How to Think, Not What to Think at Leavenworth

[Dr Jack]

From "The Leavenworth Staff College: A Historical Overview" by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel, Military Review 77(5), September-October 1997:

The Leavenworth methodology for teaching problem-solving skills has remained constant since the 1890s when Swift introduced an educational technique known as the applicatory method, under which lecture, recitation and memorization gave way to hands-on exercises in analytical problem solving such as map exercises, war games and staff rides-all designed to teach students how to think, not what to think...

[selil]

From "The Leavenworth Staff College: A Historical Overview" by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel, Military Review 77(5), September-October 1997:

It is the difference between computational science and computer technology. Technology is about tools and the application of knowledge rather than the discussion of knowledge.

[Dr Jack]

From "Preparing Field Grade Leaders for Today and Tomorrow" by BG Volney J. Warner and LTC (Ret) James H. Willbanks, Ph.D., Military Review, January-February 2006:

A New Philosophy
To deal with the complexities and challenges of post-Cold War full-spectrum operations, CGSC has changed its educational philosophy. The institution has adjusted its approach from training students what to think to focus more on teaching students how to think. This approach emphasizes critical reasoning; creative thinking; complex problem solving; service and joint, interagency, and multinational competence; transformation; cultural awareness; and regional expertise.

Since the 1890s (as indicated by Dr. Gabel's article), CGSC changed its focus from "what to think to how to think." It doesn't hurt to remind CGSC of the focus, but the concept is certainly not new to CGSC...

[Stratiotes]

The article posted sounds very much like Maj Don Vandergriff's book,
Raising the Bar. It is well worth taking a look at.

[SWJED]

The article posted sounds very much like Maj Don Vandergriff's book,
Raising the Bar. It is well worth taking a look at.

Don is one of our bloggers, and as you implied one who knows about PME.

[Granite_State]

A thought: when General Caldwell mentions giving serving officers experience working on Capitol Hill, isn't there a real danger of them learning Washington's lessons too well? By which I mean the budget game, the way in which the different services get their share of the pie, most often through big-ticket procurements that can farm out pork to Congressional Districts. I would think that getting officers more involved on the Hill may give them valuable experience "outside the box," but at the risk of dragging them further into the corrupt game that sees us spending hundreds of billions on weapons that won't help us in the wars we're fighting now, and most likely won't help us much down the road either.

[Rob Thornton]

Hey GS,

I got to meet a couple of officers working the Hill recently (we were doing an Inter-Agency Staff ride as part of the BSAP (FA 59) curricula) . While one of them did spend some of his time discussing Army budget with Hill staffers and members, they seemed to spend the bulk of their time working to get Congressional answers on the war from the Army staff, or about soldiers from their districts/states. I'd also mention that during and between, they spent time educating both Congress and staffers on the Army - its culture, history, etc.

Overall, I think the amount of officers that cold actually work on the Hill at any given time is probably pretty small, but the opportunity to bring knowledge in and also take knowledge of Congress out is healthy - it helps leaders understand civil military relations and to be able to articulate that back into the mainstream Army is probably worth the investment. However, you bring up a very valid concern, these days to get the most out of our people we should ask why we want to do something - and what are the good and bad consequences of doing so.

Best Regards, Rob

[SteveMetz]

A thought: when General Caldwell mentions giving serving officers experience working on Capitol Hill, isn't there a real danger of them learning Washington's lessons too well? By which I mean the budget game, the way in which the different services get their share of the pie, most often through big-ticket procurements that can farm out pork to Congressional Districts. I would think that getting officers more involved on the Hill may give them valuable experience "outside the box," but at the risk of dragging them further into the corrupt game that sees us spending hundreds of billions on weapons that won't help us in the wars we're fighting now, and most likely won't help us much down the road either.

The Air Force had a program (I don't know if it still exists) where they picked really elite captains, assigned them to Washington for two years, but moved them to a different job somewhere in the NCR every few months. When they later came back as colonels, they kind of knew how the place worked.

I've heard lots of Army generals brag that they never served in the Pentagon until they were a flag. The Air Force would never do that. That is one of the reasons that, for decades, the Air Force has whupped the Army in political/budget battles.