running head: adaptive and agile leadership … · 2018-12-05 · fostering and developing adaptive...
TRANSCRIPT
Running Head: ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 1
AN ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. ARMY’S ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
MSA 699 Administrative Research and Report Methods
Submitted by:
Johnathan H. Westbrook
Project Instructor:
Patricia Kelley, Ph. D
Masters of Science and Administration – Leadership Concentration [Submission Date: July 11, 2016]
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An Analysis of the U.S. Army’s Adaptive and Agile Leadership Development Process
By Johnathan H. Westbrook
“An Analysis of the U.S. Army’s Adaptive and Agile Leadership Development Process”
is a research project to determine how this phenome came to exist and can continue to thrive for
the benefit of future generations of officers. This project was undertaken as a personal inquiry
effort to help the researcher become a more informed leader and mentor. Outcomes from this
research may be used to inform further studies undertaken by the Department of the Army in the
form of Rand or Army Science Board initiatives.
The researcher used qualitative research and conducted a phenomenal study
through the application of structured interviews. Permission was obtained from the Force 2025
and Beyond Deputy Director within the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) who falls
under the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). Permission was granted to
solicit participation and interview up to ten officers and or former officers now serving in the
role of department of the Army civilian who was previously an active duty officer. Participants
were provided questionnaires prior to the conduct of structured interviews, which were
conducted at Fort Eustis, Virginia. Data collected from measurable responses and open ended
questions provided insight into conditions for adaptive and agile leadership growth.
The literature review examined relatable concepts to adaptive and agile leadership, such
as: decision making, lessons learned from counterinsurgency operations, and the role of
communication on organizational culture. Other leadership philosophies such as transformational
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 3
and strategic leadership were also examined during the literature review process. Conclusions
help shape and frame subsequent research questions undertaken in this particular effort.
Adaptive and agile leadership was examined to measure the overall significance
associated with multiple environments common to the development of Army commissioned
officers over the course of their career, such as: deployed, civilian education, military education,
mentorship, and collective unit level training. Results informed attendance in civilian education
courses as well as serving on a deployment created the most significant environments for
fostering and developing adaptive and agile leadership growth. Broadening assignments also
played a key role in the exposure to non-standard ways of problem solving and also provided
access to multinational partners which were found to be notable enhancers for adaptive and agile
leadership growth. Responsiveness to the surrounding environment, both in real world and
simulated training environments, was also found to be a critical component of adaptive and agile
thinking.
The researcher concluded that the Army as a whole had much left to be desired for
developing adaptive and agile leaders because it appears this phenomena exists more as a theme
as opposed to a collective strategy. However, this research did identify solution strategies that
would take adaptive and agile leadership beyond its present state that could be used for perhaps
informing and refining a developmental campaign concept for Army leaders over the course of
their careers. An effective strategy for improving adaptive and agile leadership development
would be expanding broadening assignment opportunities, transition to outcomes based training
and institutionalize adaptive and agile leadership into counseling and performance appraisals.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 4
Table of Contents
Page Number
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Chapter 1 Problem Definition 7
Chapter 2 Literature Review 13
Chapter 3 Research Methodology 26
Chapter 4 Data Analysis 34
Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 55
Appendix A Permission to Conduct Study 64
Appendix B Interview Questionnaire 65
Appendix C Consent Form 68
References 71
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 5
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Demographic Data…………………………………………………………………..35
Table 4.2: Define Adaptive and Agile Leadership Trends……………………………………..36
Table 4.3: First Recollection of Adaptive and Agile Leadership……………………………....37
Table 4.4: Promotion and Implementation of Adaptive and Agile Leadership………………..38
Table 4.5: Incorporation of Adaptive and Agile Leadership in Daily Activities………………39
Table 4.6: Significance of Adaptive and Agile Leadership in Different Environments……….40
Table 4.7: Broadening Assignments…………………………………………………………...41
Table 4.8: Time Away from Primary Duties…………………………………………………..43
Table 4.9: Counter-Insurgency Requires Thinking Outside the Box; n=10…………………...45
Table 4.10: Significance of communicating with higher versus adjacent units……………….47
Table 4.11: How to maintain currency and growth as an adaptive and agile leader………….49
Table 4.12: Recommendations to promote and implement adaptive and agile leadership……50
Table 4.13: Closing thoughts about adaptive and agile leadership………………………........52
Table 4.14: Adaptive and agile leadership principles and attributes………………………….53
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 6
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Agile-leader mind-set explained…………………………………………..15
Figure 2.2 Cynefin framework………………………………………………………...23
Figure 3.1 Significance of Adaptive and Agile Leadership and Environment………..31
Figure 3.2 Significance of Adaptive and Agile Leadership and Environment………..32
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 7
Chapter 1: Problem Definition
Background
During the Global War on Terrorism, the United States Army began describing the need
for leaders to become more adaptive and agile. While addressing the topic of adaptive and agile
leadership, Lieutenant General William Caldwell described mental agility as the ability to
anticipate and adapt to evolving situations and meeting the challenges of the 21st century
(Caldwell, 2009, p. 8). His comments complimented effective counter-insurgency strategies
being conducted at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of warfare. The new operating
environment called for small unit leaders to execute decisive leadership while also maintaining
situational awareness on the second and third order effects of their actions on the strategic level
of battle.
Similar to evolutionary demands placed on leadership, Army formations likewise
changed to in response to the environment in an effort to adapt to emerging requirements. This
transcendence manifested with the development of modular Brigades that were capable of
generating autonomy while deployed. Modular Brigade formations were at the forefront of the
Global War on Terrorism Counterinsurgency operations. This was largely because counter-
insurgency operations required army formations to cover wide areas of terrain while
simultaneously partnering with host nation security forces. Modular brigades also allowed for
ease of altering the collective task organization by attaching and detaching subordinate company
formations based on mission requirements. According to Brown (2007), the development of
modular brigade formations required leaders to be better at communicating across the depth of an
organization as compared to previous command and control relationships that were largely
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 8
vertical and exclusive to command channels. Due to the self-reliance associated with the
modularity, brigade formations and their subordinate companies were required to inclusively
solve problems associated with their assigned areas of responsibility. This required junior leaders
to take more responsibility for decision making when compared to other previous conflicts.
In addition to modular Brigades, another new concept called “Strategic Corporals”
emerged, which highlighted the significance of junior enlisted Soldiers on the battlefield. This
called for information to not only be communicated horizontally, but also down to the lowest
level. In other words, communication did not exclusively exist between superior and subordinate
commanders in a vacuum similar to previous conflicts. Communication occurred between peers
and subordinates alike to ensure there was maximum dissemination of information. Likewise, the
lowest levels of the Army formations were engaged with the local populace due to the nature of
their inherent counter-insurgency mission and often generated critical intelligence that would
need to be rapidly communicated throughout the depth of a modular brigade in a holistic manner.
Leaders were required to have the ability to communicate both vertically and horizontally by
processing information, packaging it for respective audiences, while also concurrently
conducting military operations. Moreover, commissioned officers were required to listen to their
“strategic corporals” who were also at the forefront of interacting with both the local populace
and host nation security forces. This required leaders to not only communicate effectively, but
they also had to empower their subordinates to conduct missions while likewise helping them
understand the potential impacts of their actions at the highest national levels (Mitchell, 2012).
These changes represent a paradigm shift in a way of organizational thinking across the
depth of the Army formation. Up to this point, leaders were required to have a firm
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 9
understanding in doctrinal ways to maneuver against near peer enemy military formations
through a set hierarchy of chain of command, which is consistent with the vertical approach
described by Brown. (2007) However, guerilla warfare often created situations where junior
officers had to take action in absence of orders, proposing complex problems that a-typical
military solutions could not solve. Ambiguous environments required leaders at multiple levels
to rapidly assess situations and quickly develop solutions to problems in order to complete their
mission. Likewise, leaders at all levels were also faced with situations that they were not
necessarily trained or equipped to handle, but non the less were still required to positively
influence the operating environment surrounding their formation. As a result, Army senior
leaders began an expansive effort to demand the formation adjust to the changing environment
encountered during counterinsurgency operations. They called for adaptive and agile leadership
in response to the emerging demands encountered while participating in sustained modern
warfare during the Global War on Terrorism.
Research Problem
Although Army Leaders communicated the desire for leaders to become more adaptive
and agile, they struggled or failed to lay out how this process was supposed to actually occur.
There was no collective plan to develop adaptive and agile leaders in academic or environmental
settings, only a demand for leaders to embrace this phenomena as part of a cultural evolution
sparked by counter-insurgency operations. Because of this, it is difficult to measure if the Army
was successful or not with this particular endeavor. Army leaders are developed through
professional training, mentorship counseling, and also learn through personal experiences
associated with the military profession. If adaptive and agile leadership is not further explained
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 10
or codified by the current generation of officers possessing relative experience, this particular
phenomena is at risk of not being transferred to or understood by future generations of officers.
