Strategic leadership and the Army

Introduction
Strategic leadership is about redirecting the culture of an organization. It is the approach applied by a leader to achieve the objectives desired by an organization. The process involves resource allocation, policy execution and consensus building among the stakeholders. The process often happens in a changing business environment that presents numerous challenges and opportunity to the achievement of the desired objectives[footnoteRef:1]. [1: Herbert F. Barger, "Developing strategic leadership: The US army war college experience." Journal of Management Development 11.6 (1992): 4.]
The matter at hand is about how the army can develop a crop of strategic leaders, guided by the fixed career timeline of an officer from the Personnel Management System of the military. The development strategy of the army leaders in 2013 highlights the process and steps of how a leader can be developed. The report also outlines the need for more leadership personnel, owing to the fact that there has been an overemphasis on war in the recent past. There are three areas of focus in the development of an officer: education, experience and training. If personnel sticks to the officer career fixed timelines as indicated in the Department of Army Pamphlet 600-3 in the 20 year career lifespan, it may be impossible to expose them to the critical thinking level until they clock the twenty years. The idea is central in the discussion because, if only tactical problems are the preoccupation of a leader, it may present significant challenges when dealing with strategy[footnoteRef:2]. [2: Ibid,]
The current policy prevents an officer from undertaking duties that help them to develop strategic skills. Any officer working in the current military arrangement will find that they are disadvantaged when it comes to exposure to jobs that transcend the tactical realm[footnoteRef:3]. This paper seeks to highlight the challenges of leadership in the US Army under the new dispensation. [3: Ibid]
Background Information
There has been emphasis on the negative effects of climate change on multiple dimensions. There is scientific agreement that global warming is a fact, and that the process is now irreversible. However, what lacks consensus is what the consequence of climate change is. There is debate on whether it is gradual or drastic. According to Gray, the effects of climate change will affect social-economic and political stability of countries and communities across the globe. He points out that the effects are a catastrophe in waiting. Competition will result in conflicts that result from interest in dwindling resources, including arable land and water. Such a scenario might make the liberal and idealistic perspective of life as advocated for by western countries to become mere theories: existential conflict will reemerge[footnoteRef:4]. [4: Tommy Jeppsson, "Challenges Facing Future Miltary Strategic Leadership-Views Reflecting a Small-State Perspective.," Science and Weapon, no. 64 (2014): 5]
The ecological degradation across the globe is likely to facilitate existential conflict, particularly in the poor regions of the world. However, the number of environmental concerns is rising fast. Thus, the western world is not safe either. The degradation is likely to cause problems all the way into the so called “Nordic Comer”. The Nordic region is already experiencing environmental problems. The threat caused by the nuclear facilities in Russia located on the Kola Peninsula, the pollution on the Baltic Sea and the destruction of fish populations in the Northern Atlantic are reasons to cause jitters among the Nordic countries. Deploying military tools in the matter causes complications of great magnitude. A situation of increased threat that will most likely crop up with constrained budgets will, perhaps, promote cooperation between the power bases owned by a state[footnoteRef:5]. [5: Ibid]
The social and economic effects of the globalization process such as the refugee problem and terrorism are also encouraging greater cooperation between the armed forces, the coast guard service and the police. The said branches of government administration are also made to compete. There is a high chance that the US will have to confound with a greater welfare impediment as a result of the progress towards a multi-ethnic and multicultural society. The poor and the rich are likely to come into confrontation. Consequently, the US stands a risk of deteriorating social order. There will, thus be a need to increase domestic security tools to contain the tensions. Such a scenario is a challenge: given that the budget allocation is likely to remain the same. Apart from being empowered to vouch for greater cooperation, military personnel, being the agents of the final repressive tools, should take the initiative to encourage cooperation and greater interaction between the various power instruments in existence across the society[footnoteRef:6]. [6: Jeppsson,“Challenges Facing Future Military Strategic Leadership," 88]
The final, important element that influences strategic leadership is technological development. It is enabling fresh options for the defense of sparse populations. Meanwhile, the price of modern technology for purposes of military use has gone up. It implies that the running cost for every unit has also risen. Thus, ambition to increase military capacity calls for more resources. By maintaining a constant budget, it means that there will also be a continuous restructuring and downscaling of ambitions. They will eventually have to deal with the problems of the cost of running a credible defense versus what a small country can practically afford to spend on such purposes. It is important that the top echelons of military pay attention to such factors[footnoteRef:7]. [7: Ibid, 4]
Analysis
