Highlights from the Army's leadership philosophy

Most companies have little interesting to say on the subject of leadership. The guidance supplied by Corporate America in its publications, job ladders, trainings, and so forth is almost without exception inexpressive and imprecise, unlikely to provoke an interesting thought let alone excellence.

What would comprehensive and specific leadership guidance for a large organization even look like? The U.S. Army has the answer.

I recently discovered the Army Publishing Directorate, a massive online catalog of Army reference materials. Among these documents are the Army Doctrine Publications (ADPs), a set of (currently) 16 documents which provide an in-detail, from-first-principles[0] review of why the Army exists and how it operates.

The writing in these documents is impressive: well-organized at every level and methodically detailed. The ADPs describe a massive and complete organizational taxonomy, smoothly connecting a longitudinal military philosophy rooted in the lessons of history with object-level directives for operations, warfighting, and command.

This combination of breadth and clarity far exceeds any expression of corporate philosophy I have encountered. Most writing about business, organizational structure, and leadership is awash with vagueries; not so for the Army.

I was particularly impressed by ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession. From the first sentences of the introduction we get straight to the point:

ADP 6-22 establishes and describes the Army profession and the associated ethic that serve as the basis for a shared professional identity. It establishes and describes what leaders should be and do.

Why is that important? Next sentence:

Having a standard set of leader attributes and core leader competencies facilitates focused feedback, education, training, and development across all leadership levels.

How does this document do that? Next sentence:

ADP 6-22 describes enduring concepts of leadership through the core competencies and attributes required of leaders of all cohorts and all organizations, regardless of mission or setting.

I think most people, including managers and corporate executives, have a pretty squishy sense of ‘what leaders should be and do’. Leadership itself is often treated as a nebulous, ‘I know it when I see it’ concept. That’s not in-principle wrong – some ideas and behaviors really do resist formalization. But after reading ADP 6-22 I don’t think leadership is one of them.

So what does leadership mean to the Army? The introduction continues:

An ideal Army leader serves as a role model through strong intellect, physical presence, professional competence, and moral character. An Army leader is able and willing to act decisively, within superior leaders’ intent and purpose, and in the organization’s best interests. Army leaders recognize that organizations, built on mutual trust and confidence, accomplish missions.

Every member of the Army profession, military or civilian, is part of a team and functions in the role of leader and subordinate. Being a good subordinate is part of being an effective leader. Leaders do not just lead subordinates—they also lead other leaders. Leaders are not limited to just those designated by position, rank, or authority.

Being and doing are ineffectual without knowledge. Knowing the what and how of soldiering, tactics, operational art, staff operations, functional and technical expertise, and many other areas are essential to leading well.

This is incisive: we are immediately introduced to the taxonomy of what leaders should be (characteristics) and do (behaviors). We understand that all leaders are also subordinates and that leadership may be formal or informal. We recognize leadership as forming the hierarchy that pursues high-level goals (“accomplish missions”) while being grounded in object-level tasks (“the what and how of soldiering”).

Now, there is a temptation when encountering the crystallization of a familiar but fuzzy concept to nod along and just say, well, yeah, that seems pretty obvious. Nothing in those paragraphs is particularly surprising or revelatory.

The point I want to stress is that producing those words (or the equivalent for another organization) is a challenge. The words are a proof-of-work for the thought and philosophy behind them. It is apparently hard enough for most companies to outline their own leadership philosophy in similar detail, let alone follow it up with 130 pages of internally-consistent exposition (as here).

In fact, one of the standout characteristics of the writing in ADP 6-22 is that it charges headlong into specific definitions of terms that can otherwise be rhetorical shields for lazy thinking. ‘Part of being a leader is being a professional.’ Well, what is a professional?

Traditional professions share essential characteristics. They provide a vital service to society, requiring expertise and skill developed through years of training, education, and experience. Professions establish standards of practice and certify that their members are qualified to serve the needs of society.