Similar to the current generation of officers, future generations will likewise inherent similar if
not more complex and ambiguous operating environments in the future. Adaptive and agile
leadership provides leaders with the freedom to think outside of the box, challenge assumptions,
and empower subordinates to complete their mission through trust.
This research project examined environments and settings where adaptive and agile
leadership development occurred from the perspective of participating Army commissioned
officers still serving on active duty. It is important to identify the situations and circumstances
that called for this particular phenomena while also accounting for those that most strongly
support or oppose further expansion of the concept. Where do commissioned officers in the U.S.
Army experience adaptive and agile leadership during the course of their careers? In order to
answer the primary research question the following series of sub-questions will be investigated:
1. What role does demographic data related to commissioning source, civilian education
level, military education level, rank, and sex have on the observation of adaptive and
agile leadership?
2. How evident is adaptive and agile leadership under different environments, such as:
deployments, civilian education, military education, mentorship sessions, and senior
leader symposiums.
3. How important is effective communication to promoting adaptive and agile leadership in
the following five environments: deployment, civilian education, military education,
mentorship sessions, and senior leader symposiums.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 11
4. What trends or recurring themes related to adaptive and agile leadership are identified as
a as a result of collecting data during the research process?
5. How do Army commissioned officers maintain currency on their proficiency as an
adaptive and agile leaders?
Qualitative research was used through the application of a phenomenological study to better
understand adaptive and agile leadership from the perspective of Army commissioned officers.
Structured interviews consisting of both scaled and open ended questions will be used to identify
trends to draw sound conclusions to inform further research opportunities. The sample
population will be asked to provide insights from their perspective on the adaptive and agile
leadership process under the lens of specific environments common to most commissioned
officers serving in the Army during the past ten years, such as: attendance in professional
military courses, counter-insurgency deployment operations, mentorship counseling, and leader
development programs. A thorough review of adaptive and agile leadership as a sub-component
of leadership development during professional military training will not occur during this
research endeavor. This is because the research focus is oriented towards participant’s
perspective on adaptive and agile leadership as opposed to an analysis of the purpose of
instruction associated with the course academics. Participants will also be asked to provide
perspective on how does the adaptive and agile leadership process exist and thrive within the
organization today.
Research Audience and Rationale
The intended audience for this report is the director and deputy director of the ARCIC
Studies and Analysis Division located at Fort Eustis, Virginia. The purpose for informing this
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 12
organization is to assist their decision making process as to whether or not to proceed with
developing a Rand study or Army Science Board proposal that explores adaptive and agile
leadership holistically throughout the Army formation. Findings from this report may potentially
establish collection tasks divided between the institutional and operational components within
the Army, that accounts for both education and mission focused domains. If adaptive and agile
leadership is not codified or further explored, the development of future generations of
commissioned officers is at risk because they would be unable to reap the benefits from valuable
lessons learned from their predecessors.
Research Study Scope/Delimitations
A total of ten participants will be interviewed to gain their perspective on how this
campaign affected their ability to lead Soldiers over the course of their careers. The goal is to
identify trends associated with the transition points of learning or understanding associated with
this particular leadership demand. Deductions resulting from the research should be able to
inform the military community as whole and not exclusively benefit the army. The intent is to
identify where, if at all, the Army accounts for achieving development of transitional leaders
within a sample of commissioned officers still serving on active duty. Comparisons and contrasts
will be drawn from outside organizations, such as business entrepreneurships and educational
leadership, to examine potential relatable trends through the lens of transformational leadership.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 13
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The literature review examines scholarly articles and published documents reflecting
concepts and studies associated with adaptive and agile leadership within organizations. The
literature review includes five areas: (a) adaptive and agile leadership, (b) strategic leadership,
(c) transformational leadership, (d) organizational culture and climate, and (e) decision making.
A brief analysis is included in this literature review of research studies, journals, and articles.
These references were required to establish the definition of adaptive and agile leadership, while
also providing a framework for comparative analysis with transformational leadership.
Adaptive and Agile Leadership
The U. S. Army defines leadership as “the process of influencing people by providing
purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the
organization”. (U. S. Army 2006) This definition will serve as a start point for further
examination of how the Army has evolved with developing adaptive and agile leaders. At the
center of the definition is the calling for leaders to influence people to accomplish the mission.
The definition also provides a framework as to how leaders should carry out their critical task, by
providing purpose, direction and motivation. Of note, this definition does not describe nor
discuss the operational environment leaders may encounter while applying the leadership
process. When considering the charge to collectively improve the organization, this provides an
opportunity for the Army as an organization to take action to progressively evolve for the sake of
enhancing their ability to successfully accomplish their mission. An implied task for Army
leaders is to focus thinking for the organization so that they can shape decisions and outcomes
associated to their inherent mission.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 14
Burpo (2006) suggests “adaptive and agile leaders influence people by providing
purpose, guidance, direction, and motivation – while operating in a complex, dynamic
environment of uncertainty and ambiguity to accomplish the mission and improve the
organization” (p. 66). This definition reinforces the U.S. Army definition on leadership, but goes
further to address the multitude of evolving conditions leaders will face while applying
leadership throughout the organization. Complex, dynamic, and ambiguity more or less
encapsulate the essence of the evolving operational environments. This calls for leaders to do
much more than give orders, they must be able to think, learn, analyze, and implement changes
as adaptive and agile leaders for the greater good of the organization.
Caldwell (2009) suggested leaders must think both critically and creatively, act with
confidence, and apply a measured comprehensive approach while applying leadership. In doing
so, it is imperative to address the concept of “how” versus “what” to think for adaptive and agile
leaders. This approach resulted with a call to change how Army officers. In years past, it was
imperative to know the enemy formations, capabilities, and limitations. Conversely, Caldwell
(2009) called for a change of focus for leaders to develop a wider range of analytical frameworks
to address the rapidly and ever evolving environment associated with the application of
counterinsurgency operations.
Brown (2007) spoke of the emergence of modular Brigade Formations which were at the
forefront of counter-insurgency operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This research evolved
legacy formations created during the cold war to account for emerging complexities associated
with counter-insurgency operations encountered during the Global War on Terrorism. This
transformation in and of itself was a significant shift in focus by the U.S. Army, not just in
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 15
formation, but also the function of the formation. By describing horizontal communication as an
attribute for adaptive and agile leaders, Brown theorized this approach would facilitate a better
cooperative environment between leaders at multiple echelons as compared to a controlling or
vertical communication approach. It was also suggested that the vertical approach offered a
limited choice of solutions, or “cookie cutters,” which may not address the emerging
requirements or keep pace with the rapid changing environment. The vertical approach is largely
associated with hierarchy of the military rank structure which limits communication between a
select group of leaders within an organization. Although leaders need to be informed in order to
provide guidance and to make decisions, this vertical approach does not foster an environment
conducive for rapidly and effectively disseminating critical information across the depth of
military formations. Brown found that effective collaboration could occur with the empowerment
of horizontal communication.
Figure 2.1 Agile-leader mind-set explained (Brown, R. B. 2007 data derived from figure 4)
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 16
With communication occurring at multiple echelons, adaptive and agile leaders were also
required to not only transmit information, but also receive information from their subordinate
and often junior soldiers in order to understand the operating environment. Mitchell (2012)
discussed the role and significance of each Soldier participating in irregular warfare as a named
participant called a “strategic corporal”. Holistically, each Soldier had a significant role in both
collecting and disseminating information about their environment, enemy, and friendly forces,
which was critical to effectively maintain situational awareness while operating in an ambiguous
environment. At the center of an effective strategic corporal is the ability to understand and
incorporate the cultural norms into counterinsurgency operations. This too requires leaders to be
adaptive and agile, because these norms can vary quite extensively when considering the depth
associated to how dispersed organizations were while conducting counterinsurgency operations.
An article written by Whittinghill (2015) examined how the United States Armed Forces
as a culture focused on developing adaptive and agile leaders at the organizational level. The
article described the organizational structure as a continuum under a mechanistic and organic
structures. Mechanistic structures clearly define problems and have a vertical communication
flow being driven by superiors to their respective subordinates. By comparison, organic
structures can rapidly change and successfully react to evolving environments. Similar to
Brown’s assertion on the role of communication, Whittinghill (2015) found innovation to be
equally important. Moreover, it was suggested that innovation occurred through the manipulation
of the organization driven by both distinctly different structures. The article largely focused on
the interpretation of scaled and qualitative analytical data sample size of 251 participants from
the U.S. Navy. Findings revealed substantial evidence supporting the assertion that the
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 17
organization was self-aware as an organic and innovative culture. Whittinghill (2015) identified
several attributes during the study which were defined as commonalities as defined by observed
culture. Most notably was the support for innovation at large. Supporting attributes were related
to having proper resources to assist with change, collaborative environments, autonomy, and
overall trust between supervisors and subordinates.
