Leadership: More Than Mission Accomplishment

THE QUALITY of Army leadership has recently been questioned. If you believe what is being written, there exists in the Army today * A serious generation gap between Baby Boomers and Generation X, resulting in a dramatic increase in captains leaving the Army.2 * An increasing lack of trust between junior and senior officers, according to Army surveys of majors attending the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC).3 * An increasing number of senior officers turning down battalion and brigade commands, citing their disillusionment with command climate and senior leadership.4 Do these trends indicate that many senior leaders lack the interpersonal skills or the moral conviction necessary to practice sound leadership? Certainly junior leaders' growing disenchantment with senior leaders indicates a problem, if one assumes that perception is reality. The Army can neither confirm nor deny a leadership problem exists because it chooses not to comprehensively or officially evaluate the quality of leadership development and the effectiveness of its organizations. Instead, it concentrates overwhelmingly on evaluating the quality of leadership development by leaders' product: mission accomplishment. A cascading effect ensues. The Army emphasizes mission accomplishment over other leadership competencies, such as morale and discipline. Mission accomplishment is rewarded as the sole criterion of good leadership. Leadership training and supervisor reinforcement is limited and inadequate. Therefore leaders are not fully developed. Comprehensive leadership is not practiced. Instead, the primary focus is on getting the job done, often at the expense of people and the organization. Subordinates become disillusioned, which precipitates a leadership crisis. In theory, the Army's popular slogan "Mission First, People Always" is on target. In practice, however, Army leaders often put mission first but neglect people, especially in leader-development programs. That the Army is in the midst of a trust crisis is not surprising. U.S. Army General (Retired) Frederick Kroesen reiterates that this crisis is not new. In fact, during at least six distinct periods in Army history since World War I, lack of trust and confidence in senior leaders caused the so-called best and brightest to leave the Army in droves.5 The question is, "What can be done to prevent this cycle from continuing?" Field Manual (FM) 22-100, Army Leadership, strongly emphasizes mission accomplishment as a leader's key responsibility.6 The FM quotes General Douglas MacArthur's warning that "our mission... is to win our wars. . . . There is no substitute for victory; that if you lose, the nation will be destroyed."7 Yet, unlike earlier versions, FM 22-100 equally emphasizes that "being just technically and tactically proficient may not be enough [and] that the Army would need leaders of competence and character who not only acted to accomplish their mission but also acted to improve themselves, their leaders, their unit, and achieved excellence."8 This new balance acknowledges the Army's repeated failure to emphasize adequately the full spectrum of leader attributes, skills, and actions, and it provides a good first step toward correcting this deficiency. But, does it go far enough? The Army's leadership model relies on the three fundamental tenets of Be, Know, Do. These, in turn, rest on nine supporting pillars of values; attributes; character; knowledge; experience-based training; counseling and mentoring; mission accomplishment; organizational effectiveness (OE); and leader development. Leadership, similar to a physical structure, will only stand firm if its supporting pillars or foundation remain solid. Previous and current senior Army leaders have failed to institute this holistic approach to leadership. Army chiefs of staff have claimed that leadership is key to military success, but they have failed to recognize that unless all of the competencies are solidly developed, the Army leadership structure will collapse. …