I contend that the Army does not evaluate leadership. The Army does want the best leaders. The Army recognizes the relevance and need for leadership. The Army describes and gives the tools for leadership development. The Army evaluates performance and effectiveness of those in leadership positions. The OER and NCOER mention leadership but what is actually written concerns measures of effectiveness and performance. It does not formally assess the leadership abilities of those in leadership positions. For example, is a person a transformational or servant leader and to what extent? Does the person subscribe to the path-goal or contingency theories of leadership? How then does the Army evaluate leadership? Or is the Army only interested in results?
MAJ Gary Gonzales, CGSC Student
7 Comments on "Does the Army actually evaluate leadership?"
I believe that the Army indirectly evaluates leadership, but focuses more on results than method. With time being a critical resource, developing leaders often takes a lower priority to time-sensitive missions. Furthermore, evaluating leadership is complex because it requires input from peers and subordinates, not merely superiors. There are tools that are available for use, but command climate surveys and MSAF results are not widely used when completing OERs or NCOERs. In terms of the MSAF, the results are not generally objective as the officer selects the individuals to participate in the survey. However, incorporating these inputs, or others, require additional time and planning. But as the CSA states that leader development is our Army’s top priority, then we as an institution need to improve how we evaluate leader development. Furthermore, it is this leader development that is critical to the successful implementation of Mission Command as described in ADP 6-0.
I believe there are many tools such as the MSAF that can be used but should be viewed by the Senior Rater and Rater to capture the overall 360 degree assessment of the leader. I think adding directly to the OER/NCOER will on complicate the current process. I do think Senior Rater/Rater’s responsibilties to do initial counseling and quarterly counselings are essential and usually overlooked. My two 1SGs stated that they had not been counseled since they were junior NCO’s by their Raters. During my twenty five years as both NCO and Officer, my ratings are more of a 360 representative when I recieve regular cousnelings by my Rater. During the counseling feedback from both higher and subordinates should be discussed and annotated. I believe enforcing current standard and counseling with inclusion of MSAF type feedback from the subordinates would improve current process.
MAJ Terry Fry, Student ILE, Section 29D, CGSC Fort Belvoir, VA, Class 13-001
My original post was an effort to provoke the thought that the Army does not actually formally evaluate leadership. What the Army evaluates is accomplishment or mere management. Look at the support forms. What do they ask? I believe that it is something to the effect of significant contributions to the organization. Next look at the actual evaluation form. The front gives ‘check-the’block’ service to leadership characteristics. They are certainly not assessed in any detail. Oh, and you better have all the Army values checked off too or else. The back of the evaluation is where the rater and senior rater pick out a few accomplishments from their vantage that stand out and determine potential. Where is the leadership evaluation in that? I’d like to mention that I’ve not delved into the realm of leader profiles and their limitations.
I think that if the Army truly valued leaders over managers then that is what would be sought both in word and deed. The Army has raised primarily managers for some time now. If you fit this mold, do these things, look and act this way, you are considered a leader. What!? What ever happened to leaders having vision, inspiring others, possessing admirable qualities, and all the other great things that leaders are and do?
I contend that leadership and management go hand in hand, they are along the same continuum. Managers by virtue of their position will have a degree of leadership. On the other hand, leaders will have a degree of management inherent in their duty. However, to evaluate management and then say that one is a decent leader is not logically necessary. For instance, the toxic leader discussed above probably looks great on paper. They probably have some amazing accomplishments under their belts. Its too bad that the evaluation has no mechanism to indicate the full picture though. Toxic leadership is the essence of non-leadership; for that matter it is also poor management. What place do things like destructive anxiety, belittlement, and arrogance have in an organization that is build around teamwork?
Another case where the current evaluation system falls short is poor leadership completely bolstered from either above, below, or some combination. The senior officer or NCO that supports a person in leadership who is in reality not a leader, has done a disservice to the Army. The flip side is the case where a superb leader is saddled with horrible subordinates, superiors, or some combination thereof. This guy’s potential is eclipsed before even leaving the runway.