Strategic Leadership
Boal (2000) examined the evolutionary process of strategic leadership by grouping
theories together as they evolved over time. Three streams of theory and research were crafted to
determine under what conditions strategic leadership was most applicable. The first steam
consisted of strategic and upper echelon theory. The second stream, or “new”, included
charismatic, transformational, and visionary theories. The third stream was called “emergent”
and consisted of concepts that explored cognitive and social intelligence. According to Boal,
absorptive capacity involves the ability to interpret and implement new information. Moreover,
absorptive capacity of leaders occupying strategic positions is important because they are in a
unique position to influence change or reinforce current action within the organization. The study
found by combining new and emerging theories, researchers can gain better insight on the
process that most effectively influences the application of strategic leadership.
Strategic leadership can serve as a mediator between maintaining the status quo and call
for progressive change. Lin and McDonough (2011) suggest forward thinking leaders must
occupy a range of roles in order to influence change across the depth of an organization. Further,
strategic leadership impacts both knowledge sharing, innovation, and overall ambidexterity of
the team. Strategic leadership, organizational culture, and innovation/ambidexterity were used as
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 18
a framework to determine if there was a positive relationship between knowledge sharing and
innovation. Lin and McDonough found “strategic leadership is helpful to foster a knowledge-
sharing culture while a knowledge sharing culture with its aggregation of values, behaviors, and
norms is an effective means of fostering innovation ambidexterity.” They also found that in order
to be successful, strategic leaders needed to look at the environment both internally and
externally while also maintaining balance between innovation and the norm. What is more, the
application of strategic leadership in a vacuum did not positively influence innovation. Rather, a
combination of strategic leadership coupled with the organizational culture lead to producing
positive results through the application trust and effective communication from within the
organization.
Transformational Leadership
Boises (2015) found a positive correlation between transformational leadership, team
performance, and creativity. Specifically, the role in a leader’s ability to effectively communicate
with their subordinates was directly associated with the various levels of desired outcomes for
each of the groups. In particular, trust between supervisors and subordinates was determined to
be a key contributing factor in supporting a creative environment. In other words, intellectual
stimulation served as a mechanism to generate healthy conversation between superiors and
subordinates. This created a positive atmosphere for active collaboration from within the
organization. Boises (2015) went further to classify transformational leadership into four
measurable dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized
considerations, and intellectual stimulation. It is noteworthy that inspirational and intellectual
motivation can be learned or trained. At the conclusion of the study, it was determined
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 19
intellectual stimulation played the most significant role in overall team performance, even more
so than inspirational motivation. It was suggested intellectual stimulation generated more
dialogue between superiors and subordinates, which set a framework for establishing trust within
the culture of the team.
Using trust as a vessel for active communication form within an organization, Bass
(1990) submitted transformational leaders can learn techniques that can intellectually stimulate
and inspire their employees. Further, transformational leadership occurs when leaders can
effectively communicate the overall purpose for a task to their team as a holistic means for
individuals to look beyond their own self-interests from within the group. Evaluated concepts for
training leaders to be more transformative consisted of: charisma, counseling techniques,
formulating vision statements, and self-evaluation through the application of the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Bass (1990) went further to declare that conditions driving change can
be met or overcome through transformational leaders who are capable of inspiring their
employees to enthusiastically participate in the equities of the collective goals for the
organization.
Progressive leaders develop and hone their capabilities to influence their people and the
organization. This may be a result of external motivators, such as demands, but may also occur
as a result of intrinsic motivation. Kerr (2008) explored the role of arts in leader development,
specifically creative learning, as relative to transformational leadership. The article proposes four
stages of learning: capacity, artful event, increased capability, and application. The authors
suggest artful learning opportunities enhance capacity for awareness of creativity in one’s self
and in others. Further, intrinsic motivation through self-fulfilling activities, such as arts-based
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 20
learning, can support learning through a transformative process by helping leaders broaden their
creative process.
Organizational culture and climate
The Army exists for the sole purpose of prevailing in war, as defined in law under 10
USC Sec. 3062, “It shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained
combat incident to operations on land. It is responsible for the preparation of land forces
necessary for the effective prosecution of war…” (United States. Code) Stated another way, the
Army must be prepared to fight and win the nations wars. This statutory requirement informed
the Army’s leadership to identify necessary traits, skills, and attributes in a holistic manner
dispersed across the depth of the entire organization.
The Army is an organization with a unique culture often referred to as “a profession of
arms”. It is important to note how the Army as a culture defines itself, especially to understand
how this relates to induction of building adaptive and agile leaders. The Army as a profession is
defined as: “a vocation comprised of experts certified in the ethical application of land combat
power, serving under civilian authority, entrusted to defend the Constitution and the rights and
interests of the American people.” (US Army, December 8, 2010). This definition tells the Army
“who” they are but does not tell the Army “how” to be. Adaptive and agile leadership can answer
the “how”, especially when considering the relationship between “experts” and “application of
land combat power”.
The role and significance of organizational culture is prevalent in the literature and best
capsulated by Smircich’s Concepts of Culture and Organization Analysis, synthesizes the
research from a wide array of scholars ranging from anthropologists to organizational theorists.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 21
By studying the intersection of culture and management theories through a cultural framework
prism, Smircich brings to light the significance of recognizing the purpose of the organization
(Smircich, 1983). Kinicki and Kreitner (2009) found that Smircich’s work identified four
functions that organizational culture provides: organizational identity, facilitate collective
commitment, promote social stability, and shape behavior by helping members make sense of
their surroundings. An organizational culture must remain true to its purpose and possess the
internet ability to change. Adaptive and agile leadership is a call to shape organizational behavior
and is directly related to the ambiguous operating environments found in counter-insurgency
operations, ultimately helping officers “make sense of their surroundings”.
Organizational culture is relatively static and can ordinarily absorb challenges, both
internal and external, with minimal disruption as a culture. However, organizational climate is
more transitory and tends to affect only the day-to-day functions of individual members. Climate
primarily affects individual workers motivation and trust. (US Army, 2006). Though climate
tends to change as leaders or administrators transition, it is important to understand the role
leaders play in promoting and applying adaptive and agile leadership as part of this overall
climate within the organizational culture. It is equally important to understand how this
responsibility can be undermined by the proposed anti-thesis to adaptive and agile leadership,
and that is: “toxic leadership”.
Toxic leaders or managers as defined by Bullis and Flynn are: emotional and prone to
outbursts, disconnected form the possible impact of their decisions on others, self-serving, focus
on impressing superiors, escape responsibility for shortcomings, and are extremely rigid and
unyielding. (Flynn, 1999) (Bullis & Reed, February 2003). Regardless of leadership styles,
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 22
adaptive and agile leaders by their very nature are called upon to be open minding and fluid, not
rigid and unyielding. Likewise, they must be able to effectively communicate not only with their
superiors, but peers and subordinates as well through trust.
Leadership touches all facets from organizational culture, climate, and maintaining an
ethical environment in day-to-day operations. Leadership is the single inject point for a leader or
administrator to extend his or hers influence beyond select individuals to permeate and shape
organizational culture, climate, and counter toxic behavior.
Decision Making
Aside from environmental considerations and intellectual capacity, leaders are required to
make decisions by solving problems in order for their organizations to meet desired outcomes.
March & Heath (1994) assert people tend to view problems through a cause and effect paradigm,
identify at least two variables, and assign a relationship between these variables to draw a
conclusion, such as A+B=C. However, this approach does not account for current operating
environments that are defined by ambiguous complexities that make the proposed formula
solution elusive.
Schweiger, Anderson, and Locke (1985) evaluated the ability for business students to
make decisions in a competitive environment using a pre-formatted solution strategy similar to
the causal relationship described by March & Heath (1994). Business students served as test
subjects during the experiment. Each had control of multiple simulated firms and at equal
financial capacity and were tasked to outperform other replicated firms within the industry. Each
student was required to make a decision for their firms that ranged from product pricing to
budget development. After each decision was made, students received feedback as to how their
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 23
decisions affected the firm. As the experiment progressed, the simulated environment began to
present conclusions that created more uncertainty and ambiguity for the evolving environment
making it more challenging to make decisions. Higher performing students examined causal
relationships between decisions whereas lesser performing students tended to repeat previous
decisions that generated success or made choices solely on emotions. A key deduction resulting
from the study found, “survival in competitive environments may be enhanced if decisions are
not predictable.” (Schweiger, et al., 1985, p. 269)
Subsequent research from Snowden & Boone (2007) found different environments
require leaders to utilize different problem solving techniques in order to determine causation.
The challenge becomes for leaders to identify which operating environment they are currently in
so that they can develop and apply the most appropriate solution strategy. The Cynefin
framework provides a tool for leaders to assimilate information while existing in five distinctly
different situations, which are: simple, complicated, complex, chaos, and disorder.
