Since J.R.R. Tolkien first published The Lord of the Rings trilogy nearly 70 years ago, authors and fans have published a wealth of articles exploring Tolkien’s characters and universe. One topic worth revisiting for military leaders is the importance of friendship, which pervades all three books. In his article,Get To Know Each Other: The Art and Power of Friendship, Caleb Miller invites us to build connections as a key component of the “People First” strategy. Learning how friendship changed the fate of three hobbits – Smeagol, Bilbo, and Frodo – forces leaders to ask if their own circle of friends is enabling, apathetic toward, or helping destroy their vices and lead lives of virtue.
For military leaders, developing and maintaining virtue is at the forefront of the profession. “The Army Ethic” white paper helps inform Army professionals on which set of values they should embody, but merely learning which values one should embody is not enough. It takes individual fortitude to live lives of virtue, based on values, every day.
In both personal and professional life, leaders are confronted with temptation. Whether it is losing your temper on a subordinate or letting someone else take the blame for your mistake, opportunities to violate The Army Ethic abound. Similarly, in Tolkien’s universe, the ring of power, which represents sin and corruption, is strong enough to tempt almost any creature away from virtue. All three hobbits – Smeagol, Bilbo, and Frodo – share a common background and, likely, a similar set of values. Yet, their individual virtue, buttressed or weakened by their friends, differed greatly. Consequently, their resilience against temptation and their strength to embody virtue differed.
In 2014, Admiral William McRaven, then Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, made a famous speech at a commencement ceremony for his alma mater, the University of Texas. The thesis of his address was the importance of the little things in life: “If you can’t do the little things right,” he said, “you’ll never be able to do the big things right.” The speech is most famous, however, for its injunction on making your bed. “So if you want to change the world,” he says, “start off by making your bed.” His message is like a ‘broken windows’ approach to your personal and professional life: summon order from the chaos of your bedclothes, and it will empower you to accomplish other things too.
When it comes to making the bed in our house, my wife and I have a deal: whoever gets up last is on the hook. This particular household regulation was instituted by my wife about 10 years ago, mostly because she knew it meant 99% of the time it would be me making the bed. She’s a dedicated runner who gets up early to log 8-10 miles a day before work. So, in our house, bed-making has become a penance for laziness. On the rare occasion I do get up before she does, I sure as hell don’t make the bed.
Since for me the chore of bed-making is a domestic obligation, I’ve found myself looking elsewhere for McRaven’s mystical motivation to ‘get one thing done so I can get other things done too’ (I’m paraphrasing). My job in the Army requires me to be physically fit, so I’m drawn to the routine of physical training (PT) as this source of inspiration. As it turns out, PT is a more effective example of doing “the little things right” because it has the same powerful impact as bed-making but with actual, tangible rewards.
Here’s my philosophy: in the Army, PT is like making your bed but better, because it has four important benefits for you and your unit. First, as an individual, it trains your body and prepares you physically for the rigors of combat. Second, it trains your mind to accept things that are hard and keep going. Third, it gives you the opportunity to build leaders through the basics of training management. And lastly, it builds your team, increasing cohesion and trust. These benefits, collectively, are why we do PT and why we (mostly) do it together as units and teams.
Before I describe those benefits in more detail, however, I want to look briefly at the culture and doctrine of Army physical training. In the latter half of my service in the Army, I’ve spent the majority of my time in non-standard units where daily unit PT is not a given. Consequently, I’ve also spent more and more time explaining why I think unit PT, done together, is so important. So what is driving my growing need to push back against disaggregated PT?
Certainly, there have been some big philosophical and doctrinal changes for physical training in the Army over the last decade. When I joined the Army 19 years ago, we never saw the inside of a gym (or a barbell for that matter) during PT hours. We did a lot of running, rucking, and calisthenics, with combatives mixed in occasionally. Take a jog down Ardennes Street on Ft. Bragg today, and you will see a different scene: the running and rucking are still there, but also squads and platoons gathered around containers with barbells, plates, sleds, and kettlebells spilled out onto the tarmac behind every company area.
This is a great development and, in my limited observational experience, has led to a more physically well-rounded force. My criticism, however, is that the accompanying doctrine trends toward overemphasis on the individual. In fact, “individualization” is one of the three core principles of the holistic health and fitness (H2F) system. This may be why I’ve seen an increase in demands to ‘do PT on our own.’ Individualization is great (for the individual), but it is unrealistic for commanders to manage effectively, creates unnecessary tension within units, and erodes the other benefits of collective unit PT.
As an Army, we need to tip this focus back in the other direction—to find what is a sufficient level of individualization (using scaling and ability groups, for example), while maintaining an emphasis on collective unit fitness and capability. If we can do that, we maximize all four of the benefits of physical fitness training.
