The relationship between the CSA’s message on advising & Key Ldr Development PT 1
Given the thrust of the CSA’s recent message about advising FSFs, and the emphasis placed on it by the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the CJCS, and the Secretary of Defense, its worth considering how we assign value to “key” leadership developmental assignments. When we think of the path to command what comes to mind? Why do we hold command above all else? These are not easy questions; nor are they accusatory. They simply are. It might be said we hold command highest because it is the recognizable manifestation of value to one’s efforts and professional life. It is recognition in a way that is far beyond increased prestige and financial worth, it is a recognition founded on the trust of lives, acumen of skill, worth to a cause greater then one’s self. Even though we know that the majority of time for most will be spent in some other job besides command, command at its various levels is still the apex for most. Undoubtedly there is also a darker human side to command, the attraction of authority, the sublime energy that accompanies it, the need for recognition, etc. – but publicly and privately we fight to eschew those darker qualities and emphasize & reinforce those positive qualities. How is the CSA’s message the first positive step toward the Army institutionalizing SFA and the advisory mission? How does it relate to what we value most? Why was the CSA explicit in his reference to the future of relevant Land Power? First we need to consider what we assign value to and why.
Developing our Sense of Value
We seek to promote based on demonstrated potential and suitability for increased responsibility and authority? However, because those are somewhat subjective, we have a value system that takes the form of evaluations and assignments. This is a personal history that indicates why that person should be advanced as someone whose character espouses what we value. The two go hand in hand, and drive current performance and future assignments. At an early age in their professional career a LT learns that among the most sought after jobs he or she competes for amongst their peers in their first assignment is to specialty platoon leader – for a Combat Arms officer, those goals are along the lines of Scout PL, Mortar PL, and Support PL(before modularity). The first – Scout or Recon PL comes with a healthy amount of independence and trust – the perception is your platoon is providing the basis of the intelligence which will drive the BN’s operations. The Mortar Platoon is the BN CDR’s organic fire support – slightly less sexy then the Scout PL, but still a specialty platoon with a healthy part of the BC’s combat power – your range gives you a different perspective and impact on the course of operations. The Support Platoon (and I understand that with modularity we’ve changed the MTO&E but stay with me because this is just as much about those leaders who grew up under that MTO&E as those who are growing up modular) was less sexy still, but among the most important functions as it was the BN CDR’s logistics and sustainment lifeline. From there, these LTs would become company XOs (if they were not already) or an “A” in the staff – “S3A” being among the most important to them as it was about operations.
It is worth considering our perception of how we advance, and what are the other things that occur as a result? How many times do we hear a higher echelon CDR refer to when they were a “this” or when they were “that”? There is also the consideration of what development occurred within that LT as a result of what assignments he was given. How does that shape their perception of what to assign value? These are not qualifications of good or bad, just of relevance. However it does get to the issue of how we institutionalize value. As a LT you learn that there are some jobs that have more value then others, and you start to understand why and what qualities make the assignment of those jobs or missions more likely. You also begin to notice things about the leaders above and around you, and you begin to enquire about what jobs they had, and construct a theory about how they advanced. You make decisions about what kind of leader you intend to be and construct a plan on how to get there. There are variables and ripples that occur before and after, but it is usually not too far off the mark.
As a CPT we yearn for command (for us Army types it’s usually the first time we get to put commander in our job description). Usually we are assigned to a staff position first – probably on either a BN or BCT staff, but it is not unheard of to get “stuck” on a higher echelon staff. This gives us time to season, but also time to be evaluated by those BN and BCT commanders who want to ensure they put round pegs in round holes and don’t place a guy in command before they’ve done all they can to develop that leader. In rare cases, it may be that the doubts are so high as to that CPTs ability, the higher echelon commander wants to see if the faults are such that they are unsuitable for command – but this is unusual as the developmental experiences have developed the CPT’s abilities as to do good enough.
As a staff CPT we learn about the personalities in the organization and we further refine our values that we began as a LT. We consider the advice of our immediate boss, that of the BN CDR, and to varying degrees, that of serving commanders. I say that because at this point we usually are critiquing the guys whose jobs we want, and our perspectives are subject to staff and self bias – it always looks easier until you have to actually go out and do it while hewing on the responsibility that comes with it. We are further planning out how things will go. We know which commanders are rotating when, we learn about their companies, sit through their QTBs, hear about the things they did right and the things they did wrong and we convince ourselves that it can be done better. We also assign value to those over us, some of which is based on where they come from, what they have done, and how they are to work for. We associate and infer – often inaccurately attributing a flaw or strength to an assignment vs. the character of the leader.
As commanders, we learn the value of a second command – in much the same way we leaned the value of specialty PL or trusted XO. However this time, we associate more “command time” with future potential for command at higher level. It may be as an HHC/HHT/HHD, or it may be in the Old Guard, or some other formation – the important thing is it’s a “command”. Again, it is neither good nor bad, just a matter of relevance.
Following command there are several options. However we learned some important things from command. We learned the BDE S3 job is the “king maker” so to speak (we also learned its allot of hard work and a family time killer – as well as often pissing off damn near everybody because there is no way to make everyone happy) – we learn that just by observing. We may not like the BDE 3, but we generally respect the position and the potential it brings. We also get exposed to the BCT CDR as our senior rater. We start to ponder how he does his job, and how did he get his job? What is his background? What did he do? How well did he do it? We learn about the relevancy of resident war college, SAMS and a host of other developmental schools and assignments. Not good or bad, but relevant here in that we have to make decisions about our viability for future command. Hopefully the BN and BCT CDR come forward, and tell you during your OER counseling (and informal or formal periodic counseling throughout). This is where guys and gals need to make life changing decisions, there will be other factors – family, age, ambition, competing priorities, interests, etc.- but most folks I know make significant decisions here.
The years between command and a KD job as a FG also matter. One of the best jobs to prepare you for doing well as an “S3” or “XO” was to go and be a CTC OC (Observer Controller). There you could benefit by the experiences of many units and leaders who came to the CTCs in preparation for deployment - or before the war as an indicator of that unit’s readiness to deploy (I list both because our point of reference for how we use the CTCs varies with our age and experience). As company commanders we knew many BN & BDE S3s and BN and BDE CDRs who at some point had been an OC at a CTC. In our OER counseling we were often gratified to hear our rater or SR tell us they’d like to see us at a CTC as it would improve our ability to be good BN and BDE CDRs. As an OC (most of us have done OC duty somewhere either at home station, as an OC augmentee, or at a CTC) you get immersed in tactics, a chance to consider how doctrine works, and most importantly the chance benefit from “observing” and thinking about how a multitude of leaders and units conducted their selves under a variety of conditions. You get to do this without having to take on the responsibilities associated with those positions.
It is another “key developmental” experience afforded by the Army because the need for useful feedback to the unit is combined with the opportunity to step outside and look from a unique perspective. That “value” is demonstrated down the road because as “3”, “XO” or “CDR” that experience can be leveraged to make better decisions. Since not everyone can or should be an OC at a CTC, the value is increased. The same is true with other assignments or experiences we assign the value of “key developmental” experience to.
part 2 posted below
Bookmarks