Figure 2.2 Cynefin framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p. 73)
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 24
Of the five realms, disorder is evident when cannot be categorized into any of the other four
realms. Considering disorder, leaders should first establish a sense of order when confronted
with this environment, such as a combat life or death situation for Army commissioned officers
in a deployed environment. Leaders should then work into the one or a combination of the outer
layers of the Cynefin framework in an effort to gain understanding required to make decisions.
Another affective way for leaders to establish order and transition to a level of
understanding their environment is by recognizing how their decisions shape the reality around
them. “Systems thinking helps us see how our own actions have shaped our current reality,
thereby giving us confidence that we can create a different reality in the future.” (P.Senge, 1993,
p. 136) Central to systems theory is the idea that ambiguous situations may reflect the
environment but overall complexity makes it difficult to determine causal relationships.
Likewise, the response to ambiguous situations conversably shapes organizational as a response
to existing in the operating environment. This requires organizations, led by leaders, to think.
Summary of the Literature
This chapter presented a review of selected published studies, journals, articles, and
websites which appear to make some singular or significant contribution to various aspects
concerning adaptive and agile leadership along with transformational leadership which were
useful for this research project. Adaptive and agile leadership is an Army concept that does not
necessarily transcend directly into any one particular academic theory or principle described in
the literature review. However, the review found multiple concepts and theories from a range of
sources, spanning from military to the arts that are relatable to what is understood about the
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 25
adaptive and agile concept. After conducting extensive searches on adaptive and agile leadership,
it is apparent there is limited research exploring this particular phenomenon, especially as to the
conditions that support the evolution of this phenomena within the department of defense.
Adaptive and agile leadership can be examined through the lens of existing theory, such as
strategic and transformational leadership, but the notion of this particular phenomena revolves
around how leaders, and the organization quite simply “thinks” about solving problems. There
are multiple sources that reference this concept and describe several key attributes associated
with this particular concept, such as: creativity, trust, and empowerment. However, the methods
for developing leaders capable of applying these particular attributes is wanting. By in large, it is
evident that organizations such as the U.S. Army demand their leaders be able to apply some of
the principles associated with being adaptive and agile, but it is not apparent what the collective
organization’s strategy is to help assist these leaders in accomplishing this task.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 26
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
Research Approach
Adaptive and agile leadership within the United States Army is a progressive outcome
resulting from years of experience obtained by commissioned officers conducting counter-
insurgency operations in Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. This research explored adaptive and agile
leadership from the perspective of a participating sample of Army active duty commissioned
officers. At the conclusion, analysis of the data will be used to inform a decision for the ARCIC
Studies and Analysis Division to consider exploring this adaptive and agile leadership further
through a Rand study or the Army Science Board. If there is enough evidence to support a
compelling argument that calls for further analysis, future generations of officers will reap the
benefits of those that served before them by capturing critical perspectives on adaptive and agile
leadership.
Data will be collected using a combination approach. The combination will consist of a
survey questionnaire collected during ten personal interview sessions. Using this combination
method will yield data which may be readily categorized, thus serving to provide insights into
the factors as to where adaptive and agile leadership occurs during the developmental process for
commissioned officers. The desired end-state is to identify when and where these epiphanies
have occurred for the sample population to set positive conditions for potential further research,
warranting perhaps qualitative research to measure effectiveness of this concept.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 27
Data Collection Approach and Procedures
Data Collected
Qualitative research will be used through the application of a phenomenological study
while examining adaptive and agile leadership during structured interviews. There is little to no
found research on how the Army builds adaptive and agile leaders. Although there is a wide
range of documentation that describes this particular phenomena, as evident with the plethora of
quotes from senior Army leaders referencing this concept, there is little evidence about how and
when agile and adaptive leadership actually occurs for Army commissioned officers. Center to
the research endeavor is the root question: “How do commissioned officers in the U.S. Army
experience adaptive and agile leadership during the course of their careers”? In order to answer
this root question, sub-questions are supposed to assist with framing data collection.
a. Demographic data will be collected to determine if there are differences among the
participant target groups. Commissioning source, civilian education level, military
education level, rank, and sex will be collected to establish a base working knowledge
about the sample population. At inception, it is unknown if this particular data may or
may not be relevant to the research but may prove to be significant as the research
matures.
b. How evident is adaptive and agile leadership under different environments, such as:
deployment, civilian education, military education, mentorship sessions, and senior
leader symposiums? It is important to determine where, if at all, the sample
population was an active participant in adaptive and agile leadership. Aside from
civilian education, the other target environments fall under the control of the military.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 28
However, all commissioned officers receive civilian education at the collegiate level
prior to entering the service and many others pursue advanced degrees during the
course of their careers. It will be interesting to see what role, if any, civilian education
has on developing adaptive and agile leadership.
c. How significant is communication during these particular settings? When considering
Brown (2007) and Mitchell’s (2012) research that trust is an element of
communication, is there a correlation between perceived adaptive and agile
leadership and trust?
d. What trends or re-accruing themes related to adaptive and agile leadership manifest as
a result of the research?
e. How do Army leaders maintain currency as an adaptive and agile leader?
Data collection procedures
Structured interview questions found in appendix B consisting of both scaled and
measurable questions will be administered to a participant sample population to collect data on
the adaptive and agile phenomena. The purpose of conducting interviews is to examine the
adaptive and agile phenomena during specific environments and conditions, specifically: during
a deployment, official military education, civilian education, counseling with a mentor, and key
note speaker symposium. These particular areas will be used to drive the interview process.
Significance associated with adaptive and agile leadership and communication
effectiveness observed from multiple environments will be measured during the interview
process using a Likert scale. By scaling responses provided by the sample population, it should
become evident where and to what affect adaptive and agile leadership had on an individual’s
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 29
professional development. It is important to identify where the adaptive and agile process
manifested within these different environments. Additionally, open ended survey questions will
prime solicitation from the sample population requiring participants to expound upon their
thoughts and observations on the adaptive and agile process during each of these distinct
settings. Likewise, it is equally important to gauge the overall effectiveness of the adaptive and
agile process under the lens of each of these distinctly different environments from the
perspective of the sample population.
Target Population
The target population for interviews consists of a representation of current and former
commissioned officers that served in the Army in the past ten years that have experienced
adaptive and agile leadership during multiple stages of their careers. Specific military
occupational specialties are not targeted for the purpose of this research effort. By examining
each participant’s demographics and perspective of this phenomena during various
environments, analysis of data collected will be used to explain the findings resulting from this
research endeavor. The target population consists of personnel that have participated in multiple
counter-insurgency operations, military professional development training, leader development
seminars, and had access to direct mentorship over the course of their professional careers.
Sample Details
The sample size is consistent with research parameters for qualitative phenomenal
research. The entire sample population is ten human subjects: 2x Captains, 2x Majors, 2x
Lieutenant Colonels, 2x Colonels, and 2x Department of the Army civilians in the rank of GS-
14. All of the sample participants are currently assigned to ARCIC and have already been pre-
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 30
selected based on the proximity to the primary researcher. None of the participants share a
formal relationship, such as being a subordinate or superior with regards to performance
appraisals, with the primary researcher. The sample size is taken from a group of people that
often collaborate with the primary researcher which is conducive to the research effort. None of
the participants work with ARCIC Studies and Analysis Division or have a direct relationship
with informing both Rand and Army Science Board studies.
Instrumentation
The survey cover letter and instructions are contained in Appendix B. These documents
contain details regarding the research methodology and also include information regarding the
confidentiality of responses. The survey questionnaire is contained in Appendix C of the
research project. The survey was designed specifically for this research and has not been tested
for validity or reliability. The data collected from interviews will provide background and
perspective as to how the U.S. Army develops adaptive and agile leaders. This data will allow
for the objective characterization of the existing phenomena and establish potential known points
for more focused qualitative research in the future.
Procedures
Interview questions will be made available to the sample population via email prior to
conducting the live interview session. This serves two purposes: inform the sample population
with the nature of the questions in advance making for a more fruitful interview session and
facilitate the scheduling of the individual interview event. Participants are part of the U.S.
military; no children will be part of the sample. The survey will not be conducted in foreign
countries or conducted with foreign nationals as participants. The researcher has no supervisory
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 31
or subordinate relationship with the survey population. Although specific ranks will be targeted
to form the sample population, their individual branches within the Army and gender are purely
random but will be noted with data collection. The names or other identifying information of
interview participants will not appear within this research. Additionally, the electronic files of
the actual surveys will be erased 12 months following the completion of the study.
