Leadership Development and Self Awareness - Research Paper Example

Leadership Development and Self Awareness Leadership Development and Self Awareness As the nature of war advances, the Army is obliged to produce leaders who can comfortably work together with diverse populations and embrace difficulty. This rising truth dictates a call for modification in how soldiers are taught and chosen to lead at the top level so as to regain the initiative in running today’s fluid operational setting. The critical issue discussed, in this article, is how the United States Army could develop strategic thinkers who can lead decisively in difficult and adaptive environments. To respond to this matter, this paper will discuss the capacity of the Army curriculum to differentiate critical abilities considered essential to thrive in the modern security setting. The paper will also talk about self awareness and how the current Army curriculum could be change to stress on self awareness. The paper will also reflect on how this matter will affect solders in the next 10 to 15 years to come. Introduction As the nature of war advances, the Army is obliged to produce leaders who can comfortably work together with diverse populations and embrace difficulty (Bennis, 2004). This rising truth dictates a call for change in how soldiers are trained and chosen to lead at the top level so as to regain the initiative in running today’s fluid operational setting. The theory of strategic leadership, hence, should be examined strongly in the Army doctrine. Cultural, social, and complex problem-solving techniques are becoming a priority, and should be trained, in young soldiers, to provide adequate skills for senior leaders to leverage later in their careers (Bennis, 2004). Hardly ever does the typical Army curriculum prepare individuals to succeed in the leadership arena where the non-military essentials of national power have greater consequences than a large number of troops and armor. The Army’s existing Army curriculum pushes the most multifaceted subjects to the final stages of a soldier’s learning career (Hardaway, 2008). As a result, only some soldiers get an opportunity of expanding their intellectual limits through creative and critical thinking before their field grade experience. Doing business, in such a manner, denies junior level soldiers the opportunity to develop the necessary skills required to excel in the leadership area. The Army has to promote superior learning opportunities to a young soldier’s career in order to develop the essential leadership skills needed to manage the 21st century warfare scenery (Hardaway, 2008). The education and evaluation methodologies should be modified to replicate the complexities of the current operating environment to encourage a change in the career progression of leaders equipped for the 21st century warfare. In order to achieve this, the Army should adjust its leader development systems to identify and promote strategic thinking before it is too late (Hardaway, 2008). The Army education system plays a vital role in creating strategic leaders for the logical challenges they might encounter against an equally resolute enemy (Schoomaker, 2006). However, it does not stress much on the essential factors of creating able leaders who will lead the Army for many generations to come. Strategic leadership education should offer soldiers options regarding how they might proceed decisively to overcome adversaries that know no limitations or regulations of war. Strategic leadership education should analyze the Army’s capability of providing both timely and essential skills to the Army’s hopeful leaders (Schoomaker, 2006). In numerous situations, Army leaders, at every level, are expected to make critical decisions regarding their teams, and how the matter at hand would be solved. The goal of the Army curriculum, therefore, should be to offer the intellectual rigor required to grant strategic thinking in time for leaders to distinguish and improve their ability. According to AR 350-1, leadership development is a continuous procedure that starts with pre-commissioning education and training. It also prepares commissioned officers for improved responsibilities and thriving performance at the next higher level (Hardaway, 2008). However, I feel like the existing system continues to center on tactical skills up through the level of captain before shifting into the operational rank for the Army’s majors. Intermediate Level Education (ILE) or Command and General Staff College are the first opportunity for soldiers to get training in joint operations and an introduction to leadership. I do not think that this is adequate training. Training army leaders should be the first priority when people join army colleges. At this stage, it will be much easier to classify leaders than waiting for them to enroll into ILE (Bennis, 2004). If such a matter is not stressed early enough, then in the next 10 to 15 years soldiers will not be in a position of tackling warfare efficiently as now. The Army explains lifelong learning as a person’s choice, overtly and actively to pursue knowledge and understanding of ideas, as well as the increase of depth, in any area, to go past a known state of competency and development. This definition of self-awareness recognizes that institutional education and training are only one part of Army leader development. Whereas the Army curriculum exists to develop or revive a solider’s knowledge and skill, it is imperative that leaders do not ignore every option available to prolong the learning process on their own. In today’s environment, the two individual capabilities, which allow a leader to learn fresh skills, are adaptability and self-awareness. Leader development is also personal development (Bennis, 2004). The military, therefore, should restructure the leadership curriculum to entail the process of becoming more conscious of one’s self. If the Army does this, then in the next 10 to 15 years, I see a situation where solders like me will be equipped to stop warfare even before it starts. We will be in a better position than now to tackle warfare. Self-awareness refers to the scale in which individuals are aware of various features of their identities. It is also the extent to which people’s self-perceptions are similar with the way others view them (Hardaway, 2008). The army should keep in mind that self-awareness has been identified as the first component of emotional intelligence. It is, therefore, vital for a leader to be capable of evaluating him or herself to recognize the impact they have on thinking and decisions, which will enable the army to tackle any issues regarding the 21st century warfare. I feel that the current Army curriculum just summaries to soldiers the value of self awareness. However, in order to become a true learning institution, the Army should codify the traits of self awareness, as well as adaptability, into a leader evaluation system, which emphasizes on instantaneous results over long-term development. As the span of responsibility grows, senior leader capability of recognizing changes in themselves, as well as their environment, should increase exponentially (Hardaway, 2008). Whereas dedication to career-long learning is manifested by a majority of the Army’s strategic leadership, I feel that the essential evaluation mechanism still neglects the principles of lifelong learning. Their evaluation mechanism centers primarily on modern performance and offers little reward for a soldier’s devotion to career-long professional development (Bennis, 2004). Some elements of the mechanism fail to provide any motivation to solidify communications between senior and junior soldiers concerning those traits valued in a leader’s career. Through ignoring the leader development features of their evaluation mechanism, the status quo of measuring and achieving short-term objectives is maintained. The Army has yet to create a way for determining skills needed by rank, functional or branch areas (Bennis, 2004). Without this skill, soldiers are forced to follow ordinary paths for promotion and selection as these are the only identified ways to gain the necessary skills for more advanced positions. Conclusion Experimental learning through developmental and rotational assignments will improve an Army leader’s knowledge base. Whereas duties that promote creativity, confidence, and critical thinking balance institutional training, intellectual rigor should be applied to the selection processes for both operational and educational assignments. Those soldiers portraying the most hope for success should be enlisted for these supplementary learning opportunities, rather than accepting just those that desire to apply. Also, to more civilian education alternatives, the Army curriculum should try to introduce the subjects concerning joint along with interagency operations earlier in a soldier’s career. The Army should look into traits and attributes of its leaders, at the senior levels, so as to develop context-based education, as well as evaluation systems. A way of attaining this is to set up qualitative standards for branch qualification derived from operational experiences, and not just on the number of months allocated. When this is granted, soldiers like me, 10 to 15 years from now, will be able to tackle to this 21st century warfare scene with ease, and protect more lives. References Bennis, W. (2004). The seven ages of the leader. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Publishing. Hardaway, J. (2008). Strategic leader development for a 21st century army. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA485591 Schoomaker, P. (2006). Army leadership: Competent, confident, and agile. FM 6-22 (FM 22-100). Retrieved from http://prepbug.com/files/Field%20Manuals/FM%206-22%20-%20Army%20Leadership.pdf Read More