The Army Capstone Concept: the Army wants your comments

[Bill Jakola]

In furthering the Army's emphasis on developing leaders to succeed in the complexities of the operational environment, now and in the future, TRADOC produced a strategy that DA officially released, on 25 November. I wanted to ensure you all received this Leader Development Strategy. Additionally, we will publish an annex to this strategy for each cohort—NCO, warrant officer, and officer—in a portfolio of initiatives that will provide specific implementation detail. What do you all think about this strategy?

[RTK]

In furthering the Army's emphasis on developing leaders to succeed in the complexities of the operational environment, now and in the future, TRADOC produced a strategy that DA officially released, on 25 November. I wanted to ensure you all received this Leader Development Strategy. Additionally, we will publish an annex to this strategy for each cohort—NCO, warrant officer, and officer—in a portfolio of initiatives that will provide specific implementation detail. What do you all think about this strategy?

Where is this officially posted? Thanks.

[Bill Jakola]

The Army website should have it up, but I did not see it there yet. I will track it down and get back to you. Also, the TRADOC website should have a News Story and link up as well.

[Rob Thornton]

Such an environment demands that we develop leaders who understand the context of the factors influencing the military situation, act within that understanding, continually assess and adapt those actions based on the interactions and circumstances of the enemy and environment, consolidate tactical and operational opportunities into strategic aims, and be able to effectively transition from one form of operations to another. We seek to develop leaders who will thrive in this environment.

It has been my observation that when the next echelon of leaders understand the mission in terms of the task and purpose, and by understand I mean they really understand all the supporting collective, leader and individual tasks that go into it, it is then that they feel free to allow greater subordinate decision making and initiative. That is how they weigh and assume risk, and develop their own risk mitigation measures (bigger reserve, alternative COAs, etc.)

To support this shift in the next higher leader echelon during training and operations which supports our leader development goals, the defining of the tasks (and their supporting tasks) in conditions where the standard tactical tasks are inadequate is needed. At the experiments, AARs (of all types), and theater collection efforts I’ve participated in, reviewed or seen, I’ve not seen more than a skin deep attempt to document or create the list of tasks individuals and units have done (or would be required to do in the case of experimentation).

Part of this may be where we catch people in theater or upon their return, part of it also may be the way we collect – I’m not completely sure. Those interviewed may not have deemed it critical for one reason or another, they may have assumed it was something that someone else should have done but could not, or it could just be that because we caught them at the end of their tour, the tasks that stood out were those that were strongly rooted in emotion.

With respect to experimentation it may just be due to resources, and the way seminar war games, and other forms of experimentation are structured. It would take a great deal more time, and detailed information about the environment that really replicates the frictions that impose the types of unanticipated tasks on us that actual operations do. It would also require an increase in analytic capacity I think to be present in the experiment so more than just the big rocks are captured.

I think until we can identify the range of tasks that we expect individuals and units may have to do (either because it is part of the identified mission, or because the other folks we’d prefer to be doing those tasks are not present or able) in the COE, then we won’t be able to really look at what individual or unit capabilities are required, and we will not be able to look at how training, education, assignments and other leader development opportunities, etc. need to be tweaked to support it. We will not be able to tell ourselves what we want leaders at each level to be capable of doing, and we won’t be able to allow them to stretch their authorities and initiatives to develop them. After all, just because the right, or identified person, unit or agency is unavailable to do a task does not mean the requirement goes away. However, I do think not understanding the tasks, and not knowing which capabilities are required to do those tasks conflicts with our leader development goals as stated in the paper.

While some work has been done in task analysis, from what I have seen it has largely been limited to work groups which convene for a 2-3 day period somewhere, and because of self imposed constraints have been somewhat limited to looking at how existing identified tasks might fit somewhere else vs. looking at the a problem or objective and describing the over arching task(s), and then doing the difficult and time consuming work of task decomposition that produces the type of supporting collective, leader and individual tasks that we have in our list of “tactical tasks” and which we have spent years developing training strategies and resources around.