Approach for Data Analysis and Synthesis
Descriptive statistics through stratified sampling will be used in the study to help explain
emerging findings and deductions drawn from conclusions taken from the data collection
process. The survey questionnaire is structured so as to allow for the analysis and comparison of
data using several different methods. Some of the survey questions will lend themselves to bar
graph representation. Bar graphs illustrate the Likert scale outcomes of the different
environments used to measure the adaptive and agile phenomenon.
Figure 3.1 Significance of Adaptive and Agile Leadership and Environment (example)
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 32
Similarly, the perceived effectiveness of communication will be measured during each of
these environmental settings to determine if a correlation exists between adaptive and agile
leadership and communication effectiveness.
Figure 3.2 Significance of Adaptive and Agile Leadership and Environment (example)
Results will be informative because they will illuminate where this phenomenon had the
most impact over the course of the collective sample population’s careers. Graphs may also be
used to illustrate significant differences or outliers are observed between the various ranks
associated with the sample population, should they occur. Open ended questions will be
examined for trends or reoccurring themes that will inform potential research opportunities and
considerations. Many of the responses will be analyzed using points of central tendency along
with the determination of standard deviation.
Methodological Limitations
The limitations of the interview lie with the sampling methodology. It is expected each
interview session will last approximately one hour. Even if data collection proves fruitful,
deductions are still only inferential but are not necessarily representative of the entire Army
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 33
officer corps. Additionally, even though the sample group has a variance exclusively related to
officer ranks, they do not necessarily take into account other sub-groups that may offer different
experiences with the adaptive and agile process, such as military occupation specialty,
measurements on emotional intelligence, and in general life lessons acquired through experience.
Considering the amount to time consumed to conduct multiple survey sessions and
subsequent analysis, a quasi “pull method” will be used to determine the sample population for
this particular research effort. This is largely based on convenience and coincidence of where
both the researcher and sample population are currently assigned within the active duty Army.
This may also result in somewhat skewed responses. It may be reasonable to assume that the
population which participates in the interview likely shares personality traits that may not be
completely representative of the entire Army officer corps.
Another limitation to the interviews is possible bias by the interviewee. This is possible
due to the fact that all of the sample size work for TRADOC and may have a motivation to
discuss their particular agenda as it related to leadership development as opposed to examining
adaptive and agile leadership. This may resonate in the more senior sample population, as they
are largely responsible for fostering the overall command climate of organizations, as opposed to
the junior population, who by in large operate within that environment. In particular, seniors may
feel responsible for creating adaptive and agile leaders as a result of their responsibilities to
counsel junior officers on a periodic basis. This may lead to them weighing mentorship more
heavily than other environments, such as professional military training. Similarly, if someone in
the sample size had a negative experience in any one of the focused environments, this could
transcend into their beliefs (or lack thereof) of the adaptive and agile process.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 34
Chapter 4: Data Analysis
Introduction
A total of ten participants contributed to data collection during the interview process.
Questionnaires were provided to the sample population prior to conducting structured interviews.
Several of the participants provided answers to the questions prior to the interviews which was
recorded in black ink and one officer provided a typed response. Others chose to have the
researcher dictate their responses which was recorded in red ink. Similarly, red ink was also used
to denote follow-up questions and their associated responses obtained during the structured
interview sessions. All interviews lasted approximately one hour each and copies of data
collection questionnaires were provided to each participant upon conclusion of their respective
interview. All participants observed the adaptive and agile leadership phenomena at some point
in time during their career and were able to positively contribute to the research effort. Data
analysis organization will remain consistent with the sequential order of questions found on the
interview questionnaire forms in appendix B.
Data Presentation and Analysis
Demographic data collected supports parameters identified for the intended participant
population for this study. This data was collected first during the interview process before
exploring adaptive and agile leadership which served as an ice breaker between the researcher
and participants. In examining education levels, respective ranks, and commissioning sources,
demographic data found in table 4.1 showed all participants had earned a Master’s degree,
completed military education training beyond entry level positions, and received formal training
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 35
prior to earning a commission either through Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) or
attendance to the United States Military Academy (USMA; West Point).
Table 4.1: Demographic Data
Participant Number
Rank Branch Gender Previous Duty Positions Commission Source
Highest Military
Education 1 COL FA50 M Force Manager
(Corps and Division Level) ROTC ILE
2 COL MP M - Brigade Commander - Director (National Security Justice Development)
ROTC SSC
3 LTC AR M - Battalion Executive Officer - Strategic Planner
ROTC ILE
4 LTC AR M - Battalion Executive Officer - Battalion Operations Officer
USMA ILE
5 MAJ LG M - Battalion Executive Officer - General Aide de Camp
ROTC ILE
6 MAJ AR M - Battalion Executive Officer - Company Commander
ROTC ILE
7 CPT IN M Company Commander ROTC CCC
8 CPT AR M - Company Commander - General Aide de Camp
ROTC CCC
9 GS-14
CIV M Retired Logistics Officer ROTC ILE
10 GS-14
CIV M Retired Human Resources Officer
ROTC ILE
Upon completion of collecting demographic data, participants were asked to define
adaptive and agile leadership through an open ended and non-scalable response for question one.
Review of the responses revealed several noteworthy trends related to the observed frequency of
words or concepts that were common with the responses, especially with the notion of leaders
making decisions based on their surrounding environment. These trends are summarized as:
react, quickly, thinking, and communication. React summarizes comments related to responding
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 36
to either the situation or environment. Quickly is associated with the expressed timeliness
participants submitted for decision making. Thinking captures comments related to responses
that suggest the presence of critical evaluation. Communication reflects both verbal and non-
verbal attributes found within applicable responses from the sample population. Table 4.2
showed that responses associated with react appeared in seven out of ten of participant
responses. Communication was found in four responses. Quickly and thinking appeared in three
out of ten responses. This suggests an officer’s ability to react is largely associated with the
application of adaptive and agile leadership.
Table 4.2: Define Adaptive and Agile Leadership Trends
Question 1 React Quickly Thinking Communication
Define adaptive and agile leadership.
1,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,4,8 2,3,7 3,4,6,7
Question two asked participants to recollect when they first heard about adaptive and
agile leadership during their careers. This question was also open ended which resulted with the
identification of the following trends: on the job, military education, commissioning source, and
senior leader interaction. On the job accounts for situations where a participant was serving in a
current duty position within the operational force and was not actively involved with a formal
military or civilian education process. Military education accounts for attendance in a formal and
structured course within the institutional Army where the participant was serving in a student as
opposed to officer capacity. Commissioning source accounts for when the officer occupied a
status similar to an intern which pre-dates their actual appointment as a commissioned officer.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 37
Senior leader interaction accounts for a participant’s recollection of when they first heard about
adaptive and agile leadership being introduced by senior leadership within the Army. Table 4.3
summarizes responses into previously defined trend categories for further analysis. Notably, six
of the ten participants accounted for first hearing the phenomena while serving in a current duty
position as opposed to military or civilian education courses. This suggests adaptive and agile
leadership was ingrained within the overall culture of the Army as a collective organization. It is
also worth noting responses reflect when participants first heard of adaptive and agile leadership
but this does not imply this was the only domain they heard of the phenomena over the course of
their careers.
Table 4.3: First Recollection of Adaptive and Agile Leadership
Question 1 On the Job Military Education
Commissioning Source
Senior Leader
When did you first hear about adaptive and agile leadership?
1,2,4,8,9,10 5,6 3 7
According to the data, the perception of effectiveness for implementing adaptive and
agile leadership widely varies within the sample population but there is much left to be desired.
Analysis of the responses suggests the Army as a whole has inconsistently championed this
concept across the depth of the organization. Participants were asked to subjectively grade the
Army’s promotion and implementation of the phenomena, where 1 was nonexistent and 10 being
outstanding. Table 4.4 showed the overall mean was 4.2, which indicates the overall
effectiveness of implementation is below average.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 38
Table 4.4: Promotion and Implementation of Adaptive and Agile Leadership
Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MEAN
Participant Response
9 2,3 1,5 6,7 8 10 4 4.2
Question four revealed the preponderance of responses related to each participant’s
growth as an adaptive and agile leader were externally and not internally oriented. At inception,
the posed question was an attempt to gain insights as to how the participants fuse adaptive and
agile leadership into their regular undertakings. Answers were recorded as either an introverted
or extroverted reply and can be found in table 4.5. Responses suggest adaptive and agile
leadership is beyond individual understanding and exists through external projection and
reception based on the participant’s surrounding environment. Introverted responses consisted of
comments related to individual problem solving and personal development methods. Extroverted
responses accounted for an individual addressing external stimuli, such as collaboration with
other people, the operational environment, and demands from the work force as opposes to self-
generated goals. Eight out of ten officers provided extroverted responses and only two
participants provided what is considered a singular introverted response. Four out of ten
participants provided both intro and extroverted responses. Although adaptive and agile
leadership calls for leaders to think, participant responses suggest this concept is largely
externally focused on their surrounding environment.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 39
Table 4.5: Incorporation of Adaptive and Agile Leadership in Daily Activities
Participant Number
Introverted Response Extroverted Response
1 Improved reading skills.
Improved listening skills. Working at echelon with multiple personalities and demands.
