Lead with the best version of yourself.

Organizational Leadership

Soldiers With Stripes: A Perspective On Junior NCOs

By James Duncan

Recently, I engaged a trusted squad leader for some much-needed feedback. I wanted to know his perspective on the state of the company: what are we doing well and where do we need a course correction? After several minutes, the NCO steered the conversation in a direction that really struck me. 

When describing the landscape of junior NCOs across our military police formation, he said that an alarming number of team leaders are simply playing the part of a leader instead of truly carrying themselves as one. From what he has witnessed, “Soldiers with stripes” are being put into leadership positions without the tools to properly coach and mentor our young Soldiers. 

His observations mirror my own. Our sergeants, the most critical leaders in the formation, have consistently demonstrated that most do not possess the experience, technical expertise, support system, or mindset to perform at a high level or prepare our Soldiers for professional excellence.

“Leading Up” as a Company Grade Officer

by Mike Martino

“Someone got Sir off topic again…” Forty of us, students at the Infantry Basic Officer Leader Course (IBOLC), were huddled into a corner of Building 466A listening to our platoon tactical trainer. We were supposed to be discussing engagement area development through the lens of Musicians of Mars, a popular vignette published by the Center for Army Lessons Learned. However, a question from a lieutenant had sent our instructor off-topic. This accidental detour led to a conversation that forever shaped my view of leadership and influenced my conduct as an Army officer.

Replying to an inquiry on how a platoon leader could be responsible for so much, Captain Keith Hannah answered simply, “You’re a company officer first.” He explained that though a platoon leader should be concerned with the performance of the platoon, the platoon will not succeed if the company isn’t running smoothly. The additional duties, needs of the command, and company systems have to be fulfilled first. He warned us to not neglect these duties, to be prepared to work in a capacity larger than just the platoon leader, and to perform these duties regardless of their impact to our individual platoons or our own personal gain.

I took his words to heart. This was my introduction to leading up, a concept of influence beyond one’s boundaries, duties, or scope. It’s an idea comparable to “extending influence beyond the chain of command” identified in the Army Leader Requirements Model of ADP 6-22. However, it shouldn’t be simply construed as “solving higher’s problems” or “pleasing the boss.” Leading up is much broader. It’s an approach affected through communication, competence, commitment, and character that yields organizational success in all directions, not just upward. This is how one leads up.

Harnessing the Power of Knowledge Management 

by Jakob Hutter

Reinventing the wheel is often discouraged. But COL Schmidt, the Director of Army University Press at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, argues it’s crucial for leaders to make impactful decisions and drive meaningful change in their organizations. 

COL Schmidt’s insights align with the Army’s emphasis on knowledge management (KM), aimed at improving efficiency and information retention within an organization. KM, outlined in ATP 6-01.1, aligns people, processes, tools, and organization to enhance shared understanding and mission success. It encompasses fostering a culture of knowledge sharing, optimizing processes, utilizing appropriate tools to allow commanders and staff to better exercise command and control through the operations process. By leveraging KM principles and processes, leaders can effectively drive the changes necessary to meet evolving challenges and ensure mission success. 

It’s Not Innovation Versus Readiness—Innovation Is Readiness

By James Ashworth, with Rebecca Segal

The U.S. Army has been charged to transform in contact, using deployments and exercises to stimulate innovation. To do so successfully, while still training your tactical mission, requires a conscious approach to leadership, risk, and learning to make the most of the opportunity – something my former battalion had to fulfill with two big changes to our mission in the same year: to innovate and then to deploy. As a British Army Officer on exchange to the United States, working for the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, I wanted to share the lessons we learned from that experience.

Innovation

As I boarded a plane heading to Cyprus in late 2020 with the battalionI assumed command of only a few weeks before, I reflected on our extraordinary circumstances. We were in the grip of a global pandemic and had endured multiple phases of isolation and testing to move nearly a thousand soldiers and families overseas – the first such move by the British Army since COVID. The battalion had returned from a deployment to Afghanistan just before I arrived and was now heading out on a two-year mission to Cyprus. Significantly, the battalion was also tasked to lead a two-year, $160 million program of experimentation designed to improve light force lethality. 

I had never been a battalion commander before. But between Army doctrine, mentors, brilliant subordinates, and my own experience, I had a clear framework for how to prepare and lead the unit for a combat deployment. Yet leading a major transformation program in tandem to our core mission was entirely new ground. Along with considering how best to deliver this task, I also wondered whether the additional innovation demand would detract from the unit’s combat readiness. 

Why You Should Reinvent the Wheel

by Todd Schmidt

How many times throughout your career has someone told you to not reinvent the wheel? 

Scientists estimate that the wheel has been around since about 3500 BC. Originally used for manufacturing pottery, milling, irrigation, and children’s toys, someone figured out that it would be great for hauling (the wheelbarrow). Then someone else figured out that the wheel could be used for transportation (the chariot). From solid wheels, carved from stone and wood, to spoked, metal-rimmed wheels, to the basic pneumatic technology we see in use today, the simple machine of wheel and axle is timeless. 

Yet, while the general principle of the wheel has not changed in about 6000 years, the concept of the wheel has been reinvented countless times throughout history. The material compounds, design construct, tread efficiency and longevity have all changed. And they will continue to change. These factors to include advanced digital components of future wheels will be unlike anything we see on our roads today. 

So why have humans continued to reinvent the wheel? 

To make things better. 

