Chief of Staff of the Army Senior Leader Forum: Leader Development Task Force (CSA LDTF) 05 February 2013 Chair - LTG D

1. Chief of Staff of the Army Senior Leader Forum: Leader Development Task Force (CSA LDTF) 05 February 2013 Chair - LTG David H. Huntoon, Jr. Co-Chair - GEN (R) Fred Franks For Official Use Only

2. Objective • Participants will gain a better understanding of the Chief of Staff of the Army Leader Development Task Force Study • Participants will also learn how it fits into the outline of the Leader Development Strategy and will provide feedback to the proposed direction, which will allow the CSA to continue to gain a broader consensus. FOUO

3. Totality of Work Chief of Staff, Army Leader Development Task Force • Four Senior Leader Panels: • M&RA • TRADOC (CAC,CAL) • Army G1, G3/5/7, HRC • USAR • ARNG • Cadet Command • Scholars • CC, BN, BCT CDRs • Historical Review of previous Leader Development studies: • Officer Personnel Management • System XXI Study (1997) • The ATLDP Report (Officer and • NCO) (ATLDP-2002) • Strategic Leadership • Competencies (SSI-2003) • Competency Based Future • Leadership Requirements • (ARI 2004) • RETAL 21-”Pentathlete” • (AWC-2006) • Talent Implications • (OEMA-2009) • Division Commander Report • (2010) • CASAL 2011 Survey/Report • Eight Installation visits: • Surveys/Focus groups • 550 officers • AC/USAR/ARNG • Three Commander's Forums: • 21 Company Commanders • 16 Battalion Commanders • 11 Brigade Commanders • Mission Command Conference • Reviewed current leader develop-ment initiatives • Army-wide Survey: • 12,022 respondents • AC/USAR/ARNG officers • (O-1 thru O-6) • Consulted with senior leaders: • TRADOC, FORSCOM, ARNG, CAR, DAS, CAC, G1, G3/5/7, M&RA FOUO

4. Strategic Priorities CSA’s Marching Orders “Adapt leader development to meet our future security challenges in an increasingly uncertain and complex strategic environment.” 2012 Army Strategic Planning Guidance “Develop leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.” 2012 Army Posture Statement “We must ensure that our Army—as part of Joint Force 2020—is adaptive, innovative, flexible, agile, integrated, synchronized, lethal and discriminate.” October 23, 2012 -- CSA Remarks at AUSA Eisenhower Luncheon • “Decisive defeat of any enemy on land remains our top priority. The Army represents one of America's most credible deterrents against future hostility.” • “The Army also plays a critical role in shaping the strategic environment. Our Force has honed its tremendous skills not only in battle, but also quelling civil unrest, countering terror, demilitarizing former combat zones, protecting vulnerable populations, and providing disaster relief.” • “As we face an uncertain future and declining operational demand, we must develop leaders with the breadth and depth of experience necessary to meet tomorrow's demands. • First, this requires embedding Mission Command in our professional culture. • Second, our leaders must be the stewards of the Army Profession. • Mentorship of Soldiers is critical so that leaders help Soldiers grow. • Finally, we must evolve our leader development and talent management from the team and squad level all the way to the very top.” FOUO

5. Army Leader Development Model Peer and Developmental Relationships Peer and Developmental Relationships Source: Draft ALDS 2013 FOUO

6. Army Leader Development Strategy 2013 Intent SA and CSA issue the ALDS 2013 ARMY Wide “Develop leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.” Leader development occurs through the life-long synthesis of the training, education, and experiences acquired through opportunities in the operational, institutional, and self-development domains FOUO

7. ALDS Implementation • Why do we need an ALDS? • To effectively align the components of training, education, and experience across the three developmental domains of operational, institutional, and self-development • To provide vision and guidance for developing leaders of all cohorts who exercise mission command while executing unified land operations • ALDS Implementation & ACOM Involvement: • ALDS Implementation becomes an ATLDC agenda item • Supporting strategies for each LD component may need to be developed or require adjustments: Army Training Strategy, Army Learning Model (Education Strategy), Experience Strategy • Units/Orgs use these strategies as the basis for developing their unique LD programs FOUO

8. ALDS Ends, Ways, Means • Ends: • Vision: develop leaders to meet the challenges of the 21st Century • Leader Requirements Model (ADP 6-22) • Officer, Warrant Officer, NCO, Civilian Ends • Ways: • Set conditions for effective leader development • Support a broad range of developmental opportunities • Develop subordinates as a leader responsibility • Provide conditions that optimize developmental opportunities • Officer, Warrant Officer, NCO, Civilian Timelines • Additional enablers (CASAL, MSAF, TSS, CTC, Schools, ACT, ALM) • Developing Strategic Leaders • Means: • Will, time, and funding • GO-level governance (ALDP, ALDF, ATLDC, HCEB, TGOSC, OPMS, CWT) FOUO

9. Mission Command • INPUT • Fear of retrograding to stifling and risk averse command environments. • Sense a return to a zero-defect environment. • 90% surveyed believe to a great extent or very great extent their success as an officer depends upon their ability to practice mission command. • 28% surveyed believe to a slight extent or not at all that higher headquarters underwrites prudent risk in deployed operations. • Current Army initiatives • Draft ALDS • ADP 6.0/ADRP 6.0 • Chairman’s White Paper • Chief’s “Marching Orders” • ADP 7.0 • Army Training Strategy • Barriers • Return to metrics and accountability /more selective promotion rates may counter mission command. • Officers’ natural desire to “control” • ADP 6.0 – difficult to apply to institutional environment. • Recommend the Army embrace the • philosophy and warfighting functions of Mission Command • in all domains of the Army Profession. • OUTCOME • Officers who grow faster, assume responsibilities quicker, are more capable as senior officers, and able to create their own mission command environment. • The ability to achieve mission success in the disaggregated, decentralized, operational scenarios of the future, and the ability to aggregate forces and effects when required. FOUO