2 Collaborative approach to problem solving. Environmental scanning and levels of trust with subordinates. Avoid “group think”.
3 Career field requires me to think outside of the box.
4 Thinking about how to deal with change.
Expecting change.
5 Continuous evaluation of what did/did not work.
Being deployed made me react differently to conditions.
6 Situationally dependent between organizations and varies between present chains of command (leader driven).
7 Pro-active with solving problems (initiative).
8 Think about consequences and outcomes.
Quickly adjust to changes. Have to know audience.
9 Dependent on experience with leadership (inferred 50% of previous leaders implemented adaptive and agile leadership whereas the other half was more draconian with management).
10 We (indicating teamwork) consistently pick up tasks that we are not subject matter experts on but complete the mission.
Participants weighted the significance of adaptive and agile leadership over a range of
environments. For the purpose of this research, the following environments were presented to the
participants: deployed, attendance in formal military education courses as a student, attendance
in formal civilian education courses as a student, receiving mentoring or counseling from a
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 40
superior, attending a key note speaker symposium, and formal unit level training. Table 4.6
highlights the results of the cross environment analysis. Responses indicate that being deployed
and attending higher learning through civilian education were more beneficial than the other
measurable areas by almost one full point value. Using a Likert scale of 1 being the lowest and 5
the highest, civilian education had the highest mean of 3.9 with deployed scoring 3.8. Military
education earned 3.0 with counseling and speaker scoring 2.9 each. Training earned the lowest
mean at 2.2. However, these measured environments are not all inclusive.
Table 4.6: Significance of Adaptive and Agile Leadership in Different Environments
Questions Insignificant
(1)
Minimal
(2)
Average
(3)
Somewhat Significant
(4)
Very Significant
(5)
MEAN
Deployed 10 (10%)
0%
1,2 (20%)
3,6,7,8 (40%)
4,5,9 (30%)
3.8
Military Ed
9
(10%)
2,10
(20%)
1,3,5 (30%)
4,6,7,8 (40%)
0%
3.0
Civilian Ed 0%
1 (10%)
4 (10%)
2,5,7,8,9,10
(60%)
3,6 (20%)
3.9
Counseling 1 (10%)
2,5,6,10
(40%)
3 (10%)
4,7,8 (30%)
9 (10%)
2.9
Speaker 2,9 (20%)
4,5 (20%)
6,7,8 (30%)
1 (10%)
3,10 (20%)
2.9
Training 1,9 (20%)
2,3,4, 7 (40%)
5, 6,8,10 (40%)
0%
0%
2.2
Participants were asked a follow-up and open ended question to inquire about other
opportunities or programs they felt contributed to their growth as an adaptive and agile leader.
Given the diverse background and experience levels of the queried officers, one unifying trend
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 41
was evident with their collective responses, which can be summarized as “broadening
assignments”, which is reflected in Table 4.7. Exclusive of occupying a student status either
from military or civilian education curriculum, commissioned officers are generally serving in
one of two types of duty positions, known as “branch qualifying” and “broadening”. Branch
qualifying assignments are unique to each military occupational specialty and are typically
required for further career advancement. Broadening helps leaders gain more experience outside
of their typical military occupational specialty. However, the significance of broadening
assignments related to adaptive and agile leadership was evident for nine out of ten participants.
Table 4.7: Broadening Assignments
Participant Broadening Method Response
1 Assignment Programs, no. Current assignment (broadening), yes. Have to account for more than simply force management (primary MOS).
2 Red Team Negotiations
Red team training required me to think outside cognitive bias framing. Negotiations training was beneficial with deployment.
3 Cavalry Leader Course Special Forces (SF)
Doctrinal principles for cavalry support initiative. SF required thinking outside of the box and agility.
4 Military Transition Team 4-5 months of training for a yearlong advise and assist mission (decentralized command, cultural awareness training, small unit operations)
5 Congressional Fellowship Required to take Meyers Briggs test and share feedback, which helped overall teamwork.
6 Staff Rides Examined leadership attributes at echelon through team building and history analysis.
7 Ranger School Instructors encouraged me to think outside the box. Learned skill sets of team mates and how best to use them.
8 N/A Nothing comes to mind.
9 Red Team Training Unified Quest (UQ)
Red team helped me to think differently. UQ allowed me to see senior leaders coach without lecture.
10 Operational Security Training
You are forced to make decisions while in diverse situations.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 42
Similar with the observed diversity related to broadening assignments, the collective
group also displayed a wide range of variety when examining how they spend their personal time
away from their primary duties. Table 4.8 organizes the open ended responses into three separate
categories labeled read, family, and other. Reading appeared in four out of ten responses. Family
was observed in seven out of ten answers. Nine out of ten participants confessed to having
“other” interests beyond reading and family time which highlights the diversity of the sample
population. Further examination of consistencies within the other category revealed even more
trends. Athletic activities were found in the other category, such as: shooting, coaching, exercise,
and playing sports which appeared in 6 out of ten responses, indicating physical fitness interests
beyond those associated with regimented military training. Travel was recorded in five out of ten
responses under the other category as well. Determining the significance of all of the recorded
personal activities from the sample population from this particular study may not reveal any
insights for adaptive and agile leadership but this information does highlight the variety of off-
duty interests from this diverse group of officers. Future research efforts should consider
examining either self-proclaimed or subjectively identified subjects to determine the significance
of extra-curricular activities on their overall effectiveness as adaptive and agile leaders.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 43
Table 4.8: Time Away from Primary Duties
Question 12 Participant Response
Read Family Other
How do you spend your time when you are not consumed with your primary duties at work?
1 Family oriented
-Home owner (repair, landscaping, “self-taught)
2 Policing, social intelligence, leadership
Family time
3 Military history, Latin
Family oriented
-Member of International Society of Philosophers -Shakespeare “nerd”
4 Reading Time with family
-Traveling -Exercise -Sporting -Music concerts -Cultural events
5 -Riding motorcycle -Hunting waterfowl
6 Scholarly articles on strategy
Family Time Sports (hockey, baseball, football)
7 -Shooting -Gun Collecting -Travel
8 Family -Coach baseball -travel -rebuilding Jeep (self taught)
9 -Considers self an introvert -Travel
10 Family -Daily physical fitness ethic -travel
Counter-insurgency operations (COIN) have often been associated with thinking outside
of the box. Contributors were asked whether or not they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, or
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 44
disagreed with this statement. Table 4.9 reveals that six out of ten strongly agreed, three out of
ten somewhat agreed, and one disagreed with this statement, which supports a positive
correlation between both concepts. Interestingly, none of the participants asked for a definition
of thinking outside the box. This infers they were familiar with this concept and had internalized
their own response which was recorded under follow-up remarks. Responses from participants 3,
9, and 10 specifically referenced adaptability and agility. This may be due to being primed for
the overall research effort but none the less associates thinking outside the box with adaptive and
agile leadership. Participants 1 and 2 responses are oriented on responsiveness to the surrounding
environment, which reinforces the react trend observed from question one and table 2. Remarks
from contributor 4 and 5 vary with regards to either having or not having doctrinal answers that
address COIN. However, this debate can easily be concluded when examining remarks provided
by participant 6, who coincidently did not agree that COIN and thinking outside the box were
relatable, by considering the notion that people intuitively think outside the box already.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 45
Table 4.9: Counter-Insurgency Requires Thinking Outside the Box; n=10
Counter-insurgency operations require Army leaders to think outside the box.
Don’t Agree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Remarks
Participant 1
X We deal with people which requires us to think this way (cultural considerations).
Participant 2 X Asymmetrical enemies to not respond to symmetrical solutions.
Participant 3 X Basic principles required but need to be adaptive and agile to adjust the art and science of warfare. Requires mental agility.
Participant 4 X We do not have all of the text book answers to solve today’s problems.
Participant 5 X We have conducted counter-insurgency operations before (the Global War on Terrorism), so we should not have to reinvent the wheel. Some of the principles are tried and true.
Participant 6 X COIN is not a unique military problem that requires leaders to apply solutions. It is not grounded in professional military education. Human dynamic of war has not changed. We intuitively think outside the box already.
Participant 7 X Decentralized nature of COIN means higher headquarters does not really have as much control as they think they do over day to day activities.
Participant 8 X Ambiguity of the situation, diverse populations, and rapidly changing environments.
Participant 9 X Major combat operations (in general) require leaders to be adaptive and agile. Character of war is changing (more complexity). Technical fields require regimen but the future Army requires more creativity. Have to respond to the environment.