In tactical operations, effective communication remains one of the most underappreciated yet crucial competencies for field-grade leaders. At the upper echelons of operational and strategic planning, one of the most enduring communicative models is Colonel Arthur F. Lykke’s equation: Strategy = Ends + Ways + Means. While deceptively simple, Lykke’s framework gained lasting traction because it distilled the complexities of military strategy into a coherent, memorable structure that defines strategy and communicates effectively. His story’s power is no doctrinal novelty, but a clear mental model where the operational story aligns objectives, methods, and resources into a logically sequenced whole.
Field-grade officers, however, often face a different challenge. Many struggle not with knowledge, but with articulating that knowledge clearly and sequentially. Without a mechanism to “tell the story,” especially at the tactical level, conceptual alignment falters and synchronization becomes an elusive goal. Just as Lykke’s model enabled coherence at the strategic level, tactical synchronization can be achieved through an analogous storytelling approach, using a sequencing story that defines the logic of tactical execution:
“Intelligence drives Fires, Fires shape Movement and Maneuver, supported by Sustainment, secured by Protection, and guided by Command and Control.”
This mantra serves as more than a mnemonic, as it is a practical, doctrinally grounded narrative that provides commanders and staff with a logical sequence for aligning warfighting functions across planning and execution. Mirroring the structural clarity of Lykke’s model while addressing the tactical practitioner’s need for procedural logic, this mantra synchronizes actions across time, space, and purpose.
Turning Concept into Action: Synchronization as Story
Doctrine tells us what to think as individual warfighting functions, communication through storytelling shows us how to think together. Synchronization is positioned as a doctrinal imperative, central to generating combat power and achieving synchronization across domains. FM 3-0 describes clearly that forces integrate capabilities and synchronize warfighting functions to generate combat power while applying it against enemy forces. This emphasis reinforces that synchronization is not an ancillary staff function but a foundational mechanism for operational success. Despite this conceptual prominence, few tacticians offer a procedural blueprint or “how to,” leaving commanders and staffs to interpret and improvise under pressure.
Have you ever found yourself delaying reporting something up the chain of command because the information was not perfect or pretty? How much time did you spend perfecting the information before other decision-makers could review it? Was it still relevant?
In dynamic environments—whether in the military, law enforcement, intelligence, or business—information is oxygen. The faster and more relevant it is, the more valuable. And yet, one of the most common failures across these domains is the reluctance to share raw, imperfect data until it’s “ready.” The pursuit of perfection—polishing reports, cross-checking every detail, or waiting for complete confirmation—can paradoxically destroy the value of the information altogether. Because in fast-paced environments, late truth is often no better than a lie.
The High Cost of “The Perfect Report”
When information is withheld or delayed in the name of completeness, accuracy, or aesthetics, it often loses its operational value. In military operations, intelligence that’s five hours old may as well be five days old. In business, market shifts happen in minutes. In policing, a suspect may have fled the area by the time intel hits the street.
Consider the Battle of Midway in World War II. American cryptanalysts had not completely cracked the Japanese naval code before discovering that “AF” likely referred to Midway Island. Instead of waiting for perfect confirmation, they acted quickly – sending a fake message from Midway about a water shortage. When the Japanese repeated that in their next transmission, it confirmed the target. That raw, timely intelligence helped the U.S. Navy set a trap and win a pivotal battle. Had the analysts waited for more proof, the opportunity would have passed.
In contrast, the 9/11 Commission Report revealed that multiple U.S. intelligence agencies had fragments of actionable data on Al-Qaeda’s activities, but siloed information and internal hesitancy delayed dissemination. In the fog of uncertainty, important puzzle pieces were never put together in time. It is often fragmented bits of imperfect but timely information that give decision-makers.
We have all been there, hastily scribbling notes into our notebooks (mostly green and mostly government-issued), trying to capture some notes or to-do lists. We attempt to record pearls of wisdom from our raters, senior raters, or senior leaders that seem insightful and valuable at the time but inevitably become shelved and dusty pieces of our previous duty positions and assignments, never to see the light of day again.
It does not have to be that way.
Barring the hyper-organized Soldiers who walk among us (yes, I am sure they exist), most of us become overwhelmed by current events and the traditional day-to-day knife fight that is the Army.
We rarely take a moment to stop and reflect on what we have learned. We don’t commit those elusive pearls of wisdom to something that can persist through the years of PCS moves, duty assignment changes, promotions, PME schooling, and so on. My solution is somewhat counterintuitive: a notebook. Yes, the solution to a myriad of notebooks is yet another notebook. Let us refer to this notebook as the Tome of Knowledge.
