Improving Leader Development In The Operational Domain

Improving Leader Developmentin the Operational DomainLt. Col. Kevin M. Kreie, U.S. ArmyIMAGINE HAVING TO CHOOSE a surgeon out of three available to perform a muchneeded procedure. The first surgeon just completed medical school but has not performed a surgical procedure since graduation. The second has performed many proceduresillegally but has never completed medical school. The third has completed medical schooland performed several procedures over ten years ago but has not practiced medicine since.If you are thinking what I am thinking, the search is not over; a qualified surgeon has attended medical school, performed surgical procedures, and continued to improve his or hercraft.This analogy illustrates the significance of each of the Army’s three learning domains toeffective leader development (see figure).1 To become effective leaders, individuals needdevelopmental activities in the institutional domain, the operational domain, and the selfdevelopment domain.Lt. Col. Kevin M. Kreie is the leader development specialist for the Army’s Multi-Source Assessment andFeedback program, Center for Army Leadership, Fort Leavenworth, Kan. He holds a B.A. in criminal justiceand an M.A. in theology. His deployments include Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.(U.S. Army)

Institutional DomainOperational tionArmy Capstone ConceptSelf-Development DomainExperienceEducationTrainingThe Army leader development modelThe Army leader development model showsexperience, education, and training in each learningdomain, with overlap between the domains. Leaderdevelopment activities in the institutional domaintend to occur in schools and courses. Activitiesin the operational domain tend to occur in dutyassignments. Activities in the self-developmentdomain tend to consist of activities selected andperformed by individuals. Few would disagreethat Army leaders need to build a solid foundationof leadership training, typically in the institutionaldomain; they need to apply that training, typicallyin the operational domain; and they need to continue maintaining and improving on it, typicallyin the self-development domain. Army leaderdevelopment activities in the institutional and selfdevelopment domains are, for the most part, effective. The Army as an institution generally ensures62soldiers participate in institutional leader development activities. Individual soldiers commonlyexercise initiative to ensure their participation inself-development activities. However, the Armyhas shortfalls in leader development activities in theoperational domain. Effective leader developmentin the operational domain depends on unit leaderstaking the time to provide individualized counseling, coaching, and mentoring to their subordinates.The Institutional DomainLeader development in the institutional domain,through programs such as professional militaryeducation and the Civilian Education System, givesindividuals a foundation of leadership capabilities.These courses are designed to provide knowledgeand skills deemed necessary for success at a particular professional level. As the Army LeaderMarch-April 2014MILITARY REVIEW

