Limitations for a Successful Army Leader Development Strategy

Abstract

In 2009, the U.S. Army published the Army Leader Development Strategy (ALDS) to address shortfalls in leader development identified during the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terrorism. What are the factors that limit the effectiveness of this strategy? The effectiveness of the ALDS is dependent on coherent objectives communicated across the developmental domains, integrated programs that support the objectives, and logical policies that enable the programs. Coherent objectives are determined by examining how effective the subordinate organization's objectives reflect and support the higher organization's objectives. The effectiveness of a program is based on how well the output supports the goals, and whether the actions involved in the program conflict with desired outcomes. A logical policy does not constrain a program from achieving the desired outcomes. At this time, the institutional domain has effectively integrated the objectives across the center of excellence and the schools. In the operational domain, the objectives are communicated, but are not a coherent part of guiding leader development. Within the self-development domain, again the intent is communicated, but the guidance provided to officers is general and not nested with the objectives of the overall strategy. The two critical programs are the assignment system and the promotion process. Both programs hinder the execution of the current strategy. The assignment process is bureaucratic and quantitatively focused. The promotion system also hinders the strategy by favoring a very narrow career path. The U.S. Code that prescribes officer strength and promotion timelines limits the flexibility of the Army to accomplish both operational missions and develop officers. The unwritten policies reinforce the bad practices of the promotion system by narrowly defining success and punishing officers that follow nonstandard careers. These policies and programs need to be changed.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
May 23, 2013
Accession Number
ADA583863

Entities

People

  • Christopher T. Drew

Organizations

  • United States Army Command and General Staff College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Biomedical
  • Human Systems
  • Materials and Manufacturing Processes

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Army Training
  • Artillery
  • Attrition
  • Doctrine
  • Education
  • Engineers
  • Human Resources
  • Instructors
  • Logistics
  • Management Personnel
  • Military Education
  • Military Science
  • National Security
  • Professional Development
  • Students
  • United States
  • War Colleges

Readers

  • Defense Acquisition Program Management
  • Military Leadership and Professional Education.
  • Systems Analysis and Design