Professionals accept the responsibility to be stewards of the people and resources entrusted to them by society and to advance the state of their profession in anticipation of changes to the world around them. Professions motivate their members to answer a “calling to honorable service,” to pursue lifelong learning, and to cooperate as members with a common purpose higher than individual gratification. A calling or vocation means that the mission is more important than the individual is, which is the basis of sacrifice.

Professions self-police and must live by an ethic with both legal and moral foundations. A professional ethic provides the set of moral principles that guide decisions and actions in professional practice. Traditional professions include medicine and law, science and engineering, architecture, higher education, ordained religious practice, and the military.

Ultimately, society trusts professions and grants them autonomy and discretion with prudent, balanced oversight or external controls. If a profession violates its ethic and loses the trust of society, it becomes subject to increased societal regulation and governance.

All of this serves as a foundation for the later definition of the ‘Army profession’. What characterizes the Army profession?

Five characteristics identify and establish the Army as a profession. These characteristics reflect American values, the Army ethic, and the Army’s approach to conducting operations. Demonstrated consistently, these characteristics reinforce trust between the Army profession and the American people. The five characteristics of the Army profession are—

You will not be surprised to know that each of those terms is in turn supported by its own five-hundred-word section defining the characteristic and explaining how it relates to the high-level goals (accomplishing the mission), low-level work (soldiering), and functioning (leadership) of the army.

The concept of leadership itself receives the same treatment:

Leadership is the activity of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization. Leadership as an element of combat power, coupled with information, unifies the warfighting functions (movement and maneuver, intelligence, fires, sustainment, protection and command and control). Leadership focuses and synchronizes organizations. Leaders inspire people to become energized and motivated to achieve desired outcomes. An Army leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.

Guess what we’re talking about next? Yup, it’s influencing, purpose, direction, and motivation.

Influencing is persuading people [to] do what is necessary. Influencing entails more than simply passing along orders. Through words and personal example, leaders inspire purpose, provide direction, and when required motivation.

Holy shit! That’s the best goddamn definition of ‘influence’ I’ve ever seen! ‘Influencing is persuading people to do what is necessary’ is how I will explain that concept for the rest of my life.

A lot of what makes this document incredible is commitment to the recursive structure of definition (starting with the why and how of the Army as a whole) paired with a writing style that is descriptive but concise. To avoid nebulous language, each term must be justified and defined in context. To prevent the content from exploding under this pressure for specifics the prose and organization must be kept tight. A failure of this second requirement is likely what keeps corporate writing from succeeding with (or pursuing) this style at all.

It’s not all a decomposition of terms, though. Leadership is consistently discussed as a sociological phenomenon:

Everyone has an identity or a way they see themselves. Leaders internalize the roles, responsibilities, and actions that they understand of a leader to be, know, and do. Leaders who are unsure of themselves filling the role of a leader will be limited until they have confidence. Without a clear leader identity, others will question the type of leader they are, what they stand for, and the way they conduct themselves.

Lots of sections apply an ‘in practice’ lens. Leadership happens in the context of human dynamics and those dynamics are of primary concern. For example, on the topic of humility:

Humility exists on a continuum. Too little humility represents arrogance or hubris, which may lead to overconfidence. Excess humility is problematic because it is interpreted as shyness, meekness, passivity, blind obedience, or timidity. Either extreme signals a lack of self-awareness that undermines followers’ trust and confidence in the leader’s ability to make good decisions, look out for the unit’s welfare, and to achieve success.

Many words are spent on the relative nature of communication and interpersonal relationships. At the center of this document is the relationship between the leader and the led which is affected at every turn by choices the leader makes.

By nature, the Army also has latitude to discuss topics (e.g. courage, discipline, physical fitness) that would be out of place in a typical corporate job ladder but that nonetheless impact a leader’s ability and effectiveness. In this way, Army Leadership and the Profession is more complete than most other similar resources, and more honest.

[0] Chapter 1 of ADP 1 is titled “Why America Needs an Army”