Most of the stories they tell you about being a School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) planner are true. You will likely be thrown right into being the lead planner for something immediately, or, as in my case, on the third day of in-processing at the installation. People will poke fun at you for being a nerd and tease you about loving to read – and then later those same people will sit silently, waiting for you to step in and make sense of the opaque dumpster fire handed to you by higher headquarters. Almost nothing you do in utilization will gain you fame or glory. The only troops you will spend time with are the nameless (and often some of the most underrated) warriors on staff, those responsible for helping set conditions for success for the warfighters in the brigades and battalions. The love-hate relationship with your utilization assignment will teach you more about what it takes to run large organizations and will help you determine if you have what it takes to help lead lethal brigades, divisions, and corps.
I’ve seen firsthand how we tend to operate as if time is a free and limitless resource. It is neither. Whether it’s making soldiers stand around waiting to be released or requiring them to show up excessively early for formations, our military culture often reinforces the notion that time is not valuable.
Our tendency to disregard time creates organizational friction — the kind that slows down operations and drains energy from the mission. For the Department of Defense to evolve, there must be a mindset shift towards viewingtime of its personnel as one of the Department’s most valuable resources.
In private organizations, time’s relationship to success is linear. Their primary mission is to make money — if they don’t make money, they go out of business — meaning the effectiveness with which they use their time has an existential impact.
The Army has been facing recruiting and retention challenges, particularly within the junior officer population: Lieutenants, Captains, Warrant Officers One, and Chief Warrant Officers Two. While recruitment and retention efforts, such as increased recruiter support, larger bonuses, and improved branding, seem like solutions, they only address symptoms. To address the root cause of junior officer attrition, the Army must implement an ecosystem across the force, known as the Army Junior Officer Counsel (AJOC), that enables junior officers to thrive and drive innovation.
The Solution
The junior officers of our Army are building this AJOC ecosystem, with support from the Directorate of Military Personnel Management (DMPM) in the headquarters of the Army’s personnel staff. The DMPM’s goal for AJOC is to create a space for innovation, knowledge sharing, and driving change across the Army to improve the organization, our junior officers, and our future leaders. As we pursue the Army Transformation Initiative, we need to develop leaders at the junior officer level who can lead through change, iterate and develop novel concepts, and address the root cause of issues while doing so. AJOC is the vehicle where junior officers can practice, fail, and learn.
AJOC is not just a program; it is a community of junior officers invested in the betterment of the Army and driving change today to build an Army that can meet the challenges of 2050 and beyond.
Photo By Edward Muniz | Col. Michael Stewart reading Coordinates.
by Joseph F. Adams
I am an expert and I am a professional.
– The Soldier’s Creed
Cold mud and rain dripped down my forearms as I lay in the prone position and aimed my M80 Claymore. The icy voice of the grader standing over me announced, “You are a no-go at this time, candidate.”
My heart stopped, and I wondered what to do next. Should I protest? Or just head to the practice line and retest?
I stood and asked the sergeant to show me, in the handbook, precisely which step I missed while trying my best to conceal my anger and embarrassment. But there it was: I failed to emplace the training aide far enough from the stake. No “Perfect Edge” for me.
I was in the throes of earning my Expert Soldier Badge (ESB) – a challenge to all who have completed the grueling, three-week train-up and testing required to compete for an Expert Badge. For me, ESB was particularly challenging because I was also serving as a Battalion Executive Officer (XO) in a Brigade Combat Team. I was a senior leader in the organization and took a three-week hiatus to train and test myself on basic Soldier skills. I wasn’t the only one, either. Our Battalion Commander, three Company Commanders, a Company First Sergeant, and I were candidates. Was this the right thing to do – remove so many of the senior leaders from running the Battalion so that we could train on Skill Level 1 tasks? Without question, the answer was yes.
Many of us have seen a brand-new platoon leader, who is in peak physical condition, fall flat on their face during their first time leading platoon PT (physical training). Excited to lead and looking to impress their NCOs and Soldiers with their high fitness standards, they drag their platoon through an intense workout and top it off with a run where most of the platoon falls out. Fortunately for them, once the platoon is dismissed, the experienced platoon sergeant pulls the young LT aside and tells him: “Sir, you’re in incredible shape, but what the platoon needs is for you to lead them, not destroy them. If you keep this up, within a week, half of the platoon will be on profile and our formation will be a wreck.” Deflated, but with a hard lesson under their belt, the new PL bounces back and learns how to throttle back some, so they can lead their platoon successfully. This is an example where a strength can become a weakness – an individual superpower that creates leader kryptonite.
