Military Review English Edition July-August 2015 | Page 36
Peer and Developmental
Relationships
Operational
Domain
Institutional
Domain
Experience
Experience
Training
Education
Education
Leader
Development
Training
Self-Development
Domain
Experience
Education
Training
Adapting to an ever changing environment
Figure 1. Army Leader Development Model
The Army leader development model (figure 1) illustrates this definition graphically.2
Leader development ranks very high on the priorities list of the chief of staff of the Army (CSA) since it
is imperative that today’s leaders develop themselves
and their subordinates to meet the current and future
needs of the Army. Leader development encompasses
different elements at different echelons.
At higher echelons, the Army ensures there are
systems in place for developing leaders—this is the
purview of general officers. At the unit level, leaders are responsible for personally developing their
subordinates. This hands-on work is the purview of
unit commanders and NCOs. Though both Armyand unit-level perspectives are focused on meeting
current and future needs, a major difference is the
developmental period. Unit leaders ensure subordinate leaders are ready to operate in their current and
next duty positions. In contrast, the Army as a whole
takes a long-term view with the intent of ensuring
systems are in place to develop today’s junior leaders
into the senior leaders the Army will require during
34
the coming decades. The purpose of this article is
to briefly review major features of both the condition-setting Army leader development system and
the execution of leader development at unit level.
Also discussed are a few potential leader development initiatives for consideration.
Army-Level (Strategic) Leader
Development Systems
The U.S. Army builds leaders for the Nation. For
the foreseeable future, the Army will increasingly need
individuals who can operate in complex and ambiguous environments. According to the ALDS 2013, “the
number of global and regional actors who can threaten
the United States through asymmetric responses and
technological advances is increasing.”3 The ALDS 2013
describes how increasing trends toward globalization
through technological advances, which increase uncertainty in the strategic environment, have been well
analyzed in recent national strategic and global assessments. These include Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership:
Priorities for 21st Century Defense, the Capstone Concept
July-August 2015 MILITARY REVIEW