Participant 10 X Enemy is adaptive and if you are not, you will always be behind. Always expect the unexpected. Cannot box them in and predict their actions all the time.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 46
All ten participants were asked whether or not they agreed that communication between
adjacent units was more important than with higher headquarters during counterinsurgency
operations. This question was asked to measure the validity of Brown’s (2009) assertion that
during counterinsurgency operations, communication resides more between adjacent units as
opposed to previous conventional conflicts where situational awareness resided between superior
and subordinate channels of communication. Table 4.10 shows that results were mixed. Four out
of ten respondents disagreed, two strongly agreed, and four somewhat agreed. However, their
remarks proved to be more informative than the scores. In particular, participants 4 through 10
all eluded that communication during counterinsurgency operations resonates at both adjacent
level and with higher echelons but not necessarily in equal weighted distribution. The need for
collaboration between adjacent units was specifically addressed by participant 5, 7, and 8.
Similarly, collaboration could be deduced when examining comments from participant 1, 6, 9,
and 10. However, communicating with higher was not without representation, as evident when
examining responses from participants 2,4,5,6,7,8, and 9. This illustrates the need for leaders to
be agile during the conduct of counterinsurgency operations because they have to adjust between
collaboration with their peers while also packaging information exclusively for the benefit of
informing their higher headquarters.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 47
Table 4.10: Significance of communicating with higher versus adjacent units
While participating in COIN, communicating with your higher headquarters was more important than communicating with adjacent units.
Don’t Agree
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Remarks
Participant 1
X Primary duties required subordinate organizations to work with one another due to process.
Participant 2 X Communication with higher was bottom up driven.
Participant 3 X Response summarized the relationship between President Lincoln and General Sherman during the Civil War. The officer stated “Lincoln was not sure what hole he (Sherman) was going to pop out from.”
Participant 4 X Communicated more with adjacent units but also had to communicate with higher as well.
Participant 5 X Collaboration with adjacent units but still required to keep higher headquarters informed.
Participant 6 X The increased demand placed on subordinates by higher created importance but adjacent unit coordination was probably better time spent.
Participant 7 X Have to have balance. Collaborated with adjacent units and provided situational awareness to higher.
Participant 8 X Collaboration between adjacent units important but must keep higher informed. Higher’s influence is less influential on the COIN battlefield.
Participant 9 X Think it is simultaneously. Higher does aggregation and peer to peer is coordination.
Participant 10 X More important to communicate with adjacent units (intelligence sharing). Immediate impact is with adjacent units.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 48
Maintaining currency and furthering growth as an adaptive and agile leader was
examined during the interview process throw the application of open ended questions oriented on
participant interests. This question was not only an attempt to capture what the contributors do,
but to provide insights on how these activities relate to their understanding of adaptive and agile
leadership as well. Commonalities were observed when examining responses and are
summarized as trends on table 4.11. Reading appeared in seven of the ten recorded responses and
largely consisted of history, leadership, and military related material. Interestingly, the majority
of reading material related to history and Army studies. However, participant 9 offered that they
spend their time reading material that is not specifically relatable to the Army as a professional
and instead sought out material that offered other points of view derived from reading diverse
material. Socialization was used to capture activities beyond reading that related specifically to
human interaction and appeared in five out of ten responses. Aside from general conversations,
engaging foreign military representatives appeared in two of the five socialization responses.
Further research could consider measuring the significance of reading and socialization on
adaptive and agile leadership by also taking into account what may be considered traditional
versus not traditional methods. For consideration, reading military history and leadership could
be considered traditional. Conversely, contrarian reading or other genres outside of military
history could be measured to determine where the preponderance of literature consumption
resides. Even if the majority of the volume related to the type of reading was determined,
researchers could measure the likeness of genre on adaptive and agile leadership to determine the
significance of traditional versus non-traditional literature. Likewise, speaking and listening
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 49
could be compared and contrasted under the lenses of familiar (working relationship, day to day
interactions) versus unfamiliar (multinational, outside industry) perspectives to determine any
relatable significance on adaptive and agile leadership development.
Table 4.11: How to maintain currency and growth as an adaptive and agile leader.
Summarized Trends Response (with participant annotation)
Reading - Reading (1) - Leaders are readers (2) - Read a balance of new and old literature (history and
leadership) (3) - Self-study and professional reading (6) - Reading 5-6 books (military related) (8) - Reading (contrarian opinion, outside Army literature) (9) - Professional reading (history and leadership) (10)
Socialization - Listening, engaging in dialogue, foreign military exchange (1) - Mentorship counseling and professional discussions (4) - Mentorship; broadening opportunities outside of the Army that
provide fresh insights (5) - Interact with different people (7) - Interact with people (International, never get the US Army
answer) (9)
Recommendations for the Army to promote and implement adaptive and agile leadership
for future generations of officers was discussed and recorded during the interview process.
Participants were primed to offer suggestions in the form of open-ended questions. Responses
were summarized into three categories: training, broadening, and policy. Results can be found in
table 4.12. Training pertains to specific courses or initiatives that currently exist or could
potentially exist for entry level soldiers and officers entering the Army. Broadening could fall
under policy but was left as a stand-alone topic given its appearance in other findings. Policy
relates to considerations for senior leaders to ponder with regards to how the Army governs itself
as an organization. Training appeared seven times and notably addressed the concept of
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 50
participating in field leadership reaction courses (FLRC) for entry level soldiers and officers.
This particular course is designed to incorporate teamwork and leadership during an ambiguous
simulated training scenario. For example, a team of five soldiers are required to negotiate an
obstacle using existing equipment but are not told how to do so, which requires them to
abstractly find a solution to solve the problem. Although these three areas were identified as
trends, there is not enough sufficient evidence to weigh one against another to determine overall
significance or effectiveness. Although these three areas were identified as trends, there is not
enough sufficient evidence to weigh one against another to determine overall significance or
effectiveness. However, the responses do provide perspective with regards to how adaptive and
agile leadership can be trained (i.e. field reaction course), gained (policy), and maintained
(broadening opportunities)
Table 4.12: Recommendations to promote and implement adaptive and agile leadership
Summarized Trends Response (with participant annotation)
Training - Reinforce FLRC exposure (1) - Incorporate problem solving skills into scenario driven events
(2) - Institutionalize adaptive and agile leadership training (4, 10) - Create scenarios that require creative thinking (7) - Entry level training on the FLRC for soldiers and officers; tell
them what to do and not how to do it (9) - Scenario driven activities that incorporate role playing (10)
Policy - Up or out policy for promotions discourages risk taking and adaptive and agile leadership (3)
- Recruit the right people that have adaptive and agile attributes (4)
- Define adaptive and agile leadership; continue 360 degree assessment surveys as a part of counseling (6,10)
Broadening - Increase knowledge through varied exposure opportunities (2) - Continue to expose officers to broadening assignments (5)
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 51
The final question during the interview session provided participants an opportunity to
provide any closing thoughts they might have had with regards to informing future research
efforts related to adaptive and agile leadership. Responses were analyzed and their respective
deductions were recorded in table 4.13. Nine out of ten participants provided lengthy comments
that more or less summarized their collective thoughts pertaining to adaptive and agile
leadership. Three out of ten responses anecdotally made adaptive and agile leadership appear to
be a popular slogan and called for more action to inculcate this phenomenon into the Army
culture. Training was addressed in three out of ten responses as well, with particular emphasis
placed on making training less process and more outcomes oriented. Policy related topics, such
as broadening assignments and officer evaluation reports accounting for adaptive and agile
leadership were discussed in responses provided by participants 1, 6, and 8, adding further
support for reinforcing these particular topics for the development of adaptive and agile leaders.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 52
Table 4.13: Closing thoughts about adaptive and agile leadership
Is there anything that was missed or that you would like to offer that may inform future analysis of adaptive and agile leadership?
Deduction
Participant 1 1) Institutionalize adaptive and agile leadership into the evaluation report system. 2) Army must keep an open mind.
Participant 2 3) Training should be outcomes based and not process driven.
Participant 3 4) Do not overcomplicate a simple concept, especially at the expense of losing the freedom to take initiative.
Participant 4 5) Create or replicate more learning opportunities that foster adaptive and agile leadership throughout the force.
Participant 5 6) Codify adaptive and agile leadership into the culture of the organization.
Participant 6 7) Keep training as realistic as possible. Do not exclusively reward success, but also recognize when and where learning has occurred. Training at echelon is problematic, especially at the expense of larger versus smaller sized units. Need focus and balance.
Participant 7 No comments provided. Participant 8 8) Sustain broadening assignments Participant 9 9) Recognize current operating environments, identify risks
and gaps, and encourage initiative over process execution. Participant 10 10) Superiors need to trust and empower their subordinates to
accomplish their mission.
