Posted for MAJ David Little, CGSC, SG 5A
CGSC Class 12-02 had the opportunity today to listen to a panel of former brigade commanders who discussed their experiences and provided their perspectives and advice on everything from training to leader development. The distinguished panel consisted of: COL Tom Guthrie (Director of the Center for Army Leadership), COL Thomas Hollis (Chief of Staff of the Mission Command Center of Excellence), COL James Rainey (Director of the Mission Command Center of Excellence), and COL Charles Sexton COL Sexton (Commander of the Mission Command Training Program)
The panel framed the discussion for the audience by opening up with their thoughts on expectations for field-grade officers in battalions and brigades. Additionally, they shared their thoughts on the Army’s pending transition as we pull out of Afghanistan and the counter insurgency (COIN) environment we’ve been operating in for the past ten years. The class of future field-grade staff officers was then afforded the unique opportunity to ask the panel any questions.
The panel offered insight to the first question which asked how their perspectives on deployment priorities had changed from then they were a staff officer to a commander. The panel seemed to universally respond with the theme of mastering time and resource management. COL Guthrie reminded the audience that, “You can’t do it all, but you have to figure out what’s important.” COL Hollis said that field grades “must become a master of resource and time management, the commander will set the priorities.” COL Rainey offered the advice that all leaders must additionally set a priority filter on how leaders approach everything by 1st priority is mission accomplishment, 2nd priority is to protect the men and women in the command, 3rd is everything else. COl Sexton echoed the emphasis on mission accomplishment and resource management, but also warned, “never expect the time needed to train will always be available, so train like your going to be at war tomorrow. Train and prepare your formations for the uncertainty the world brings.”
When asked about their lessons learned on different leader’s philosophies, COL Rainey reminded the audience, that all commander’s are different, and that staff officers would have to adapt to that commander. It is the field-grade’s role to be complimentary to the command and the organization, and to reinforce, augment, and fill the gaps as needed. This critical advise was echoed by the panel. COL Guthrie shared his personal story of expecting to affect tremendous change quickly after taking command, but reflected and advised that “change doesn’t have to happen immediately – take a step back off of the ledge and understand that some of the things you wanted to do may never get done, and may not need to get done. You don’t need to tear down the whole system and start over, but take a good look at the organization and tweak what needs to be tweaked.”
The question was asked for advise on addressing conflicts with both the commander and with the Command Sergeant Major. After some humorous comments, the panel universally advised that when it comes to legal, ethical, and moral issues, then, in COL Rainey’s words, the confrontation “is no longer a dilemma, it’s a responsibility.” Each leader offered techniques which focused on engaging in an appropriate discussion aimed at gaining better understanding of the issue, rather than being confrontational and divisive. COL Sexton also stated, that you must “be prepared to accept the fact that you could be wrong and understand that there could be another route to the objective.” On the subject of S3/XO conflicts with the CSM, the panel wisely explained that the CSM is a part of the command team, and the commander should not be forced to step in and choose sides. It is the staff officer’s job to work with the CSM to resolve the conflict between them. COL Hollis reminded the audience that they would need to “Check your ego. Field grade officers are there to enable to organization, not cause tension and friction.”
The panel asserted that leadership is the most important aspect of our jobs in the Army, assuring the audience that staff officers like S3s and XOs are still leaders that the Soldiers look up to, despite the fact they aren’t green-tabers. To address the question of the panel’s perspective on leadership development programs in their formations, the panel each assured the critical need and top priority to create effective leader development programs, each offering their own take on the process.
Overall the panel provided candid yet valuable advice and guidance that each audience member could identify with, and more importantly apply in their own careers. The panel members then transitioned to the classrooms for more intimate leadership discussions in the classrooms. Class 12-02 is exceptionally lucky to have had the opportunity to spend time with these exceptional experienced leaders.
5 Comments on "Former Brigade Commanders Provide Perspectives"
Why the Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB) is a good idea. January 2013
MAJ Kurt Zortman
CGSC Student
ILE Class 13-001
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
There are insufficient organic engineer capabilities in the current task organization for the IBCT. The Chief of Engineers, through the Chief of Staff of the Army, has proposed a solution to this problem; the Brigade Engineer Battalion (BEB). This blog will quickly review the current engineer capability of the IBCT and how existing gaps are addressed to meet the requirements within the context of the airborne IBCT Joint Operational Access Concept (JOAC). The blog will then address how the BEB would eliminate the JOAC support capability gap. Finally, the blog will present a recommended BEB task organization for the IBCT.
Currently, an airborne IBCT has one organic engineer company assigned to the Brigade Special Troops Battalion (BSTB). This company consists of two combat engineer platoons and one light equipment section. This engineer company is expected to provide a variety of mobility, counter-mobility and survivability tasks in support of the BCT as the only engineer enabler available (organically) to the BCT commander. Where capability gaps exist, the IBCT is augmented with engineer support from either the local Corps separate Engineer Brigade, or forward from the Theater Engineer Command. The BEB construct is intended to reduce the instances of required capability augmentation from outside the IBCT and create a more modular and capable IBCT war fighting entity.