While the PT example is pretty easy to catch because the results can be very visible, there are other examples where it’s harder to see, but course correcting is just as important. To help better illustrate this phenomenon, this article will explore the concept of the “golden mean,” provide some examples on how to apply it across the Army Leadership Requirements Model (ALRM), and then provide some TTPs to collect feedback from peers and subordinates to help leaders identify when their individual strengths may be causing counterproductive behaviors – leader kryptonite. Doing so is critical, as leadership is the most important dynamic of combat power.
The Golden Mean
The golden mean has its roots in Aristotle’s virtue ethics, which asserted that a virtuous life was found by avoiding extreme excess or deficiency of a virtue – one must live in the mean between these two extremes. For example, to be courageous is virtuous, while cowardice (a deficiency of courage) or recklessness (an excess of courage) are not virtuous. Put differently, it is the “Goldilocks principle” – you don’t want to be too cold (cowardly) or too hot (reckless), but just right (courageous).
In the Army leadership context, being virtuous is encapsulated by successfully implementing the Army Leadership Requirements Model’s Be-Know-Do framework and the supporting attributes and competencies. Leaders who exhibit infrequent counterproductive behaviors, exist across a wide range of strengths and developmental need combinations. When necessary, these leaders find ways to use their strengths to compensate for areas that need development. However, it is important to note that just as extreme weaknesses can lead to more frequent counterproductive behaviors, leaning too far into extreme strengths can cause similar problems.
Outside the Golden Mean
An example of “too much of a good thing isn’t good” – where an extreme strength becomes a weakness – is when someone with higher intellect finds success earlier in their career with the solutions they develop, but consequently never develops their delegation skills. As demands on their time increase during the field grade years, they then struggle to delegate work that subordinates can perform, resulting in less engaged and developed subordinates. Even when these leaders do delegate missions, it may tend to come only later in the day when it’s obvious that they cannot do it all, resulting in subordinates receiving the tasks so late that they consistently end up working late to achieve the mission. While the unit may be successful, it does so in a counterproductive way that harms morale and cohesion.
Another example is an officer with “high” standards that is seen by others as having impossibly high standards. This leader may get results, but the exacting standards result in their subordinates having to work overtime. Again, morale and cohesion suffer.
Below is a table that captures leader behaviors that appear to be strengths, but in reality, exist outside of the golden mean.
Creating a culture where first-line leaders recognize Soldiers for their pursuit of excellence is essential to unit success. While many military leaders focus on awards (such as achievement and commendation medals) as the primary means of acknowledging Soldiers, awards alone do not fully capture the culture we want to create. In my experience, traditional award programs – while important – often overlook the daily efforts that build strong teams and drive sustained excellence. We need something more dynamic, immediate, and ingrained in our culture.
“CULTURE is the foundation: when LEADERSHIP builds a strong CULTURE,
it breeds the BEHAVIORS that produce lasting RESULTS.”
As Kim Scott states inRadical Candor, recognition is harder than criticism because it requires genuine care and thoughtful feedback. Leaders must balance direct challenges with personal investment in their Soldiers’ development. Dan Coyle’sThe Culture Code reinforces this idea, highlighting that high-performing organizations thrive on continuous, real-time feedback, not just periodic evaluations.
It is also essential to differentiate between recognition, rewards, and awards.
Recognition is the act of identifying and expressing gratitude for achievement, service, or ability.
A reward is an informal token of positive reinforcement.
An award is a formal recognition of outstanding performance.
Unlike rewards and awards, which often come with tangible benefits, recognition is about acknowledging effort and impact, reinforces positive behaviors, and fosters a culture where Soldiers feel valued. A structured recognition system must assess significance, level of responsibility, and resulting outcomes to ensure fairness and transparency.
Principles of a Strong Recognition Program
A good recognition program must be transparent, ensuring Soldiers understand the criteria and process. Participation is essential – leaders must be actively engaged, not just compelled. Continuous feedback is also critical; recognition should be ongoing, not limited to the end of a duty cycle. Too often, leaders rely on annual awards or end-of-tour ceremonies when real impact comes from recognizing Soldiers in the moment, when their efforts are most visible and relevant. Recognition should be timely, relevant to the action taken, and genuine. The delivery should be professional and authentic, reinforcing trust and appreciation within the unit.
Recognition applies not only to Soldiers but also to their families and Department of the Army Civilians. Meaningful acts of appreciation – whether verbal praise, formal ceremonies, or simple gestures – strengthen unit cohesion and morale. Recognition is a key tool for developing resilient, innovative Soldiers who remain committed to their unit and mission. Younger generations in the military are more innovation-driven and focused on professional development. They seek purpose, mentorship, and meaningful feedback, making recognition an essential part of leadership today.
