and let our personal flaws go unchecked as we are given more responsibility. The careers of Gens. George McClellan and Douglas MacArthur should help us reflect on ego so we may keep ours from clouding professional judgment. British Gen. Sir Redvers Buller, from the Boer War, exemplifies what happens when we fail to develop our intuition through self-study.

Combat Experience

Finally, war is a phenomenon that breaks down the best systems, the best plans and the best armies with a vengeance. As Carl von Clausewitz noted in On War, this is overcome only with exceptional leadership. Because most of the professionals serving today have limited experience in combat, we must study the actions of those who led under those conditions to better prepare ourselves for the type of leadership required to overcome the horrors, uncertainties and moral dilemmas presented in war.

There are several books that when paired with the study of individual leaders can help us think through leadership in combat. Karl Marlantes’ What It Is Like to Go to War can aid in preparing for the moral struggles we will face from prolonged combat. We can learn about the effects war has on an organization’s discipline in Jim Frederick’s Black Hearts: One Platoon’s Descent into Madness in Iraq’s Triangle of Death. Peter Hart’s Voices from the Front: An Oral History of the Great War brings the day-to-day realities of large-scale warfare into clear focus. Finally, we can learn to avoid many of the failures of past leaders by reading Eliot A. Cohen and John Gooch’s Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War.

When we study the leaders who came before us, we begin to reflect on the leadership traits we want to develop in ourselves. We become better prepared to respond when the need arises, and we more clearly understand what is required of us to win in battle.

The choice is ours. We can either be shaped and influenced by our narrow experiences, or we can allow leaders from over 5,000 years of combat to mold us into the great leaders our subordinates deserve.

Download the .pdf version of this article courtesy of ARMY Magazine! Byerly_FrontCenter_June2016

In his famous book, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli asks the question, “Whether it be better be loved than feared or feared than loved?” 

By: Thomas E. Meyer

“Regard your soldiers as your children and they will follow you into the deepest valleys. Look on them as your own beloved sons and they will stand by you even unto death.” –Sun Tzu; The Art of War

A military leader’s first encounter with leadership is rarely through the military lens. Often, our early encounters with leaders – parents, teachers, coaches, church leaders, etc. – are the most influential to developing the men and women of character who will later lead our nation’s Armed Forces. Perhaps the family bonds of service in combat inspired Sun Tzu’s emphasis on parental love in leading an Army. No one thinks it is crazy to consider love an integral part of leading a child, spouse, student, or athlete – but when we discuss military leadership it is rarely part of the conversation. Rather than ignore the leadership examples set, for many of us, by those who positively influenced us as children – let us embrace the example set by these monumental personalities who shaped us along the way.

Masculinity, toughness, machoism (which is not a male specific problem) are so embedded in our identity within the Armed Forces we often miss or overlook the most critical and foundational aspect of leadership – love. Try standing in front of a formation of combat arms soldiers and telling them the basic function of leadership is to love those you lead. When I first did this, I purposefully paused to observe the faces of my soldiers. An onlooker could almost see the questioning doubt as if it were the perspiration that results from the scorching heat of Fort Campbell, KY in July. The problem is, we have the wrong understanding of what it means to love our soldiers; to love those we lead. But, when you relate this idea to two words in two different languages it isn’t so crazy and it certainly isn’t weak.

The first is Latin; passio. From this word we get “passion,” but the direct translation is “to suffer.” To lead is to have passion for those you lead; a willingness to suffer emotional, mental, and physical pains for the purpose of growing and bettering those you are charged to lead. Whether it is burning the midnight oil to ensure some training event or combat patrol is properly planned and resourced, not eating because by the time your platoon made it through the chow line there is no food remaining, or turning around at the end of the 12 mile release road march to walk back and motivate those straggling behind, dedicate yourself to the passion – suffering – that is leadership. The examples of this are magnified when applied in combat. COL (Ret.) B.P. McCoy defined this is his book, The Passion of Command as:

A commander must genuinely love his men and win their affections in return […]. Here lies the moral imperative of leadership. The leader is entrusted with the lives of his men and accepts unlimited liability for their welfare. The task of bearing such a burden requires more than passive preparation from organizational schooling and mandatory training. Such a task demands passion. Here I speak of passion in the Medieval Latin sense of the word: to suffer for love. The passion of a commander is equal parts love, zeal, and a quite wrath: love for the men, zeal for the lifelong study of the profession of arms and the behavior of men in battle, and quiet wrath to make the nightmares of our enemies come true.

Passion for the men, the profession, and the mission is absolutely necessary to leadership. If passion is one side of the love coin, turn to Greek for the second aspect of the love required to lead.