OPERATIONAL LEADER DEVELOPMENTDevelopment Strategy 2013 states, “Every programof instruction in our officer and NCO developmentprograms has been updated to account for the lessons of the past 12 years while also looking forwardto the requirements of tomorrow.”2 This is why itis ideal for leaders to complete these courses at thebeginning of each career level. The courses alsoensure leaders in each cohort build a similar foundation that helps them perform in various positionsacross a particular field. Additionally, attendingcourses gives leaders an opportunity to take a stepThe serious shortfall of leaderdevelopment within the operational domain has implicationsfor future generations of soldiers.back from operational requirements and dedicatetime solely to the process of learning, reflectingon their past performance in the operational field,and making changes they need for future success.The Army does not have any serious problems ofleader development within the institutional domain.Since there are forcing mechanisms or standardsin practical exercises and tests that one must passin order to graduate, when leaders complete anycourse, there is little doubt they will learn theminimum requirements. It is true, however, thatnot all students leave a certain course with thesame knowledge. For example, in the Commandand General Staff College, majors can participatein extracurricular activities such as completingthe masters program or participating in variousacademic competitions. Many participate and gainadditional knowledge, but many do not. Even thosewho only learn the bare minimum will leave thecourse with a significant amount of knowledgewhen they graduate.Now, due to the demands of recent conflicts,some courses have been curtailed. Sgt. Maj. of theArmy Raymond F. Chandler III stated in referenceto courses that were reduced to accommodate thedeployment cycle, “We know we’ve cut a lot ofMILITARY REVIEWMarch-April 2014things that we are seeing we need to add back in.”3This correction, however, is an easy fix. Unlikeissues in the operational domain, the issues in theinstitutional domain are relatively simple to change.Yet, while activities in the institutional domain arehighly valuable and effective, this domain is notenough by itself.The Operational DomainIt is imperative for leader development to occur inthe operational domain, where leaders are assignedto perform operational duties. Leaders cannotcease their development at school graduations andthen continue again at the next school, years later.Learning in the institutional domain needs to beperfected and built upon in the operational domain.The responsibility to make leader developmentactivities continue in the operational domain fallson unit-level leaders. Unit leaders must developtheir subordinates. As the Army Leader Development Strategy 2013 states, “If today’s leaders donot adequately develop their subordinates throughpersonal example, counseling, and mentorship, thentoday’s leaders have not succeeded in accomplishing tomorrow’s mission.”4 Within the operationaldomain, development focuses more closely on thesoldier’s specific duty position, unlike the institutional domain, in which development focuses moreon a general foundation that applies across multiplepositions within a career field.The serious shortfall of leader developmentwithin the operational domain has implications forfuture generations of soldiers. Like the curtailingof courses due to operational requirements, leaderdevelopment was minimized, if not lost, in much ofthe operational domain. I am not saying that leaderdevelopment was not happening in the operationaldomain, nor am I saying no leaders were developingtheir subordinates. However, while leader development was occurring to some extent, it was notoccurring up to par and as much as needed. As the2012 Center for Army Leadership Annual Surveyof Army Leadership (CASAL) stated, “Army leadereffectiveness in the competency Develops Otherscontinues to be the lowest rated, and the most inneed of attention.”5 As exceptional as leaders havebeen during the past 12 or 13 years of conflict, unitleaders simply have not had enough time to conductleader development properly in the operational63

domain because of mission requirements. However,unlike the institutional domain, correcting this isnot an easy fix. Because leader development in theoperational domain has been minimized, there aremajors, chief warrant officers, sergeants first class,and below who joined the ranks after 9/11 and havenot been developed properly. They in turn, may notunderstand the need to develop their subordinates, orthey may not know how. Likewise, those who servedbefore 9/11 with knowledge of how to develop othersare starting to leave the ranks and retire.Army leaders need to take prompt action to ensureleader development occurs within their organizationsand to ensure their subordinate leaders are developing others, especially in the operational domain.As the Army Leader Development Strategy 2013states, “Senior leaders must hold subordinate leadersaccountable for leader development and reward thosewho take this to heart.”6 Moreover, leader development is not complicated. ADRP 6-22, Army Leadership, states, “Leaders have three principal ways ofdeveloping others. They can provide knowledge andfeedback through counseling, coaching, and mentoring.”7 In other words, leaders pass their knowledgeto others—to individuals—so that individual soldiersand Army civilians become even better leaders.It is true that some leader development in theoperational domain occurs through activities suchas real-world missions and training exercises, butunless individual leaders provide individualizedcounseling, coaching, and mentoring, leader development is not what it could and should be. One canonly learn so much without receiving personal andspecific feedback. For example, I originally wrotethis article to the best of my ability, until I could nolonger improve it. When others, more experiencedand capable than I, took the time to review mywork and provide feedback, I was able to improveit. A similar process occurs with leaders. They canperform a mission repeatedly, but unless a counselor,coach, or mentor observes and provides feedback,the amount of improvement will be minimal. Themain resource the higher leader needs to developsubordinates is time—the time it takes to talk to anindividual and share knowledge. The process can bebeneficial to both parties.Army leaders can combine a variety of approachesto facilitate developing others, but all depend onU.S. Army Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the chief of staff of the Army, speaks during the Army War College class of 2013 graduation ceremonyat Carlisle Barracks in Carlisle, Pa., 8 June 2013. (U.S. Army, Staff Sgt. Teddy Wade)64March-April 2014MILITARY REVIEW