Ken's recent comments (ref. Niel's article) raised another related question: what artificial constraints do we impose into the environment that either facilitate this, or hinder it?


Best Rob

[marct]

Ken's recent comments (ref. Niel's article) raised another related question: what artificial constraints do we impose into the environment that either facilitate this, or hinder it?

Some great comments, Rob. Since I'm tied up with other stuff, I just want to address your last question which, IMHO, is really a crucial one.

As far as "artificial constraints" are concerned, for the purposes of this answer, I want to define "artificial" as "systems constructed by humans", just to avoid the possible understanding of it as that+ an emotional connotation of wasted resources .

Okay, probably the most important and easily observable system is the HR / personelle system. This is intimately tied in with leader development and pretty much every aspect of training and operations. This system controls both the day-to-day lived reality of most people in terms of extra paperwork, boxes that have to checked for promotion, etc., etc., ad nauseum. It is also crucial in defining the status system the Army is operating under or, to be more accurate, the formal status system. It does absolutely no good, and quite a bit of long term harm, to develop, say, an excel;lent junior leader program and then not have that impact their career paths positively both formally (e.g maybe a merit pay raise for excellent performance) or phenomenologically (i.e. they still see useless twits commanding them).

A second system is really cultural at the policy level. Leadership, as with most things, is a composite of a skill set that can be taught and a talent that is inborn. If you've got a really good talent, the training should bring that out and enhance it. having said that, the model I assume exists (and there is a lot to support it), says that any one-size-fits-all policy model will encourage the pursuit of mediocrity. This basically means that recognized and supported career paths have to include what might be called "excellence in place"; this avoids the Peter Principle. It also means that you have to have parallel career paths defined by talent groups.

At any rate, that's where my thinking is running at the moment.

Cheers,

Marc

[Bill Jakola]

Okay, the Combined Arms Center will post the ALDS on their website, on 10 December. Here is a link to the CAC website.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/

Also, the TRADOC website should have a story out soon.

http://www.army.mil/info/organizatio...ucture/tradoc/

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Marc,

Good comment, and you are right, I did mean artificial as man made - more specifically - not necessarily required for the system to operate, and possibly contrary to the system to operate at its best (more/most effective).

Constraints could be to the benefit (looking for a specific tolerance) or the detriment of the desired outcome (wrong tolerance and/or out of tolerance relative to the needs). The ability to affect these constraints (policies, biases, etc.) could be within a service's or organization's ability while others (in this case particularly those that are legislated and politically sensitive) may be beyond its ability to affect. They could also be hard to root out, but I think begins with developing an understanding of how the system really operates relative to how we desire it to operate, and what the effects are of our constraints. Then leadership can take better steps in modifying the system - hopefully adding some kind of measure to see if its now producing within the desired tolerances, and if in fact the new tolerance fits the actual requirement.

I'm sure that sounds mechanistic, but it is a "production system", and the bigger the system (be it PME, recruiting and assessment, universities, training programs,etc.), the more the output is going to look like a "product". The smaller the system (e.g. down at a company or BN level), the more control you have over the output, and the more it can be tailored to specific conditions - even to do as a mentor of mine recommends "putting round pegs in round holes".

The question is how good do you want that product to be relative to the requirement? - again, in this case I think that means defining the tasks you want your people to be capable of executing to reasonable standard at a specific time (position and/or grade) - the product in this case is individual leader capability. If you cannot name and define the tasks then the output (capability) probably does not vary much from where you were - and you are probably limited on your ability to affect the constraints and provide rationale for change.

I also needed to make a clarification on what I meant by identify and mitigate risk - I was referring to the ability to see the broader range of implications or outcomes associated with an action and then consider if it is the right or best possible action, and if it is, then to prepare to deal with the outcome. I bring this up because I have seen "mitigation" used to mean "avoid" which is not what I had in mind, and often results in greater risk to mission and those conducting it.

Best, Rob