Engineer Support to Joint Operational Access Concept: Currently the IBCT engineer company serves as the Team Clear for an airborne airfield seizure mission. To execute this mission successfully, the IBCT requires additional engineer capability to be sourced, and attached, from a Corps separate Engineer Battalion. The organic IBCT engineer light equipment section is undersized and underequipped to handle the variety of scenarios associated with runway repair operations. For this capability gap, typically a light engineer equipment platoon is attached to the IBCT, organized under the Team Clear Commander, and is tasked with the bulk of runway and crater repair. Unfortunately, rather than this relationship being a fully habitual one, with training and readiness fully nested to that of the IBCT commander’s intent, it is often the opposite. There is no guarantee the engineer light equipment platoon tasked to support the IBCT JOAC mission is trained and ready to execute its mission within the standards and expectations of the TM Clear or IBCT commanders intent. It is often just treated as another tasking, which competes with the supporting company commanders training plan, resulting in Soldiers and equipment being assigned to the tasking from across the supporting engineer battalion just to meet the tasking requirement. The result is a “platoon” of Soldiers, quickly sourced and consolidated from across the supporting engineer battalion, with varying levels of proficiency on airfield clearance and repair operations, not to mention with little to no training as a single entity on the required individual and collective tasks.
The BEB would eliminate this problem by growing that light equipment capability within the IBCT. Rather than retaining the current organic light equipment section, that section would be grown to a proper light equipment platoon. This new capability and capacity would mirror the MTO&E currently authorized in the Corps separate light equipment platoon used to support the IBCT JOAC. With the new light equipment platoon as an organic and assigned capability, there is fidelity in training, personnel and equipment readiness, and unit proficiency that is directly supervised and approved by the IBCT commander.
While this is just one example of many other issues that confront the IBCTs lack of sufficient organic engineer capability, it has been used to illustrate the point. One would probably wonder how the Army is expected to grow this new capability (Soldiers and equipment) when the Chief of Staff of the Army has made it clear there will be fiscal and manning constraints over the next ten years. In broad and general terms, there would be no new capabilities grown within the Army. That same Corps separate Engineer Battalion that was the supporting element to the IBCT, would now act as the force pool and equipment base to grow the new capability in the IBCT. The companies organic to the Corps separate Engineer Battalion would be re-structured and re-assigned across the Division to stand-up the BEB. Consequently, the once supporting Engineer Battalion would be eliminated from the Corps separate Engineer Brigade while its companies and platoons become the bill payer for this new capability within the IBCT. In this situation there is no net change to capability within the Army, rather modularity and transformation just continues with a realignment of engineer capabilities.
While the ideas outlined in this blog are not original to the author, they are merely designed to serve as information to those that have yet to hear about the BEB or understand why the BEB initiative exists. This blog is the tip of the iceberg for why the IBCT needs the BEB and was not intended to be thoroughly exhaustive on the subject. For more discussion and depth regarding the issues, it would be appropriate to post comments relevant to this blog. Below is what the author recommends as the task organization for the BEB (specifically regarding engineers). It should be known that the BEB is essentially the current BSTB with the addition of one engineer company and growth within the current engineer company. All other organic enablers residing within the current BSTB would not likely change, and would still reside within the BEB.
Current BSTB Task Org (IBCT)
HHC
Alpha Company (Engineers)
Sapper Platoon
Sapper Platoon
Light Equipment Section
Bravo Company (Intelligence)
Charlie Company (Signal)
HHC BDE
Recommended BEB Task Org (IBCT)
HHC
Engineer Technical Support Team
Alpha Company (Engineers)
Sapper Platoon
Sapper Platoon
Sapper Platoon
ESC (Engineer Support Company)
Horizontal Equipment Platoon
Horizontal Equipment Platoon
Vertical Construction Platoon
Bravo Company (Intelligence)
Charlie Company (Signal)
HHC BDE
The panel of former BDE commanders was a good teaching tool for MAJs about to go out into the line Army. However, I think the small group sitdown/discussion with the COLs after the fact was more beneficial. Having a “closer” setting that is not for attribution is better because the SG and the COL can discuss “the way things really are.” COL Guthrie coming to our classroom was great. He was straightforward and did not need to sugarcoat things like in the auditorium discussion.
I agree with COL Guthrie’s comments that the constitutional makeup of a leader is based on his/her collective education, training, and experience. I also agree with the imperative nature of us, as future field-grade staff officers, to be the unit’s architects that create formulas of success based on the inherent variables of command priorities and limited resources. Moreover, I concur with the panel’s advocacy of our mastery of the systems and mechanisms which facilitate our planning, execution, and management of the unit’s tasks due to the integral part these systems will play in our success. COL Sexton’s comment to “…train like you’re going to be at war tomorrow” definitely put things into perspective and is certainly a nugget of wisdom to put into my leadership kit bag. I think the natural tendency of us, as staff officers, is to try to do everything, but we soon learn that when ‘everything is a priority’ we spread ourselves too thin and find we aren’t able to truly focus on, and master, the critical and essential fundamentals. The ultimate challenge for us as leaders is to find this delicate balance intermingled within the complexities of our current persistent threat environment. As our distinguished panel collectively voiced, the true test of our leadership with be measured by how well we materialize the conceptual priorities of our commander based on our management of limited time and resources.
The panel of former Brigade Commander’s provide valuable insight into the expectations of field grade officers. Many of the comments given by the panel members confirmed the attitudes and thoughts of previous BN Commander’s and XO’s I have worked for. The xepctations are the same and so with the confirmation comes a focus for preparation or sharpening of skills as we ready ourselves for the next staff position.
Today in Staff Group 05A, we had the opportunity to have COL Tom Guthrie come to our class in order to recieve further perspectives following the former BDE CDR’s Panel the day before. It was a welcome opportunity to recieve COL Guthrie’s candid perspectives on mentorship, leadship, expectations of a field grade officer, and broadening experiences. It is a rare opportunity to be able to have this sort of interaction with senior leaders throughout Command and General Staff College, so this was a welcomed event. COL Guthrie’s comments were very useful for not only myself, but my class as well. One of the biggest take-aways from today’s session from my perspective, was “expectation mangament” of leaders. Leaders can not just assume that a subordinate can perform a duty without a method that COL Guthrie described as Assess, Teach, Train, Validate, Assign, then Trust.