Have We Removed Leadership from Leader

Development1
Every year, new command teams spend thoughtful hours crafting the words that will precisely
convey their version of unit success. This intent typically reaches the service members in the form
of an organizational mission statement or Unit Vision. And if your experience is anything like
mine, leader development takes center stage. When those command teams brief their vision to the
unit, the slides inevitably include phrases like these:
Developing leaders is our #1 priority.
Leader Development is in everything we do.
The heart of this unit is its leaders.
Good leadership is our most important asset.
Sound about right?
But when was the last time you participated in a unit leader development event that was focused on
the practice of leadership? Not doctrine, not staff processes, not command supply discipline
leadership! Its probably been a while.
Its been a while because collectively we have compartmentalized the study of leadership to the
schoolhouse. Weve also adopted the belief that training events fulfill the requirement to develop
leaders. When Leader Development is in everything we do, going to the range is leader
development; so is doing PT and inspecting vehicles. Leader development has evolved to
encompass everything except the very activity its name implies teaching our people how to be
good leaders.
Allow me to explain why this has occurred and what you can do about it.
A Succession of Skills
Developing leaders is the bedrock of sustaining a capable, multigenerational military. Technologies
come and go, but its our people who make the decisive difference. And the mandate to develop
those people is quite clear. Take a look at the Armys guidance on developing leaders:
Accomplishing the current mission is not enoughthe leader is responsible for developing
individuals and improving the organization for the near- and long-term. (1, ADP 6-22, Army
Leadership)
Unit training and leader development are the Armys life-blood. Army leaders train units to be
versatile. They develop subordinate leadersmilitary and Army civiliansto be competent,
confident, agile, and adaptive using the Army leader development model. Units and leaders master
individual and collective tasks required to execute the units designed capabilities and accomplish
its mission. (1, ADP 7-0, Training Units and Developing Leaders)
A consistent theme in Army doctrine is that skills are the metric of leader development. Leaders
acquire, refine, and implement skills that allow them to accomplish tasks at increasing levels of
1

http://www.themilitaryleader.com/leadership-and-leader-development/, accesat in 21 NOV

2016.

responsibilities. This association makes it easy for units to make training synonymous with leader
development.
Commanders implement programs that typically include classes, exercises, and events focusing on
topics like warfighting doctrine, command supply discipline, career development, maintenance, the
new OER/NCOER, and so on. In their messaging, they emphasize getting out to the range with
your troops, conducting regular counseling, and doing good PT. These events fulfill the idea of
leader development, which in reality is simply skill development.
Individuals need such skills to perform fighting units must conduct these activities to succeed
but its leadership that drives people to perform those tasks well, or at all. Without strong
leadership, the effectiveness of every other activity is compromised.
The concept of leader development has devolved into skill development, where the art of leadership
is often overlooked.
Stuck in the Schoolhouse

Looking at the Armys leader development model from ADP 7-0, leader development occurs as
Soldiers cycle through three domains. Institutional schooling teaches the fundamentals, operational
assignments help leaders convert knowledge into practice, and self-development fills the gaps as a
career progresses. In this model, training, education, and experience alternate as the primary means
of development in each domain.
The problem is that todays Army culture views the study of leadership as Education and is quite
comfortable letting the Institutional Domain teach it. Do we talk about the principles of leadership
at the range or standing around in formation? No, we talk about them in the schoolhouse, where we
spend a small portion of our careers. Weve come to believe that participation in unit training
activities is sufficient to grow the leadership competencies of our Soldiers.
This belief is inaccurate at best, as it is not uncommon to find that a good tactician is a bad leader
one may find recent case studies in the battalion and brigade commander firings of the last few
years. But there is also a fundamental flaw in the belief that great leaders will naturally emerge from
leader development programs comprised solely of unit training.
Its on you, follower.
2

In a leader development program that excludes the study of leadership, responsibility for discerning
the appropriate leadership lessons rests with the subordinates. Followers must have a desire to learn,
be observant of their leaders, and know what leadership qualities to look for and internalize. All of
this requires not only keen intuition but the time and mental energy to do so while fulfilling the
duties of their current position. This is a lot to ask of our subordinates.
To truly grow leaders instead of just skilled followers, leaders need to teach topics like example
setting, self-development, learning from failure, building trust, having a success mindset, protecting
the team, demanding the best performance, and so on. These arent technical competencies, theyre
not warfighting competenciestheyre leadership competencies. If leaders fail to make these
lessons explicit during training and leader development events, they should not expect
subordinates to model the behavior and become good leaders themselves.
Leader development means teaching the How and Why, while the team is doing the What. Leader
development means elevating the conversation above the level of task execution. Leader
development means talking about leadership on a daily basis, not just in the schoolhouse. Leader
development is incomplete without leadership.
What Do You Think About Leader Development?
I want to know if you agree with this assertion. In the next post, Ill make some recommendations
for making leadership a focus of leader development. But for now, a few questions:
Have our leader development programs excluded the study of leadership?
Have we come to view training as a fulfillment of leader development?
Do we confine discussion about leadership to the schoolhouse?
How is your unit making leaders and not just skilled followers?