The U. S. Army Future Concept for the Human Dimension

9-3. Leadership and Battle Command

Combat Leadership
Competence, trust, loyalty, and empowerment are leadership imperatives that span a variety of contexts, but nowhere are these qualities more important than in operations under conditions of eminent physical danger where serious injury or death may result. How does leadership in such high-risk, challenging and inhospitable situations, differ from leadership in more mundane contexts? Observers have found that men and women who lead other people in places and through situations that most would find intimidating, if not outright horrifying, will often behave in ways that may provide insights into developing future leaders for the Army. Such leaders and situations referred to as in extremis or, “at the point of death,” place a premium on leaders that are passionately motivated to lead in such situations.

The authentic leader is true to him/herself and the exhibited behavior positively transforms or develops associates into leaders themselves. (Luthans & Avolio, 2003, p. 243)
These influential leaders and others like them are authentic. Followers are attentive to, and able to recognize, a lack of sincerity or clumsy management techniques displayed by someone in a leadership position or role.¹⁸⁶ Authentic leaders are competent, confident, and optimistic leaders of high moral character who are aware of their own thoughts, behaviors, abilities, and values. In short, they are self-aware leaders. Authentic leaders are also attentive to these characteristics in others and the situational context in which they operate. This collective awareness assists them in adapting their leadership to the conditions inherent in the combat setting. In elaborating on authentic leaders their projection of optimism, hope, and resiliency, provide keys to understanding why those who are authentic are also effective at commanding follower loyalty, obedience, admiration, and respect.¹⁸⁷

It follows, that in circumstances where leader optimism, hope, and resilience are especially valued, authentic leaders assert a powerful influence. Specifically, in situations where followers’ lives are threatened, those at risk seek out feelings of optimism, hope, and resilience literally defining the promise of survival.

