How Do Army Leaders Make Decisions

The United States Army is a complex organization made up of several commands and managed by different command levels. The U.S. Army is an organization different from that of a business in many unique ways. Specific examples of these differences include: financial reporting, disciplinary review procedures, and tactical operations. Although different in many ways, the Army shares many similar characteristics of a normal profit business. Army personnel are managed by supervisors arranged in a command structure similar to that of a business hierarchy. The Army will also encounter internal and external factors that could impede or enhance operations. As such, planning, organizing, leading, and controlling must be used by managers appropriately

Army officers learn from the onset of their careers the important role they play as problem solvers. The various military institutions tasked with providing education to the officer corps spend vast amounts of time teaching and reinforcing the Army Problem Solving Process. With that being said, Army officers at all ranks would be better served if they were able to incorporate the eight elements of thought as defined by Drs. Paul & Elder into the military decision-making process. Although encompassed within the Army problem solving process, officers often fail to identify and incorporate the tenets of thought when making decisions resulting in potentially adverse consequences. The following examples will highlight

There have been many doctrinal changes in the United States Army throughout the past decade. During the Global War on Terror, there has been a shift of experience to reflect more towards Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) proficiency. This is due to the military needing more outcome to produce Operational Readiness rather than common Soldier task proficiency. This change has had both positive and negative effects on the Army. On one hand we have very experienced technical Soldiers; and on the other hand we have Soldiers who do not completely understand the Whole Soldier Concept. This concept could bring a perfect balance to create a better quality leader for future military operations. The following paper will discuss both sides of Army

In this paper I will be paying special attention to the individual leadership philosophy, and how it could make a difference in day to day Army operation. I will be also explain how to enforce such methods among peers, and fellow soldiers in order to get a desired outcome. Finally, I will provide an example where the individual leadership skills and philosophy has proven to be effective if used in the right manner. For this paper I have used the Army Doctrine Publication (ADP 6-22) as a point of reference to support my arguments.

“Leadership is about people; management is about things. Successful commanders understand they are equally responsible for both.” 1 Finding a balance between executing the mission and taking care of the people is one of many challenging tasks for a commander. This paper will cover three elements. Specifically, I will discuss my leadership philosophy as commander of my unit discussing such items as a description of my philosophy, and my thoughts on key traits required for a successful leader. Next, I will examine an interview conducted with a commander to gain an in depth look at one of the most challenging leadership decisions he has experienced. Finally, I will provide an analysis of the interviewee’s actions, and compare his actions to my leadership philosophy.

The United States Army is a thriving military force that has safeguarded America’s homeland for over 241 years and continues the fight for everlasting freedom. The Army’s success lies in its ability to adapt but most importantly the Army’s triumph lies within Soldiers who are groomed into leaders. In my opinion, leaders are expected to uphold the standards and become a source of motivation that followers gravitate towards. The dictionary definition of leadership is simply the action of leading a group of people but everybody has their own method in doing so. In this short paper, I will provide my leadership philosophy and establish my standpoint as an Army leader.

As history has taught us an Army at war is stretched and stressed in some cases similarly to a rubber band ready to break. In today’s Army we have a large number of Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers who have learned or have been taught to be comfortable with ambiguity, complexity, and change. While we do not appear much different than our predecessors we carry our wisdom and savvy that can only be gained from our obstacles experienced through multiple deployments fighting an enemy hidden within the cities, intermixed with innocent civilians, and no distinctive means of recognition. We have faced variables that constantly change noted throughout our military history such as; weather, terrain, civilian population, ever evolving enemy, and different dynamics. To continuously improve the leaders today in adaptability we need to be constantly tested, and pushed to our limits in order to overcome our impasse. Through my research on developing adaptive leaders I have found a statement from a former Chief of Staff of the Army General Eric Shinseki and he set the stage for change by chartering the Army Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) in his anticipation

Throughout the course of military history, and more recently in United States Armed Forces over the past 14 years, there has been a debate over the importance of leadership in combat versus leadership in a garrison; weighing one over the other. Combat leadership requires rapid, kinetic decisions focused on aggressive actions; garrison leadership is a more deliberate process, grounded in safety, and focused on training for combat operations. In spite of these key differences between combat and garrison leadership; the fundamental aspects of leading remain the same: objective, outcome, and standards of performance. The only thing that changes in comparing leadership between combat and garrison operations is the environment in which one leads another. Neither combat nor garrison leadership is more important than the other is; nor should there be any discernable difference between leadership in a combat environment versus a garrison environment.

The Army leader is interested in the evolution and transformation of the organization. In the world of today, where the rhythm of change is often intense, the leader has to be there to show the way, propose a vision of the future, mobilize and inspire the soldiers. The leadership is what allows the Army to aim at a purpose, to put itself in action in spite

After a few years in the Army, most Soldiers begin to realize that there is a clear inconsistency of leadership styles at all levels within our ranks. We often find

For more than 200 years, Army leaders have recognized that success on the battlefield requires individuals who possess the ability to comprehensively think through the problem at hand, quickly adapt to

I believe that a good military leader builds a relationship with his followers who feel motivated by it and work diligently to get the job done. This is achieved by a leader who make conscientious efforts to gain thorough knowledge of his personnel background, habits, strengths and weaknesses. A leader who develops an understanding about how his men react under various conditions will employ them successfully. Personnel desire to satisfy their physical, mental and spiritual needs form the basis of their

Army leaders are dictated by and required to adhered to ADP 6-22 which outlines the attributes and competencies of leaders within the Army. ADP 6-22 states an Army leader is anybody who, by virtue of presumed role or assigned accountability, motivates and influences people to accomplish an organization’s goals. Leaders within the Army motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and make decisions for the overall well-being of the organization. According to the Army’s definition,

The Army defines leadership as influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization (Schoomaker, 2007). The leaders in an organization use leadership styles that range from Charismatic to Transformational to motivate their subordinates to execute each task at a high level. They also use individual and organizational goals to establish an emotional connection between the individual, task, and the organization. The leader’s leadership style plays a vital role in keeping an individual focused. They use their emotional intelligence to understand their personnel and work to resolve conflicts. As the leadership style

The United States Military leaders are seen as one of the most effective leaders in the world due to all of the demands that are place on them. In short, these leaders are seen as having great integrity and the ability to deliver an undaunting message to his troops or sailors and convince them to complete their task. They also must be able to work with outside organizations who contributes to the military their resources in which they foster a positive relationship with its sponsors and the many stakeholders, suppliers and their subordinates. Leaders are held to the highest standards and if they ignore rules or regulations in their organization than this can affect their subordinates’ morale, the ability to complete their tasks in a timely manner in which can affect the organization future success.