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