I think that incorporating the 360 assessment is a step in the right direction at the very least. This style of assessment has been successful in the business world. Check out GE, South West, and other large civilian organizations and how they have successfully integrated the assessment. The are known for their leadership the world over. The Army needs to take the time to pin the evaluation system down correctly as it draws down. There will of course be birthing pains as a quality evaluation system emerges, but in the final analysis it is worth it because the Army needs leaders just as all organizations do if they are to continue to thrive.
The notion of incorporating the 360 degree assessment into the OER system is plausible however; there are some potential pitfalls to such an Idea. To what extent do we assess a leader and to what level. For example, if a company commander is due an OER, does he or she receive assessments from all their subordinates to be included into their evaluation (to include the sub-par Soldiers in which he or she gave an Article 15)? There is the potential under this system to create paralyzed leaders who are now not only concerned with appeasing superiors but subordinates as well. I agree with the abovementioned need for the qualitative evaluation of leadership but there must be careful consideration of some of the unintended consequences of such courses of action.
I agree that the Army evaluates the individual leader with a variety of quantitative measures; the senior rater must (and often does) evaluate that individual within the context of their organization. Combinations of subjective (qualitative) and objective (quantitative) measures provide an assessment on that individual leader’s performance and potential for future service. That is the ideal, but only takes into account one perspective on the effectiveness or efficiency of that leader. In short, the OER / NCOER is not a holistic measurement of a leader’s leadership potential, but instead focuses on what is quantifiable.
The MSAF is a tool that enhances self-awareness and is of value in coaching leaders to develop their skills and abilities, but the time to conduct this coaching or counseling is often given short shrift in units that are focused on near-term issues related to training and / or deployments. Junior leaders observe what their senior leaders are focused upon and structure their efforts accordingly. Good units will dedicate time to leader development and enhance the overall leadership potential of their organization, while other units will focus on the near- or short-term challenges of daily operations either at home station or while deployed.
Like martin, I recommend that the OER and NCOER employ the MSAF as part of the evaluation process during the final counseling prior to the completion of the report for that officer or NCO. However, this is predicated on the requirement to complete an initial MSAF during the initial counseling period with quarterly counseling sessions to track progress on that individual’s performance. While the concept of the MSAF is valuable, it requires a certain degree of moral courage to “put yourself out there” for your subordinates, peers, and seniors to observe and comment upon. The concern nnelson raised is valid, but is something the Army can mitigate without additional angst. Significant deviations from the norm within each population group are cause for a conversation between the rater / senior rater and the rated leader. Outliers are discounted unless a trend develops. In this case, the Command Climate Survey could find use as another instrument that provides additional perspectives on the climate and leadership within that unit. I believe that the MSAF combined with the current OER / NCOER will provide a richer picture of the leader’s abilities and the overall leadership potential within a unit.
Ultimately, effective leadership is about maximizing the potential of your subordinates while accomplishing the goals your senior leaders establish. Good leaders do this intuitively, but we owe all leaders another perspective on what it means to be a leader instead of focusing on the quantifiable short-term goals of that individual.
MAJ Paul Olsen
AMSP 12-01
There is a risk to incorporating the 360 assessment into the OER. If implemented wrong, it could change the power structure of the unit and could be used to manipulate people. I am not sure that the Army would get the results it wants. It is a great assessment to give the senior rater a fuller picture of the subordinate. However, ratings should still be in the hands of the senior rater, they have the bigger picture and experience to make these judgement calls.
Maj Nelson
CGSC 12-01 Student
I agree with Gary, the army does not evaluate leadership! Promotions today are based on what your boss’s boss (senior rater) thinks of you, period. What about your subordinates? The former Army Chief of Staff announced that he wanted to rid the army of toxic leaders. I agree with that but how do we as an institution get rid of these folks. Let’s face it leaders do not become toxic overnight and do not operate in a vacuum. Toxic leaders are developed over time and as they achieve higher ranks their span of influence increases, which is why there have been so many Brigade Commanders relieved recently. I would argue that someone somewhere knew what type of individual these leaders were. Yet somehow these individuals were continually promoted through the system until some major incident comes to light. I was very pleased to learn about the army’s 360 assessment program and I would very much like the assessment to become part of every OER. The army would continue to get results and the Soldiers would get the leaders that they deserve.