Building Adaptive Leaders
The Army Can Adapt Its Institution (Pt. 1)
by Major Donald E. Vandergriff, Small Wars Journal
Building Adaptive Leaders (Full PDF Article)
Warfare has evolved to the point that the central idea is that small unit leaders in direct contact with the enemy can see and react to situational changes much faster than could the more senior leaders in the rear. This occurs despite the advent of information technology. This technology laid over an Industrial age hierarchal force structure confined with leaders developed through an industrial age personnel system can make it tempting for leaders to micromanage. Thus, the decision cycle slows down. But, warfare now demands something different. Small unit leaders who were once only concerned with choosing which battle drill now make decisions which have strategic implications. The question arises, how can we evolve the current way of developing leaders and Soldiers (Marines as well) that prepares them earlier to be complex problem solvers?
The Army acknowledges the need for change. The Army has begun an evolution in the way we develop-train, educate, access, promote and select-leaders, specifically how do we evolve adaptability. It is now implementing two training and leadership development models. In part I, I will discuss the Adaptive Leader Methodology (ALM) as an approach to develop adaptability and decision making skills. In part II, I will discuss Outcomes Based Training & Education (OBT&E).
Don -
Links may be invalid – they’re not working on my computer. Looking forward to reading your work.
Mark
Mark,
It is fixed now, try again.
Don
“Warfare has evolved to the point that the central idea is that small unit leaders in direct contact with the enemy can see and react to situational changes much faster than could the more senior leaders in the rear.” ~Don Vandergriff
Substitute the word “warfare” with “crime trends and crime problems or conflict” and you will see the same necessity needed for the military to adapt is needed, in law enforcement and security professions, or anyone else for that matter, who finds themselves in a situation where a rapid decision needs to be made.
Don Vandergriff has written a great article that includes an background on how the industrial age style of leadership(directive,autocratic/micro-management) has bred poor decision making on the frontline.
Also Don discusses the tools (training and leadership methodology) and the changes in culture necessary to cultivate good decision making through teaching folks not “what to think” but instead “how to think.” Allowing for frontline decision making!
Great article Don
Fred
Thanks Fred, I am looking forward to doing our workshop in March.
Don
“Warfare has evolved to the point that the central idea is that small unit leaders in direct contact with the enemy can see and react to situational changes much faster than could the more senior leaders in the rear.” ~Don Vandergriff
This is an old idea. I first saw “research” to support the idea some twenty five years ago from Harvard Business. The piece was, “Who is the best person for the job?”
A team.
The piece went on to talk about the effectiveness of small teams or units who are empowered to make decisions on behalf of the firm. The theory sounds great, but is filled with huge problems. The first assumption is that the team has better information and can be dynamic as variables change. This may or may not be true. We used to think that it was a function of technology. Having superior technology really has transformed the decionmaking process, but too many teams have stopped thinking, or lack good judgment that only comes with making many hard decisions.
The second problem is what I call group thought. The reason we in the investment community send the salesman out to the client is that they can convert them into believers. It’s rarely the analyst or portfolio manager who has much greater understanding. One forceful personality on a team will always make the others submit. It’s the nature of a small group. A chief component of group thought is one or more persons desire to appear to be unified with senior management who the small group will report back to. In a word, politics. It’s not always wise to make the right decision in the field if it makes your bosses look bad. It’s better to just try to survive in the field while keeping with the institutions beliefs and philosophy. I could go on and on but my time is limited. There are answers.