Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Training and Developing Leaders in a Transforming Army

2001; The MIT Press; Volume: 81; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

0026-4148

William M. Steele, Robert P. Walters,

Military History and Strategy

Without close examination and monitoring, Army culture may evolve in a direction that is both unwanted and counterproductive to developing future leaders. By implementing some or all of ATLDP recommendations, Army can take charge of its culture and create a warfighter environment for routinely training soldiers and growing leaders. Go Army, Beat Navy! My Other Car is a Porsche If You Can Read This, You Are Following Too Close Airline Pilots on Strike My Kid is an Honor Roll Student at Patton Junior High Brake for Animals YOU SEE THEM EVERYDAY. People plaster their car bumpers with stickers. They hang logo flags on their porches. They walk in picket lines holding signs. They confront police barricades shouting protest slogans. And they skillfully use 15-second sound bite on CNN. What are they doing? The answer is simple; they are sending messages. Their messages reflect their beliefs. In Army, our actions also speak to our beliefs. In fact, they speak volumes. Our actions, policies and practices let our soldiers, civilians and family members know what Army values. It does not matter if we believe in locking in our training six weeks out if our practice is to routinely change training schedule at last minute. Our soldiers will not believe us if we do not practice what we say. We tell cadets and officer candidates they will lead soldiers when they join Army, and they believe us. When we move platoon leaders out of their leadership positions quickly into staff jobs, our practice sends a different message. When our practice is not consistent with soldier beliefs, what message are we sending? We are transforming to a more strategically responsive force that is dominant at every point on operational spectrum. The Army Vision guiding this transformation has three component parts: Readiness, Transformation and People. As we started down this Transformation path, we began by addressing doctrine, organizational structure and materiel with Transformation Campaign Plan. In June 2000, Chief of Staff, United States Army, (CSA) chartered Army and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) to look specifically at training and leader development as part of Army's Transformation Campaign Plan. For three months, panel conducted exhaustive research and collected data across Army. Over subsequent three months, panel assessed Army training and leader development to determine their suitability for future. The panel's commissioned officer study was released 25 May 2001. This article continues my previous discussion, Training and Developing Army Leaders, in July-August issue of Military Review. Here, I will describe panel's work on Army culture and discuss major findings, conclusions and recommendations concerning Officer Education System (OES), Army training, systems approach to training (SAT) and requirement to link training and leader development. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines culture as the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation. While we are not a corporation, our organization, United States Army, does have its own unique culture. We have a common set of values and goals described as missions, and we have practices that we accept as routine. Soldiers understand that life within Army culture is not a utopian existence. They recognize that a commitment to duty, honor and country requires personal sacrifice that ebbs and flows with operational pace of unit. The pace increases in times of crisis and should decrease during routine peacetime operations. There exists an level of sacrifice that soldiers and their families accept as part of our professional culture. We will call that level acceptable band of tolerance. The ATLDP discovered several beliefs with contradictory practices. …