10. Recommendations • The U.S. Army must embrace the philosophy and warfighting functions of Mission Command in all domains of the Army Profession. • CSA directs a pre-existing organization to determine implementation plan for the Army Training Strategy to fit into the framework of Mission Command. • Use the CTC Program to coach, mentor, train leaders regarding Mission Command. • Educate raters and senior raters on how to use the OER to evaluate officers regarding Mission Command. • Initiate a writing campaign on how Mission Command should be implemented in today’s environment. • Include in the annual CASAL study precise Mission Command questions to determine which areas need emphasis and to allow officers to provide feedback. • Teach Mission Command case studies in officer PME using methods such as “leader challenge.” FOUO

11. Develop Others • INPUT • 59% of Army leaders are rated effective at developing their subordinates, while only 45% are rated effective at creating or identifying opportunities for leader development. (CASAL 2011) • 53% of survey respondents are either neither satisfied/or dissatisfied, dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied with their understanding of how professional growth counseling occurs. • 41% believe to a slight extent or not at all that higher headquarters sets clear priorities for their unit’s leader development plan. • 50% of survey participants said that a lack of time to a great extent or very great extent interfered with an effective leader development plan in their current unit or organization. • Current Army initiatives • CGSC Interagency Exchange • Life-Long Learning Strategy • Structured/Guided Self-Development Program • Culture and Foreign Language Training • Redesign Captains Career Course • Mid-Grade Learning Continuum for 2015 • CTLT, Cultural immersion programs (Pre-Commissioning) • Competitive ILE • Branching Process for Officers Strengthen the Focus on Development of others in the Officer Leader Development System • Barriers • Lack of emphasis on and understanding of Leader Development decreases its priority. • Variety of pre-commissioning sources make it very difficult to set and evaluate standards. • OUTCOME • A Leader Development System that is multidimensional, continuous, progressive, and lifelong that occurs in the operational, institutional and self-development domains. • Officer leaders committed to developing warriors so they are capable of serving in today’s dynamic and unpredictable operational environment. FOUO

12. Recommendations • Army Leaders must commit to developing others. • Define and enforce leaders’ developmental responsibilities. • Strengthen the focus on developing others in the Leader Development System. • Develop a program that provides reserve component officers the opportunity to serve on the staff within a variety of Army commands. • Develop a predictive training / operational model for active component and reserve units to train and then deploy together. • Incorporate social intelligence as a developmental objective in the Army Leader Development Strategy. • Require comments on OER’s that speak directly to how effectively a leader is developing subordinates. • Determine if mandatory OPD’s are still a relevant construct for today’s Army. • Require teaching in PME as a prerequisite for LTC and Colonel command. • Policy of no more than two years of KD time and no more than three years time on station for Majors so they can be afforded an appropriate broadening experience. FOUO

13. Officer Career Management • INPUT • 50% believe personnel evaluations and promotion decisions are accurate. 41% percent believe duty assignments effectively balance force needs with individual needs and capabilities. (CASAL 2011) • 88% believe assigning officers who are most qualified to instruct as instructors in PME courses would be either effective or very effective at improving officer leader development. • 75% believe an individual personnel management system that moves away from year group decisions and broadens the window for completion of key developmental assignments would either be effective or very effective at improving leader development. • 83% believe an increased number of broadening assignments would either be effective or very effective at improving leader development. • Current Army initiatives • Establish Army Career Tracker • MSAF • Broadening Experiences • Align PME to ARFORGEN • Optimize ILE Opportunities • Faculty Selection and Assignment (HRC/OPMS) • Branch Talent Management • Barriers • The culturally engrained timeline for a successful career. • Officers’ fear of blunt, honest feedback (candor). • Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) • Transform Officer Career Management • OUTCOME • A force where human capital is being effectively utilized/retained given the myriad of talents, experiences, and intellect that resulted from over a decade of war. • An Army that makes better informed and precise personnel decisions to ensure our readiness posture is best positioned to meet the security threats Of a volatile and uncertain future. FOUO

14. Recommendations • Transform Officer Career Management. • Develop a “portfolio” to capture officers’ assessments, experiences, psychometrics, special skills, and desires for consideration during assignment/promotion process. • Implement Green Pages throughout the Force. • Implement new MSAF. • Establish Assessment Center at CGSC. • Administer Graduate Record Exam (GRE) at Captain’s Career Course • Implement Leader Assignment and Development Panels (LADP). • Confirm in our culture the importance of “Institutional” assignments. • Improve the management of officers’ attendance at OES. • Review Pre-commissioning standards for scholarships/admission. • Ensure (leader) developmental quality of assignments. • Transition from cohort centric to individual centric personnel management. • Promote a continuum of service model for AC/RC/NG. FOUO

15. Implementation • Create an implementation task force led by a General Officer (GO) to champion the CSA’s recommendations. Reports monthly to CSA. • Ensures body of work and directions proposed: • Remain the priority of all proponents for Army leader development. • Are synchronized with the Army Leader Development Strategy. • Are coordinated with all current leader development initiatives. • The scope and academic rigor of this study are historically unprecedented! • We must maintain enthusiasm and support for implementation across the enterprise! • The recommendations that emerged are too important to gradually slip into institutional irrelevancy. • Without a forcing function, we will not achieve transformational change. CSA GO TF Lead FOUO