The six qualities that a strategic leader should possess are captured in the strategic leadership competencies list. The qualities, including “Do” and “Know” capture what such a strategic leader would attain after a period of education, work and experience. Identity is the first competence. It highlights the ability of a strategic leader to take account of their actions and identify their weak points. It is imperative that an officer possesses such qualities in order to understand their surroundings and themselves. It also delves in finding out the value of an officer in the whole organizational set up. Such an officer is cognizant of the fact that success is brought about by the subordinate staff[footnoteRef:8]. [8: Jonathan L. Hawkins, "Is the Army Developing Strategic Leaders?" Army Command And General Staff College, 2015, 30]
A strategic leader must also possess mental agility. In the prevailing environment, being mentally agile helps an officer in handling the constantly evolving complex work environment. The ability to operate successfully within the unknown is important. The aspect of learning goes hand in hand with mental agility. One must learn fast, and adapt to the emerging environmental challenges. Elements of mental agility include the ability to improvise, cognitive complexity and lightness as highlighted in the literature for strategic leadership. There is a huge information resource with regard to the qualities that a strategic leader must possess so as to handle the unknown: thanks to technology. A program of instruction is the best tool that enhances mental agility. Such a program should encourage soldiers to develop several view points, examine alternatives, and argue out the merits and demerits of solutions in competition. Mental agility enables an officer to develop both synthesizing and analytical skills. They develop the capacity to challenge the frames of reference in use and to participate in tasks that call for collaboration[footnoteRef:9]. [9: Daryle J. Hernandez, "Building Strategic Leader Competencies into Army Officer Development and Career Progression," United States Army War College, (2011): 30.]
Strategic leaders should feel comfortable working in a non military set up. This means that they must possess cross-cultural savviness. The cross cultural savvy concept transcends just the ability to work with non US military. It encompasses the ability to understand cultural dynamics beyond the organizational, economic, societal, religious, geographic and political borders. For instance, when an officer has a chance to work with organizations outside the military, it helps them to develop cross-cultural savviness. Joint missions also help to broaden strategic leadership competencies[footnoteRef:10]. [10: Hawkins, "Is the Army Developing Strategic Leaders?", 31.]
Interpersonal maturity is used as an indicator of strategic leadership core competence. One must develop the ability to teach, coach and mentor others to develop the next leadership generation. One must see beyond the now and become a role model. Such leadership isn’t a classroom-acquired skill. It is developed throughout years of self appraisal and examination of leadership abilities[footnoteRef:11]. [11: Ibid]
World class warrior: a leader must understand aspects and dynamics of war. They have to be at grips with operational, strategic and tactical levels of war. The mastery of the tactics and the technical know-how is the basis of building an officer’s career. There is constant development both professionally and personally[footnoteRef:12]. [12: Ibid]
Professional astuteness: One must understand that they are a leader, and live up to such a title. Demonstration of a high level of professional conduct is pertinent for a leader. It is important for a leader to accept that failure is part of the process of learning. A failure should not signal the end of an officer’s career[footnoteRef:13]. [13: Ibid]
Holistically, interpreting environmental scanning in a world of VUCA should cause the creation a vision aligned to the future setup. The vision of an organization stands for what an organization works to be in the future day. The strategy developed subsequently, should, therefore, make sure that all the tools at the organizations disposal are directed towards sustaining the organization at the present moment and in the future so as to achieve its vision[footnoteRef:14]. [14: Stephen J. Gerras, "Strategic Leadership Premier," Department of Command, Leadership and Management United States Army War College, no. 3rd Edition (2010): 3]
Successful strategic leader makes sure that they align the organization’s vision with what they understand of the constantly changing environment. They make sure that the strategy of the organization does not veer off such a vision. Also, the policies, structure, culture and the technology deployed should be in concordance with the strategy and the vision. If this is done, the vision is more likely to be achieved seamlessly. An organization is also likely to develop a competitive advantage over others. Alignment must be both vertical and horizontal[footnoteRef:15]. [15: Ibid]
The leaders and other staff of an organization must share in the strategic leadership responsibility. Practically, it is only a small number of the staff of an organization that will ever get a chance to rise to strategic leadership positions. Nevertheless, there is a need for anyone that works under a strategic leader to internalize the elements and principles of strategic leadership, if they are to offer substantial support to their leaders. Decision-making at the level of strategic leadership is not the preserve of a single individual[footnoteRef:16]. [16: Ibid]
The constantly changing environment, on the outside, demands that a leader receives support from others so as to gather the necessary information, to assess and to acquire the relevant knowledge in managing the organization. Successful leadership involves the leader interacting with the people that he leads: from within and without, and the circumstances that affect the organization. The complexity of such relationships influences just how effectively a strategic leader works with the rest of the team. Consequently, this analysis puts the idea of strategic leadership under focus: as opposed to concentrating on the strategic leader[footnoteRef:17]. [17: Stephen,” Strategic Leadership Premier”, 3.]