The genesis of The Army Values is the uniquely human character of the Army and its professional service—the Army is the organization that sustains democracy by preserving and taking human life, in accordance with the national will. Recent combat operations show that successful leaders demonstrate a pattern that includes a flexible pragmatic leadership style, a learning orientation, and a willingness to share risk with, and adopt the common lifestyle of their Soldiers. It does not take long for followers to recognize a leader’s indifference or incompetence.¹⁸⁸ Combat leaders sensitive to those around them develop a collective awareness that enables them to adapt their leadership to combat conditions. Their projection of optimism, hope, and resiliency explains in large measure why such leaders are also effective in earning follower loyalty, obedience, admiration, and respect.¹⁸⁹
One additional quality that stands out among successful combat leaders is that they continue to analyze themselves and their actions. They understand themselves and the situation they were in and attempt to learn and help others to learn from those experiences. They share lessons learned. A critical component of leadership is the idea that to become an authentic leader, a leader must first have an accurate self assessment. Their candor provides a wealth of experience for students of leadership to draw from and to apply in leader development programs for the generation that will lead Soldiers and units in future full spectrum operations.
The Soldier's confidence in the commander is also critical in protecting him from overwhelming battle stress…[This confidence derives from] three elements that inspired confidence in commanders (1) belief in the professional competence of the commander, (2) belief in his credibility, and (3) the perception that he cares about his troops. While in garrison all three components are equally important; in combat trust in the commander's professional competence becomes primary.¹⁹⁰
In essence, the commander serves as the lens that focuses battlefield, unit, and individual factors affecting the Soldier’s evaluation of the situation, which can influence their success or failure in coping.¹⁹¹ The leader helps shape the Soldiers’ appraisal of the situation into a unified expectation by unit members, amplifying the threat or reducing it.
Recent studies show that Soldiers and subordinate leaders frequently think that some leaders are not effectively communicating, are trying to enhance their careers, are not providing meaningful or effective training, are micromanaging for short term success at the expense of long term effectiveness, and fail to exhibit clear thinking and reasonable action under stress.¹⁹² Command climate continues to be a significant factor affecting the development of cohesive competent units and retention. Future leaders will need to assess Soldier morale and unit cohesion across the deployment cycle listening to subordinates and examining indicators such as the Soldiers quality of life, disciplinary problems, injuries, unauthorized absences, and sick call. Commanders should provide feedback on how the unit is performing and on the current situation in the form of a constant dialogue with subordinates. While detailed results are not required, the more transparent the feedback the more “buy in” the unit members will have in supporting remedies to address unit concerns.¹⁹³ So far there is little new in this discussion of leadership. Will the future be so different that leaders will need different skills and attributes? Absolutely, and not just in degree, but also in precision, precision aided by social science and technical developments that reduce guesswork in decisionmaking processes. This section’s discussion of combat leader challenges leads next to a discussion of methodology—the practice of battle command.
The cauldron of combat both demands and forms leaders. It will likely be the experience for future commanders that it has been for commanders in every American war since the Revolution. Given that starting point what are the differences the future hold for combat leaders?
TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-3 outlines several key ideas relative to the function of battle command. The first is the centrality of the commander. This focus on the individuals who occupy positions of command narrows the discussion of leadership to the select group of practitioners of the art and science of battle command. Others in military service from Soldier to general practice leadership in different capacities than those charged with command responsibility. This key idea highlights this difference while establishing the primacy of commanders—a concept warranting future emphasis.
Next in the list of key battle command ideas is the role of the commander. Here the concept describes what the commander does in terms of understanding, visualizing, describing, directing, and continuously assessing the situation. It is not a mechanistic checklist of how to command, but a process of blending the art and science of operations in the command function. As pointed out earlier in this chapter, not everyone is necessarily capable of performing this blending, particularly as the level of command rises to the operational levels of division and higher. The concept describes the operations process of planning, preparing, executing, and framing/reframing in a continuous loop back-dropped by assessment. This particular key idea is about process, but it is about leadership, taking into account actions and thoughts ingrained in the commander. It introduces a new idea of framing and reframing in the decisionmaking cycle.
The next two key ideas are mission command and self-synchronization. Inextricably linked, these are well established doctrinal terms reflective of the American style of encouraging initiative in leaders. Essentially, the idea of mission command is one of communicating intent clearly enough so that subordinate commanders know expectations well enough to continue the mission in the absence of orders. Similarly, armed with the senior commander’s intent, subordinate commanders synchronize their operations within and between commands towards the common objective with or without communications. This particular set of ideas places a tremendous premium on the competence of commanders, in their initiative and reliability, their sense of commitment to the mission, and their sense of duty. It is an enormous challenge to develop leaders possessed of this level of confidence in both their superiors and subordinates. It is an intangible aspect of battle command that moves away from technological solutions and turns to trust, faith, and proven reliability.
The remaining three battle command key ideas deal largely with the mechanics of C2, the science counterpoint to operational art. Collaborative planning and the accelerated military decisionmaking process articulate a conscious effort to move away from lockstep planning and execution processes and move toward planning done collaboratively rather than vertically. Instead of plans and orders issued from higher to lower, the concepts calls for horizontal fusion of the planning process with commanders at all levels being capable of participating and shaping the plan. Rather than the chaotic anarchy this idea might evoke, it relies on a collaborative information environment in which vertical and horizontal planning and execution coexist. The implication for leadership is that senior, more experienced commanders must be comfortable with both cultivating their subordinates and with relying on them to accelerate the planning process.
Decision superiority treats the cognitive aspect of battle command and the fight for information. It addresses the understanding portion of the role of the commander as well as the assessment effort. In terms of leadership, it calls for mental agility and decisiveness in commanders. Decision superiority does not suggest perfect situational understanding. Rather it stands as a goal that all commanders must fight to achieve and capitalize on. Even more important from the leadership perspective is commanders who do not hesitate to make decisions even in the face of limited information. Waiting too long for that last bit of information can make the difference between success and failure, between Soldiers living and dying. No matter how successful the military becomes in obtaining decision superiority, it remains but one tool until applied. In the end, the objective of this key idea is to move faster than the adversary can react. Consequently, in addition to agility and decisiveness as essential qualities in a commander, self-confidence becomes nearly paramount to achieving decision superiority.
Lastly, a single integrated Army battle command system is necessary to provide the network and the materiel side of battle command. Relative to leadership in the human dimension, the idea of uninterrupted communications, a common operational picture, and a collaborative information environment—seamless from space to ground—is the dream of all commanders. Over reliance on this or any other system, on the other hand, marks a failure of leadership. Commanders must be skilled users of the battle command system, of schooling their subordinates in its use, and of insuring that they cultivate a command leadership climate that encourages decisive action even when the network fails.
Thus, the Battle Command key ideas do not operate in isolation. Mission command and self-synchronization facilitate accelerated planning and decisionmaking. They also provide counters to the fog of war and the inevitable failure of parts of whatever system supports C2. The discussions on S&T in the last chapter present many of the potential developments that will either enable or improve the application of battle command key ideas.