From One to Three Sixty: Assessing Leaders
2004; The MIT Press; Volume: 84; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0026-4148
Autores Tópico(s)Military, Security, and Education Studies
Resumo2d Place 2004 MacArthur Writing Award Winner The efficiency report is the most disturbing administrative farce in the Army. It is the measure of following and not leading. Its weight in tickets of success allows officers of incompetence in leadership to advance. -anonymous Army captain, U.S. Army War College Study on Military Professionalism, 1970 The General Officers in the U.S. Army would gain much from having instruction and developing an understanding on selfless service versus selfish service. Most are preoccupied with their careers. Unfortunately, this is the type of officer the system moves along. -anonymous Army major, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Survey, 2000 THE U.S. ARMY celebrated the arrival of the 21st century with a much-needed Transformation effort that applies to everything from force structure to logistics. Leader education schools are changing to reflect new demands on junior and midlevel leaders in response to the changing operational environment. Yet a common theme, as seen in the two quotes given, reveals what the Army as an institution has yet to address-how subordinates or peers evaluate their leaders. A 360-degree leader-evaluation tool would provide a substantial improvement for the Future Force in its mission to produce the best leaders to face current and future challenges. A 360-degree evaluation system elicits and provides feedback about leaders-supervisors, peers, or subordinates. With the supervisor's comments being an exception, feedback is anonymous to eliminate possible retribution. The rater's comments are part of developmental counseling, which includes a detailed account of another's strengths and weaknesses and perceived methods for possible improvement. A 360-degree system would allow subjects to review others' perceptions of their leadership abilities and characteristics and could spur self-reflection when their self-perception differs from others'. Does the Army really need a 360-degree evaluation system? The Army recently revamped the Officer Evaluation System with an emphasis on more senior-to-subordinate counseling and Officer Evaluation Report (OER) counseling at the end of the rating period. This has improved the dialogue from seniors to subordinates, especially since the new OER has blocks in which to report mandatory counseling meetings. In addition to counseling, the Army's leader-development program is an effective process that provides periodic feedback for subordinates to improve over time.1 Yet all these programs are senior-to-subordinate-intensive. None give raters a feel for what subordinates or peers think about the leader, if that is indeed important. The first chapter of Field Manual (FM) 22-100, Army Leadership, quoting Confederate Colonel Albert G. Jenkins, alludes to the subordinate's role in leadership and command: To our subordinates we owe everything we are or hope to be. For it is our subordinates, not our superiors, who raise us to the dizziest of professional heights, and it is our subordinates who can and will, if we deserve it, bury us in the deepest mire of disgrace. When the chips are down and our subordinates have accepted us as their leader, we don't need any superior to tell us; we see it in their eyes and in their faces in the barracks, on the field, and on the battle line. And on that final day when we must be ruthlessly demanding, cruel and heartless, they will rise as one to do our bidding, knowing full well that it may be their last act in this life.2 I believe subordinates do have a vote, especially on the battlefield. But do they have anything worthwhile to contribute to the leadership development of their leaders? In the past 30 years, two Army surveys have touched on subordinates' perceptions of leaders, with some disturbing conclusions. In 1970, the Army fought one war in Vietnam while also preparing for a possible war with the Soviet Union. …
Referência(s)