Ἀγάπη or Ἀγαπάω (Agapē or Agapaō) is one of four Greek words used to describe the multiple facets of “love.” Agapē is the most noble of the four; it is a love of sacrifice and passion for serving others. Agapē is the word, in original Greek, for love used in one of the more oft quoted Bible verses amongst the Armed Forces: “greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend,” John 15:13. P.J. Neal, is his post for The Strategy Bridge (“Leadership: A Bedrock of Trust”) mentions a form of this love – compassion – as one of the four key elements of trust. He states, “Compassion comes from a belief that individuals care for each other and will work to protect each other, as well as protect those they care for.” Love, passion, passio, agape, compassion – whatever word we use, our soldiers will never care what we know until they know we care.

How do we demonstrate leadership with love? We lead intentionally, selflessly, authentically, and with accountability.

1. Love Intentionally

Leaders demonstrate priority through intentionality. As a child, my father had a couple key phrases he said so often they were met with a preemptive repeating of the phrase – “I know Dad, ‘you are responsible for your own actions’” – and a rolling of the eyes. If caring for, being proud of, and passionate about your soldiers is a priority then it needs to be demonstrated through actions and words. Leaders need to treat every interaction as a touchpoint – whether with an individual in passing or a unit formation. A leader’s message needs to be so consistent it becomes synonymous with the leader him/herself.

Have a plan, an intentional vision of how you are going to demonstrate genuine care. Daily conversations with your soldiers as they pass by – “how is your wife, Jessica, doing?” – show you genuinely care about them as an individual. The simple act of investing time in the monotony and struggles of an individual’s life produces immense return on investment in the form of human capital. No matter what the method, ensure it is intentional and demonstrates the message and vision you intend to cast.

2. Love Selflessly – Servant Leadership.

While the method may vary, it needs to be service oriented. Leadership, like love, is not about you. You are a servant for those you lead. Many articles, doctoral theses, and books – to include the #1 bestselling book of all time – were written on this topic. Easily defined, servant leadership is an inverse pyramid where the needs of the led outweigh the needs and privileges of the leader. Leadership is not about what is convenient, what is easy, what is comfortable, or what you think you’ve earned at your time in service and rank – leadership is not about you. Love your soldiers by serving their needs and the needs of your unit above your own.

3. Love authentically and congruently.

In the intentionality section above we discuss actions and words – congruency between the two magnifies the outcome while a lack thereof has immensely negative effects. A congruent leadership model is a positively demonstrated and perceived relationship between what the leader or organization espouse as their beliefs (word) and how they take action daily (deed). Authenticity is as simple as – be who you are. The men and women of your organization will, consciously or subconsciously, build a perception of who you are based on how you talk, what you say, what you do, and what you fail to do.

If you do not genuinely care about those you lead, it will show. Talking about love – transformational leadership – while living out transactional leadership will exponentially harm credibility. Conversely, don’t undervalue the importance of what you have to say as a leader. Your actions are not always seen by all and are rarely perceived the same by all. Use opportunities to speak to the whole, as well as those to speak to individuals, to explain the “why,” reaffirm shared values, discuss vision, and receive feedback. Tools such as command climate surveys and Multi-Source Assessment 360 evaluations are also great opportunities to garner feedback and identify the gaps between your beliefs and the perceptions of those you lead. Loving those you lead and the organization you are a part of is important, but it is all for naught if it lacks genuine authenticity and congruency.

4. Love through discipline/ accountability.

The final, and perhaps most counter-cultural, aspects of love’s role in leadership is discipline and accountability. Loving those you lead is not soft or passive; it is an aggressive pursuit of the unlimited potential within your organization and every individual you lead. Common phrases such as “it is called leadership, not likership” and “you need to lead your soldiers, not be their friends,” are absolutely valid – to a point. Too often they become an excuse for being a jerk or for not investing the emotional energy and intelligence in caring about them as individual people with potential and value. Referring back to the Sun Tzu quote at the beginning, loving those you lead is like regarding your soldiers as your children – parental love. Being a parent is immensely charged with love and passion. With that love comes the responsibility to invest in your children to ensure they discover their potential. Part of this responsibility is disciplining them when they are wrong, correcting their course, and maintaining accountability. Leading with love requires the leader to hold their soldiers accountable while remaining accountable to their soldiers.

—

Leadership requires a passion. It requires a deep passion for what you do, who you lead, and a vision of what they can achieve. If you don’t wake up with excitement for what you do and who you lead, do yourself and your soldiers a favor and meditate, ruminate, pray, or invest thought into why you don’t and if you should be doing something else. Leadership requires a willingness to sacrifice and a measure of suffering for those you lead. Regarding your soldiers as your children is not to say treat them like children; it means love and sacrifice for them as if they were your own beloved sons. Agapē and passio – love – are the foundation of leadership.

Thomas Meyer is an infantry officer in the United States Army. He manages a leader development initiative named Hay in the Barn LDR. Follow @HayInTheBarnLDR on Twitter (https://www.twitter.com/hayinthebarnldr) and Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/hayinthebarnldr). The views of this post are his and do not represent the United States Army or the Department of Defense.