Practical Recognition Strategies
To ensure recognition becomes an integral part of unit culture, leaders should establish a structured menu of recognition options – a framework that makes recognition timely, transparent, and genuine while fitting within the unit’s operational tempo and resources. Unlike formal award programs, this menu does not necessarily need to be posted in unit areas. Doing so could turn it into a check-the-box task rather than a true leadership tool. Instead, leaders should apply it as opportunities arise. Below is an example of a recognition menu at 2-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team (7th Infantry Division), built on simple, cost-effective actions (whether through existing unit funds, leader investment, or team-based solutions) that reinforce excellence, professional growth, and unit cohesion.
LOE
What
When
Cost
Integration
Formal Introduction
Day 1 in SQD
$0 / 10min
Welcome phone call to significant other / parents
Day 1 in BDE
$0 / 5min
1st Unit PT Shirt
1st Milestone event
$20 / 5min
Family
Covering duty to give back Family time
Anniversary / Birthday
$0 / 24h
Unit Gift (Diapers, Cards, Housewarming Gift )
Birth of a Child / Home Purchase
$40 / 1h
Flowers, Cards, Share a meal /coffee
Family illness / Death
$40 / 1h
Professional
Go to event, publish on Social Media, highlight in front of formation
NCOES Graduation / Honor Graduate
$0 / 1h
Name posted on the wall
Earned / Build Experts
$0 / 30min
“Celebrity” Meal or Drink
Higher Education
$25 / 2h
Achievement
Hand-written Congratulations card
Completing a Training Event for the First Time (ACFT, Gunnery, etc.)
$1 / 10min
Display Trophy, Shout-out and Picture on Unit FB / IG Page and phone call to Family
Best Competitive Performance at SQD / PLT / CO Training Event
$20 / 1h
Indoctrination Ceremony / Name put in for school / Letter to Family
1 Yr. in SQD / Major Training Exercise – Good Standing
$3 / 1h
Exemption from Cleaning/Close Out requirement for the last day of the week
Professionalism (Right Time, Uniform, Grooming Standards) / Stewardship
$0 / NA
Improvement
Gets to plan PT Competition or workout
Physical fitness driven
$0 / 2h
Teach a class, act as an assistant instructor, stakeholder position
Performance driven
$0 / 2h
Farewell
Farewell PT Event or Team Meal
Re-Assignment Out of Team / Crew
$10 / 1 h
Formal Farewell and Card
Re-Assignment out of Squad / Platoon
$5 / 30min
Plaque and Team Photo
PCS / ETS
$30 / 5min
Recognition starts the moment a Soldier arrives in the unit. A first impression can set the tone for their entire experience, which is why taking time to personally welcome new Soldiers is crucial. As a Company Commander, my First Sergeant and I made it a point to sit down with every new Soldier upon their arrival, along with their first-line supervisor, to talk about their background, share insights about the unit, and discuss the training calendar, command philosophy, and priorities.
This wasn’t a check-the-box in-processing brief; it was a personal conversation that helped Soldiers understand what was expected of them and, more importantly, what they could expect from their leadership. We also gave them a welcome letter addressed to their family, inviting them to connect with the unit through social media and the Soldier and Family Readiness Group’s email distribution list. More often than not, we encouraged the Soldier to take a picture of the letter and send it to their parents or spouse right then and there. This small but meaningful gesture reinforced that the Army isn’t just about the individual Soldier; it’s about their support system, too.
Building Your Own Recognition Program
Leaders can adapt and expand on this structure based on their unit’s culture, available resources, and the behaviors they want to reinforce. The key to an effective recognition program is consistency; leaders should not wait until year-end award ceremonies to highlight excellence.
When creating a recognition menu, consider the following:
Make it Visible – Post the menu if desired, brief it at leader meetings, and ensure everyone understands how recognition works.
Encourage Peer Recognition – While leader-driven recognition is important, giving Soldiers the ability to recognize each other strengthens buy-in.
Include No-Cost and Low-Cost Options – Most meaningful recognition requires little to no budget; time and effort are what matter most.
Align with Unit Identity – Whether it’s Breaking the Rock, a unit coin ceremony, or a quarterly/monthly “Best Squad Competition” event, traditions reinforce culture.
Measure Effectiveness – Recognition should have an impact. If Soldiers aren’t motivated by it, adjust based on feedback.
By structuring recognition into everyday leadership practices, company commanders can create a positive, high-performing culture where Soldiers consistently strive for excellence – not because they seek rewards, but because they take pride in their service and their team.
