by Jared Nichols
“Leading and following in NATO is an art, and it is as much political negotiation as it is military leadership.” – Unnamed NATO Officer
In 2021, on very short notice, I began a three-year NATO assignment at Multinational Corps Northeast (MNC NE) in Szczecin, Poland. I offer some hard lessons learned from thirty-six months in a NATO Force Structure Headquarters (NFS) to advise and encourage others to explore opportunities like this.
As a U.S. Officer or NCO, you are a minority in a NATO headquarters. While U.S. leaders serve in high positions in a NATO Command Structure Headquarters (NCS), in an NFS, U.S. personnel typically are not the senior most leaders and, by sheer numbers, are a minority population. Why does this matter? Well, in an NFS, the framework nations, and to a lesser extent the contributing nations, have the majority say on how the organization operates and, most importantly, how it is funded.
While NCS is centrally funded by NATO common funds and leads via agreed-upon NATO command relationships, NFS operates based upon those nations that sponsor and fund the headquarters. When this is a single-nation sponsorship, only one country has a say on the operations and funding of the organization. However, when it is multiple nations, the governance structure increases the number of nations which vote on the funding for that organization. The result is a quasi-political governance system coexisting within a military command structure. If you are a U.S. officer or NCO facing a situation like this, you must learn how to navigate a dynamic political environment.
Leading in an NFS organization inherently requires a political leadership style. Leaders must learn to negotiate, compromise, and often vote on the best way to move forward in the organization. U.S. leaders must know the parties involved in a decision and see where each side has staked a claim. Achieving change requires engaging each party to support the decision in consensus before getting in front of a senior leader for a decision. This can be a daunting and often exhausting task.
There are a couple things U.S. officers and senior NCOs must learn to be successful in this environment. First, understand that decision-making requires consensus. Rank isn’t everything. While there are many officers and NCOs of all ranks, only the Commanding Officer (COM) typically has the final authority on a decision in NFS HQs. Even when a COM makes decisions regarding something like budget, a governing Framework Nations Committee meets bi-annually and can overturn or overrule that senior leader. Operating in a headquarters with a decision-making process like this means that whoever can get the issue to the senior leader and get them to support your opinion may get their way. However, even after a decision is made, the unit may still have to contest with the Framework Nations Committee for anything that requires resources and funding. You must be ready for a multi-week or multi-month engagement plan to agree upon even the simplest decisions. Be patient, plan, build consensus, and gain approvals and concurrence.
Second, leaders must challenge their assumptions about organizational norms to advocate effectively. While the U.S. perspective on warfighting is valued, how we introduce that perspective into a headquarters must be a subtle process. Unfortunately, NATO does not have a unifying doctrine at the division level or below, so each NFS headquarters is left to devise its structure, manning, and warfighting competencies. Nothing in NATO provides a basic framework for the respective Corps and Division headquarters—every Corps and Division in NATO FS is uniquely designed. In the U.S., we benefit from our agreed-upon modified tables of organization and equipment (MTOEs) and our Mission Essential Tasks (METs), developed by a central authority and then passed down to the units to adopt and adapt to their preference. In NATO, these governing organizations do not exist in the same way. Lacking foundational tools like MTOEs or METs results in chaotic structures and inefficient design. No two NATO headquarters are designed the same. When working with partners, it is helpful to understand how they are designed, how they operate, and how they govern.
This frustrating process brings to mind an 18-month modernization effort that I oversaw as part of the MNC NE future operations team (J35). The goal of our modernization was to update the corps-level warfighting capability in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. One example problem to solve: over the previous ten years, the corps had prioritized medical and civil-military liaison capabilities while disestablishing a fires function in the headquarters.
Over 18 months, we were able to recommend the introduction of a joint fires division in the headquarters, but were entirely ineffective in getting the headquarters to adopt a “G”-model staff. I think it may be the only permanent corps-level “J” model staff in the entire world. There were many other proposed changes for the design and structure, but the governance model of the headquarters required a three- to four-year process to implement any changes.
Third, leading transformation in a NATO headquarters requires building connections within the headquarters. It is important to build personal relationships among the members of the headquarters and develop a reputation for getting things done. To do this requires those officers and NCOs of the same nation to be on the same page and provide a unified front on matters. If U.S. officers and NCOs provide a guiding coalition to get to a decision or provide a perspective, it carries significant weight in headquarters.
Achieving consensus requires putting in time in both formal and informal settings to build relationships across your organization. Most of the effective change in our respective Corps headquarters was achieved during social events. This is a major difference from operating in a U.S.-only national environment. An organization that requires consensus and collective decision-making requires influencing and building relationships to get to a decision. Leaders in a NATO organization must leverage social events to close deals; this requires after-business-hours engagement and concerted effort over months to build trust and maintain relationships. Without making these connections, you will likely not succeed within the organization. What you put in is what you get out.
Finally, remember that sometimes decisions may occur in a multinational headquarters that your coalition of the willing may be in direct disagreement with. It is important to note that sometimes decisions have more to do with politics than with practical military solutions. The politics in the matter are important to understand, and simple decision-making requires understanding these competing perspectives and often engaging the respective audiences to overcome them. It requires persistence and the ability to conduct thoughtful multi-perspective debates with Allies and Partners.
Why Would I Want to Work in this Frustrating Environment?
This article outlines many of the difficulties of working in a multinational environment. I highlight these issues because they are things I did not know or think about before starting my assignment at Multinational Corps Northeast. But these NATO organizations need you. We need high-quality personnel to work in these NATO Force Structure headquarters to improve and transform them for the future. This only happens when solid leaders are willing to move to remote locations and undertake the hard work required to build and maintain these organizations.
When you work in a NATO environment, you are a valued member of the team. Working in a NATO headquarters is a clean slate; you will only be judged on what you do, not where you have been. It is an encouraging experience to start from nothing and build on that. The power of your experience and your method of argument can be enough to impact entire organizations.
You will never be bored. Every day in a NATO headquarters is a learning experience. The complex decision-making environment can be highly frustrating, but offers a path to fulfillment. You can make a difference, be the change you want to see, and walk away knowing you made an impact on organizations that ensure the peace and stability of NATO member states.
If you want to accept the challenge:
If you are interested in learning more about NATO Force Structure assignment opportunities for U.S. Army personnel, speak with your branch manager and pay attention to the AIM2 marketplace for current available assignments. To learn more about the various NATO assignments, reference the units and locations available via the U.S. NATO Brigade (The U.S. Army ADCON organization for all personnel assigned to NATO units).
LTC Jared Nichols currently serves as the Chief of Plans at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC), 7th Army Training Command, Hohenfels, Bavaria, Germany. He formerly served at NATO Multinational Corps Northeast (MNC NE) in Szczecin, Poland from 2021-2024 as a staff officer in the J35 Future Operations Division and as the Commander’s Executive Officer Military Assistant. Jared can be found at www.linkedin.com/in/jarednichols