The Timeless Relevance of Classical War Theories in Modern Warfare

Montage of Sun Tzu, by the Chinese School, 19th century, via FineArtAmerica; with The Battle of Yešil-köl-nör by Charles Nicolas Cochin II, via The Met; and Carl von Clausewitz by Franz Michelis Wilhelm, 1830, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin

by Brandon Eans

In a world where technological advancements continuously reshape the battlefield, the U.S. Army’s premier institutions stand as a testament to the enduring power of ancient warfare principles. Embracing this timeless wisdom, Carl von Clausewitz, a nineteenth-century Prussian philosopher of war, observed that “The study of war and warfare is meant to educate the mind of the future commander, or, more accurately, to guide him in his self-education, not to accompany him to the battlefield; just as a wise teacher guides and stimulates a young man’s intellectual development, but is careful not to lead him by the hand for the rest of his life.” This philosophy deeply influenced retired Army Lieutenant General (LTG) H. R. McMaster, especially during his tenure as Commanding General (CG) of the Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE) and Fort Moore. The Centers of Excellence are responsible for educating, training, and developing leaders to fight and win on any battlefield, present and future. At the MCoE, LTG McMaster ardently advocated for studying classical war theories, recognizing their timeless relevance in preparing military leaders. 

Classical war theorists like Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, a fifth-century B.C. general and strategist, remain critically valuable sources of wisdom for current and future military leaders. Writings like  Clausewitz’s theory of friction in war and Sun Tzu’s theory of deception continue to equip modern military professionals to understand and navigate the modern battlefield. Despite the significant evolution of modern warfare, technology, and the geopolitical landscape, these historical strategists still provide indispensable insights for professional military education (PME). The question is not whether these classical theories are still relevant, but how they can continue to educate and shape the understanding of war among leaders today. 

The Army Profession: Reconnecting with our Sense of Duty

by Daniel Blackmon

In early December, I was fortunate enough to sit in on a presentation on the profession of arms, given by General (ret.) David Perkins. He asked: “The Army Profession…do we actually have a profession or do we have a bureaucracy?” 

While there is no doubt some bureaucracy in our military system, Perkins noted that there is a difference between having bureaucracy and being a bureaucracy. He defined bureaucracies as how to do things. He noted that typically, bureaucracies are built around organizations where people do jobs, have tasks, and are motivated by pay, their boss, time off, or certain benefits. We can all imagine why that would not work well in the military. Employees with jobs are motivated by metrics. Instead, professionals are motivated out of duty.

If we take motivation as the differentiator between a bureaucracy and a profession, the question should then become—where, as an Army, are we now? 

Pluralistic Ignorance: A Danger to Organizational Culture and Leader Selection

by Shane Hughes

“A toxic leader devastates the esprit de corps, discipline, initiative, drive, and willing service of subordinates and the units they comprise.” (Christopher Doty, 2013)

The U.S. military prides itself on developing leaders. We continuously update leadership training and spend millions of dollars each year to send officers to leadership training events and formal schooling. Unfortunately, in many organizations like the U.S. military, a psychological phenomenon called pluralistic ignorance enables bad leaders to rise through the ranks despite their character flaws and poor leadership skills. Military culture is uniquely vulnerable to this phenomenon, and service members must diligently work to prevent it.

Pluralistic ignorance refers to a situation in which virtually every member of a group privately disagrees with what each believes are the prevailing attitudes and beliefs of the group as a whole. A classic example is when someone in a group of friends steals from a store, other members of the group may remain silent because each person thinks the majority of the group condones the behavior. Another example of pluralistic ignorance in a military context is the prevailing attitude toward mental health. Several members of a unit may be struggling with their mental health, but each of them believes that they are the only ones feeling this way. Service members may think their peers are coping just fine, so they choose not to speak up for fear of appearing weak or unfit for duty. 

The U.S. military is an organization uniquely prone to pluralistic ignorance, where strong group norms and a high value placed on conformity create an environment where pluralistic ignorance thrives. This leaves the military vulnerable to toxic leaders who manipulate the promotion system to advantage themselves and rise to the highest ranks while their subordinates muzzle themselves because of pluralistic ignorance. Understanding and deliberately combating the negative effects of pluralistic ignorance is vital for maintaining the U.S. military’s competitive edge. To combat pluralistic ignorance, U.S. military professionals must understand why their own service culture is uniquely vulnerable to it.

Stories of Service: Mentor Your Subordinate to Engage with the Public

By Brian C. Gerardi

Each year, our nation observes holidays centered on its service members and veterans. These commemorations—Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day and Veterans Day—often include invitations (“tasked” or “asked”) to senior service members and decorated retirees to speak on behalf of the profession of arms, to share stories of service and sacrifice. This article serves as an open call to senior leaders with decades of experience and frequent opportunities to publicly represent the profession of arms: consider selecting a more junior soldier to speak in your place. Coach them through this opportunity. It will benefit them, the profession, and the public.

The Department of Defense pays a premium for advertising, especially to major sports (e.g., NFL, CrossFit, and even NASCAR), to broaden its outreach in a challenging recruiting environment with an ever shrinking pool of qualified candidates for service. The truth is that every military service branch has a readily available ensemble of potential recruiters. Whether sharing with civilian friends about their military experiences or convincing a teammate or colleague to remain in service, our junior leaders are a tangible and more easily identifiable representative with whom to connect. Enabling our junior leaders to engage with the public leverages their connection with certain audiences and concurrently adds to their professional growth.

Three Reasons Junior Leaders Engaging the Public is a Win-Win