Hi Rob,

Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
Are there going to be any specific qualifications of functions the Army wants its leaders of a given rank or position to be capable of doing? Are we going to see for example what the Army wants out of a DIV CDR or MG? Will we be able to walk that back through one or more developmental paths and look at what possible assignments or experiences might produce that leader?
Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post
I do not claim to be all things TRADOC and do not know the answers to your many excellent questions. What I say here is only the view from my foxhole. But, I can tell you that the ALDS is a base document that will have annexes that should help answer at least some of your questions.
This is, of course, one of the most crucial things. I've already emailed Bill with a suggested POC from the CF who has done that for us (shoot me an email if you want same ).

The ALDS is, from what I can see, a political document - a strategy for competing in the bureaucratic battlespace. The appendices - and why is TRADOC using the French Annexes (?!) - should contain the actualities of it. Personally, I would hope that they have a good theoretical model of leader development, but I doubt they do which, BTW, is not a slam at TRADOC. The best ones I've seen, coming out of both the CF and the management literature, are still pretty sparse in terms of really thinking through implications and connections and they are, IMO, based on demonstrably false metaphysical and ontological models.

My musings at this point in time lean towards the idea that what TRADOC should seriously consider doing is to develop such a theoretical model using a variant of red teaming with an extremely interdisciplinary crowd of people before they produce cast in stone operational outlines. The analogy I like to use is that you would want to plan out a campaign until you had a map of the battlespace, so why are you doing so in this instance?

What bugs me is that there actually are a decent collection of methodological techniques for developing such a model, but they don't appear to be used. Building a map of the campaign territory isn't that hard, but it is complex and requires some very odd ways of looking at things (e.g. imagine trying to design mapping conventions for a terrain that is constantly changing; you know how much fun that is ).