Indeed, this recommended model presents ideas that have been held as true for a while. From the onset of the Goldwater- Nichols Act of 1986, and the 1996 OPMS XX1, there have been few changes despite the ideas receiving support from senior leaders. It may be hard to change the culture of the army about the development of an officer but it is what must be done if the army is to develop strategic thinking leaders. Given the increased cuts in the budgets, dwindling commitments abroad and force reduction, change is a necessity now. The change is pertinent in the growth of the army profession. Failing to pick the cues will cast a dark shadow on the preparedness of the officers for strategic leadership setups[footnoteRef:18]. [18: Brian S. Eifler, "Developing Strategic Thinking Leaders in the U.S. Army," United States Army War College Class of 2012, 2012, 11.]
If the country and the military is to maintain the strength required to cope with the fast-changing scenario, officers must be prepared to acquire strategic thinking skills to deal with the complex situation of warfare in future. While there is some level of risk in keeping the prevailing officer strength in assignments, especially because of the Afghanistan and Iraq situations, there is still danger in maintaining the status quo in the long term. Maintaining the status quo will likely lead to senior officers that do not have adequate skills to deal with the complexities that will emerge in future as a result of the changing socio-cultural and technological environments. There is no better time that the adage: “as the army goes, so does the nation” will hold truer. We need officers that can, not only lead the army but the army and the nation in sync, through uncertainties of the present and future times[footnoteRef:19]. [19: Brian S. Eifler, "Developing Strategic Thinking Leaders in the U.S. Army," United States Army War College Class of 2012, 2012, 11.]
It is important that we develop military leaders that are competent in the national security political environment. Their ability to think strategically and make decisions in such environments is critical. There is a need to revise, broadly, the management of talents among the military officers. To develop a strategic mindset calls for looking beyond war assignments, and sending military officers to pursue fellowships. Even though such studies are still important, deploying officers in situations that inculcate skills to handle interagency dynamics and decision making processes, facilitating coalitions and alliances are even more pertinent. It implies that only the best should get the opportunity to attend the Joint Staff, combatant commands and OSD staff[footnoteRef:20]. [20: Michael Shekleton, "Developing Strategic Leaders," RealClear Defense, 2016, 2, accessed December 07, 2018, https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles_110453.html.]
References
Barber, Herbert F. "Developing strategic leadership: The US army war college experience." Journal of Management Development 11.6 (1992): 4-12.
Brian S. Eifler, "Developing Strategic Thinking Leaders in the U.S. Army," United States Army War College Class of 2012 (2012): 8-12.
Gerras, Stephen J. "Strategic Leadership Premier." Department of Command, Leadership and Management United States Army War College, no. 3rd Edition (2010): 2-6.
Hawkins, Jonathan L. "Is the Army Developing Strategic Leaders?" Army Command And General Staff College, (2015): 29-33.
Hernandez, Daryle J. "Building Strategic Leader Competencies into Army Officer Development and Career Progression." United States Army War College, 2011, 26-30.
Jeppsson, Tommy. "Challenges Facing Future Miltary Strategic Leadership-Views Reflecting a Small-State Perspective." Tiedejaase (2006): 84-92.
Shekleton, Michael. "Developing Strategic Leaders." RealClear Defense. 2016. Accessed December 07, 2018. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/12/07/developing_strategic_leaders_110453.html.