William J. Walsh

1
Optimizing Leadership Performance

• William J. Walsh
• Orly Ben-Yoav Nobel, Ph.D
• LTC Sean T. Hannah, Ph.D

2
Overview

• Program
• Background current leadership training
• Whats changed?
• Methodology
• Results
• Where to?

3
The Program

• This approach was taken in response to a Phase I
  SBIR program
• Requirement define and assess dynamic leadership
  skills to fit a new model for leadership training
  
• Sponsor AFRL, Human Effectiveness Directorate,
  Warfighter Readiness Research Division, Dr.
  Barbara Sorensen

4
Conceptualizing the Problem

• Goal
• Establish a conceptual model for leadership
• underlie design of a scenario-based leadership
  development training program
• aimed at preparing officers to lead effectively
  in the new asymmetric reality of joint,
  stability, support and security operations

5
The Issue

• Battles of the future will not be fought entirely
  on battlefields
• winning in war requires achieving desired
  political aims . . . resolving crises, winning
  conventional combat operations, and ensuring
  stability in affected areas
• Future leaders must have an appreciation that
  success on the battlefield may only be a small
  part of the nations overall strategy

Photo Courtesy of U.S. Navy
6
Leadership Training

• Current military leaders have been groomed to
  approach certain problems with specific tactics
• Industrial Age militaries
• decomposed the battlespace,
• created layered organizations
• divided into specializations
• organized forces into hierarchies
• focused on optimization of processes

7
Asymmetric Warfare

• In the new asymmetrical reality
• U.S. forces fight predominately in urban settings
• enemy forces are not easily discerned from
  neutrals or non-combatants
• damage or destruction of civilian infrastructure
  must be limited
• Exercise restraint versus maximizing kinetic
  forms of combat power

8
The New Paradigm

• There is a new paradigm for the force that
  evolved to fight massive kinetic warfare against
  symmetric enemy formations across the
  battlefields of Europe or Korea, or as evidenced
  in Southwest Asia during Desert Storm

Photos Courtesy of U.S. National Archives
9
Asymmetrical Paradigm

• In this new asymmetrical paradigm, the enemy has
  set the conditions
• U.S. forces must engage at the tactical level,
  largely reducing the role of technology in the
  fight and changing its focus to support
  information collection and sharing.
• Leaders must understand how to hold human
  dominance over current and potential adversaries
  in addition to kinetic dominance

Photo Courtesy of U.S. Navy
10
Human Dominance

• Requires leaders who are physiologically prepared
  to handle the stress and physical demands of
  sustained close-combat warfare
• Cognitively advanced to engage a cunning enemy at
  the intellectual level with adaptability and
  nimbleness

Photo Courtesy of U.S. Navy
11
What is Leadership?

• Intentional influence exerted by one person over
  others to guide, structure and facilitate
  activities and relationships in a group.
  Yukl, 2006
• Influencing peopleby providing purpose,
  direction, and motivationwhile operating to
  accomplish the mission. FM22-100
• Recent conceptualizationscomplex mix of
  cognitive, social and behavioral skills
  (Day Halpin, 2004 Lord Hall,
  2005 Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs
  Fleishman, 2000)

12
Methodology

• Reviewed recent DOD sponsored tasks and
  competencies analyses - roles and
  responsibilities in stability and support and
  kinetic operations
• Reviewed recently published Field Manual FM 3-24
  Counterinsurgency
• Reviewed research focusing on leadership roles
  and responsibilities in various types of
  operations
• Derived key roles and competencies from
  one-on-one interviews with 36 mid-level and
  junior officers.
• Confirmatory one-on-one interviews with 10 OIF
  experienced officers

13
Results

• Our analysis yielded ten key roles each
  associated a list of responsibilities.
• Roles range from tactical commander to
  non-kinetic roles such as negotiating agreements
  and mediating disputes.
• Shared goal of most roles is to encourage the
  local population to move away from hostile
  positions to support U.S. military goals and
  local governments objectives

Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army
14
Findings 10 Roles

• Intelligence Gatherer
• Insurgence Threat Assessor
• Tactical Commander
• Joint Operations Commander and Shared/Coordinated
  Situation Awareness Facilitator
• Strategic Thinker / Diplomat
• Negotiator, Mediator, Peace-Maker
• Nation Builder
• Civil Affairs Administrator / Infrastructure
  Builder
• Adaptive and Moral Force Developer
• Team Leader

Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army
15
Key Role - Intelligence Gatherer (example)

• Sample Tasks
• Assess attitudes of local population
• Gain understanding of demographics of area
• Question locals encountered during patrols, civil
  affairs actions
• Monitor media and communication such as posters,
  leaflets, print, broadcast media and Internet
  posting

• Sample Competencies
• Guide followers to adopt consistent and
  comprehensive approach to scanning tactical and
  social environments
• Monitor, control and correct information
  processing and perceptual biases

Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army
16
Key Role Diplomat(example)

• Sample Tasks
• Consider strategic implications of tactical moves
  and consequences of military actions on image of
  US forces
• Establish rapport and develop collaborative
  relationship with local leaders during patrols or
  meetings
• Develop familiarity with the culture, history,
  religion and language of area to ensure effective
  interaction with local population

• Sample Competencies
• Project and assess the physical and nonphysical
  effects as well as the intended and potential
  political collateral impact of units actions
  goals and objectives
• Share and discuss cultural knowledge with
  followers and direct them to conform to cultural
  expectations

Photos Courtesy of U.S. Army U.S. Navy
17
Meta-Leadership Knowledge Skills

• Knowledge and skills that enhance performance
  across all roles were drawn from interviews with
  experienced combat officers, review of military
  leadership studies and FM 3-24,
• Key meta-leadership knowledge and skills were
  identified as central for preparing officers to
  lead effectively in security and stability
  operations

18
Meta-Leadership Knowledge Skills

• Role modeling
• Performance management
• Delegating
• Influencing
• Problem-solving, (decision-making, strategic
  intuition)
• Situation awareness
• Supporting

Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army
19
Meta-Leadership Attributes

• Meta-leadership attributes may be classified as
• Cognitive and affective attributes
• Cognitive complexity
• Social complexity
• Hardiness
• Leadership Efficacy
• Courage
• Optimism
• Self-regulation attributes
• Meta-cognitive ability
• Emotional control
• Behavioral flexibility

Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army
20
Where to from Here?

• This conceptual model can underlie design of a
  scenario-based leadership development training
  program
• Aims to develop suite of competencies needed to
  prepare officers to lead in new asymmetric
  reality of joint, stability, and support and
  security operations

21
Potential Training Program

• New leader preparation academic commissioning
  programs
• traditional classroom learning environment, along
  with group exercises involving all members of the
  class
• Leaders already on duty - dispersed group
• course of independent study, individualized
  instruction, computer-based scenarios
• Tutorial component to introduce key roles and
  competencies
• Assessment
• Judge effectiveness based on consequences of
  decisions and actions
• interactive after action reviews

Photos Courtesy of USMA