Most Important Area of Training for Modern Military Leadership

¶ … Training

Most Important Area Of Training For Modern Military Leadershi

Resiliency: The single most important area of training for modern military leadership?

The military life is invariably a stressful one and service in the modern military brings unique psychological and physical stresses to troops. According to Bartone & Armstrong (2009), the most important character that must be fostered in contemporary training is that of resilience. "Research over the past 25 years has confirmed that psychological hardiness is a key stress-resilience factor. People who show high levels of psychological hardiness exhibit greater commitment (the abiding sense that life is meaningful and worth living), control (the belief that one chooses and influences his or her own future), and acceptance of challenge (a perspective on change in life as something that is interesting and valuable)."[footnoteRef:1] Of course, technical competency is required and soldiers must be physically fit to withstand the rigors of combat. But resiliency in character is essential, for without it, all of the other components of military prowess mean very little in the heart of battle. [1: P. Bartone, C. Barry, & R. Armstrong, "To Build Resilience: Leader Influence on Mental Hardiness," Defense Horizons, 69 (2009): 1]

One of the reasons that serving in the military is so stressful is that deployments have increased in duration and number. Resilience enables troops to endure the isolation, boredom, and danger of deployment, to cope with situational ambiguity, high levels of work, and a sense of powerlessness in the face of the unknown.[footnoteRef:2] Training troops to psychologically cope with mental anxiety, changes in the environment, and to exercise leadership by setting a model example of such qualities is vital, given that these situational variables are likely to become more common in the future of the modern military. [2: Bartone, Barry, & Armstrong, 2009: 2]

Setbacks are inevitable in wartime. Someone who is not resilient cannot cope with the difficulties that arise, whether there is an active conflict brewing or not. There is stress even in the boredom of slow periods in the form of anticipation as well as the stresses of full-fledged warfare. Naturally 'hardy' people are able to reframe challenges in a manner that are beneficial to them: as something positive rather than negative, one reason why soldiers who score high on scales of mental hardiness are significantly less likely to develop PTSD. However, while certain persons seem to have a naturally more resilient temperament than others: "a proactive, committed, high hardy leader can mobilize an entire work group in the direction of greater hardiness and stress resilience."[footnoteRef:3] 'Hardiness' in other words, can be contagious, which makes social modeling of the trait all the more important. [3: Bartone & Armstrong, 2009: 6]

Of course, leaders must still be accomplished in their knowledge of tactics and strategy: the psychological trait of resilience alone cannot ensure victory. But no matter how brilliant a leader might be, if he or she is apt to 'crack' under pressure, often the carefully-honed knowledge becomes forgotten in the panic of the moment. Making decisions during a military action often requires a leader to make uncomfortable choices based upon a cost-benefit or utilitarian analysis. For example, "while the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or mass killings of noncombatants would normally be ruled out, if victory -- depending on what was at stake -- becomes more elusive or defeat more imminent, indiscriminate acts of violence may under certain circumstances be justified."[footnoteRef:4] While the ideal is always to minimize causalities, this is not always possible and a leader must be able to rationally evaluate alternatives and live with his or her decisions. Mental fortitude is required to ensure that such a correct decision is made. Resilient leaders must have a strong sense of ethics given the very nature of warfare itself poses continual ethical conundrums. Their perspective is practical and strategic and goal-focused and they are able to deal with the moral uncertainties of the moment-by-moment choices posed by combat. [4: Tony Pfaff, "Resolving ethical challenges in an era of persistent conflict," SSI Studies, 2003:3:5]

Training soldiers to be resilient means fostering this already-existing capacity in some troops and providing opportunities for personal growth in this area for other soldiers. By doing so, the military can substantially decrease the likelihood of troops developing PTSD. Perhaps the most obvious way to foster hardiness is through preparedness exercises that simulate the actual environments in which troops will find themselves. By experimenting with 'as if' situations, soldiers are able to better prepare for 'as is' situations. While the pretend scenario is never the same as the reality, repetition can be a valuable teaching tool. However, this is not the same as the old-fashioned idea that a solider must be broken down mentally to serve with distinction. Rather, talking about potential scenarios can also reduce the mental anxiety of uncertainty and encourages the development of confidence in his or her capacity to make choices. "It can be hard for soldiers to quickly shift to different rules of engagement (Do I knock on the door, or kick it down?)."[footnoteRef:5] [5: Bartone, Barry, & Armstrong, 2009: 2]

Leaders must also use their modeling and mentorship skills to illustrate cognitive strategies that reinforce this need for resilience and hardiness: "Especially as regards stressful and ambiguous events, military leaders can apply hardiness qualities to facilitate generalized positive interpretations or 'sense-making' among unit members. Leaders do this through actions, policies, and personal example, and in this way they increase stress resilience throughout the organization."[footnoteRef:6] Even when facing a setback, a resilient leader is able to dig deep and find a way to give the situation a positive 'spin,' such as honoring the efforts of soldiers in the face of great odds. [6: Paul T. Bartone, "Chapter 6: New Wine in Old Bottles: Leadership and Personality in the Military Organization," 1]