In order to develop adaptive and agile leadership, it is important to consider defining the
attributes and principles that are associated with this concept. As the conduct of the interview
process matured, an opportunity became evident upon conclusion of one of the interview
sessions. Participants were asked to spend no more than thirty seconds calling out words they
associated with adaptive and agile leadership. Six out of ten officers contributed to this particular
session and the remaining four were unavailable for follow-up questions. Responses were
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 53
recorded and analyzed in table 4.14 under the Army “be, know, do” construct related to
leadership.
Table 4.14: Adaptive and agile leadership principles and attributes.
Be Know Do
Humble (4,8,9)
Trustworthy (9)
Professional (9)
Disciplined (4)
Confident (4)
Empathetic (8)
Competent (4,9)
Open minded (4)
Innovative (7)
Creative (7)
Possess Emotional Intelligence (5)
Possess thirst for knowledge (8)
Reactive (1,5)
Flexible (5,8)
Proactive (1,4)
Possess freedom to think/act (7)
Data Analysis Summary
Perspective obtained by the ten participants proved to be insightful and valuable
contributions to this research effort oriented on adaptive and agile leadership. All participants
were familiar with the phenomena and provided feedback during data collection process that
often exceeded the hour of allotted time for structured interviews. With regards to demographic
data collected, the difference in rank appeared to be the only discriminator between participants
but it did not appear to make an impact with regards to the content and scoring of recorded
responses. All participants had similar civilian and military education levels. Regarding the
relationship between adaptive and agile leadership and various environments, evidence suggests
civilian education and deployments have a significant advantage for developing relatable skills
and experience as compared to military training and education. Examination of communication
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 54
during counterinsurgency operations between superiors and subordinates appeared to be
important, albeit not necessarily equally important, as communicating peer to peer at the adjacent
level. Emerging trends were found as a result of the research. Specifically, civilian education,
broadening assignments, working with multinational partners, and training improvements geared
towards outcomes based as opposed to process oriented problem solving techniques were
repeatedly discussed as adaptive and agile enhancers over multiple questions. Evidence also
suggests that the Army as a whole has much left to be desired with regards to maintaining
adaptive and agile leaders within the force if they are to take this initiative beyond a slogan
campaign.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 55
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Overview
Adaptive and agile leadership has been in the U.S. Army lexicon as far back as 2007 and
is largely associated with counterinsurgency operations in the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.
However, adaptive and agile leadership largely exists in name only and it is not understood how
and where this phenomena exists or thrives within the Army as a culture. Moreover, there are no
apparent plans or strategies related to building adaptive and agile leaders, yet this research
suggests that this particular phenome does in fact exist which makes it possible to conceptualize
and replicate for the benefit of future generations of military officers and leaders. Presently, there
is limited research on adaptive and agile leadership. Current generations of military officers
exposed to this phenome will eventually depart active duty, putting future generations of officers
at risk without knowing adaptive and agile leadership attributes and principles. In an effort to
learn more about adaptive and agile leadership, this research effort was initiated with the
following questions as guide to advance further discussion and study:
1. What role does demographic data related to commissioning source, civilian education
level, military education level, rank, and sex have on the observation of adaptive and
agile leadership?
2. How evident is adaptive and agile leadership under different environments, such as:
deployments, civilian education, military education, mentorship sessions, and senior
leader symposiums.
3. How important is effective communication to promoting adaptive and agile leadership
during counterinsurgency operations?
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 56
4. What trends or recurring themes related to adaptive and agile leadership are identified as
a as a result of collecting data during the research process?
5. How do Army commissioned officers maintain currency on their proficiency as an
adaptive and agile leaders?
Ten commissioned officers (two former, now department of the Army Civilians) actively
participated in a qualitative research endeavor to explore the adaptive and agile leadership
phenomena. They were provided questionnaires in advance and participated follow-up interview
sessions. Responses were scored using statistics and depicted with charts and tables that
succinctly reflected the essence of their replies. Trends were identified from multiple open ended
questions that measure adaptive and agile significance with associated environments.
Previous and relatable research on adaptive and agile leadership is discussed and summarized
in this chapter. Results and deductions from this particular research endeavor are conversed as
conclusions. Suggestions for implementing and sustaining adaptive and agile leadership are
discussed as recommendations. Suggestions for future research are also offered to help extend
further analysis of adaptive and agile leadership.
Summary
Previous literature and data analysis suggested adaptive and agile leadership occurs when
leaders think, learn, and analyze their current operating environments and take action when
making decisions. Demand from the application of counterinsurgency operations required
leaders to develop multiple frameworks for problem solving while simultaneously adhering to
other ingrained proven principles. Communication between superiors and subordinates began to
shift significantly more towards peer to peer collaboration as compared to previous conflicts.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 57
Examining transformational leadership also highlighted the significance of leaders expanding
their knowledge base by engaging in activities that are not necessarily related to their primary
work duties and responsibilities. The Army as an organizational culture was explored through
previous research endeavors in an effort to establish a common understanding of its overarching
roles and responsibilities. Further examination on the relationship that climate has on
organizational culture suggested trust as a key component to mission accomplishment while also
noting its antagonist to be toxic leadership.
This research endeavor found that exposure to different environments enhances adaptive
and agile leadership development. This was evident when observing the significance of military
officers attending civilian education sources, during deployments, and serving on broadening
assignments. Study of the role of communicating during counterinsurgency operations between
superiors and peers suggested lateral communication was more significant than keeping higher
informed, but reflected both forms of communication were required none the less. The
significance for adaptive and agile leaders to be able to effectively react to their surrounding
environment became evident as a result of further analysis from participant feedback.
Conclusions
Although the participant pool ranged from Captain up to Colonel, there were no apparent
discriminators our outliers when considering demographics. Of note, all participants had
received a graduate level degree and most were on par for military education training courses.
Commissioning source did not appear to play a significant role on the overall development of
adaptive and agile leadership either. Similar deductions can be made when considering the varied
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 58
levels of experience with traditional military education courses commiserate with the associated
officer rank.
When examining the role of different environments had on adaptive and agile leadership,
research suggested attendance in civilian education courses and being deployed fostered the most
influential set of conditions for military officers to reap the potential benefits furthering this
phenome. Military education, mentorship, speaking engagements, and unit level training
appeared to have little to no significance in furthering adaptive and agile leaders. Responses
stressed the importance of exposure to different ways of thinking and problem solving as a key
component to developing adaptive and agile leadership traits.
Communication during counterinsurgency operations was found to occur between
superiors and subordinates as well as between peers in a collaborative effort. Responses suggest
peer to peer collaboration as being more significant but still accounted for communicating with
higher as important. How leaders communicated with regards to content and frequency were not
specifically examined with this research. However, it was suggested that the more trust a
superior had with a subordinate, the less communication was required between the two to carry
out operations. Consistent with communication, institutionalizing adaptive and agile leadership
within the officer evaluation system was suggested by several participants as a means to measure
overall effectiveness for leader performance.
An overarching emerging trend that appeared during data collection revolves around the
concept of broadening opportunities for commissioned officers. This more or less highlights
breaks in between critical position postings required for career advancement. Research suggests
these supplemental assignments provide unique opportunities for officers to gain insights on
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 59
contrarian or diverse ways of thinking and problem solving, which may assist in adaptive and
agile leadership developmental growth. Similar with broadening was the assertion that training
should be revolutionized to focus more on outcomes as opposed to process measures of
performance.
Reading was a significant contributor according to the participants in sustaining adaptive
and agile leadership currency. Significance of genres between participants was not examined but
only recorded. Similarly, socialization was also a significant supplier to maintaining proficiency
as well. Specifically, being able to engage in healthy dialogue proved to me significant and even
more so if the exchange was with a multinational partner.
Recommendations
Expand broadening assignments. In order for U. S. Army commissioned officers to be
exposed to different ways of thinking and solving problems, they must be embedded in
assignments that possess conditions that require non-military solutions. Providing officers with
the opportunity to attend higher levels of civilian education should be sustained and made
available to as many eligible leaders as possible. This endeavor is not only limited to graduate
school, but the same can be said for participating in work exchange programs with civilian
industry as well. Broadening assignments should also encourage officers to work outside of their
assigned profession or even branch of service to gain more perspective and experience akin to
being outside of their normal element. Similarly, deployments and overseas assignments provide
sound opportunities for officers to work with officers from other nations. This provides great
opportunities for cultural awareness expansion as well as gaining perspective on how other
similar professionals think about solving problems and leading soldiers.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 60
These opportunities should not be limited to the elite performers or officer corps, but
should also be opened up to a wider range of available officers and even career non-
commissioned officers as well. As a culture, Army leaders need to become comfortable working
in ambiguous environments because this research found that adaptive and agile leaders are
required to respond to their surrounding environment and come up with creative solutions to
solve complex problems. This requirement is not exclusive to the officer corps, but applies to
leaders at all levels.
Institutionalize adaptive and agile leadership. In order to effectively incorporate
change into an organization, the people within that organization need to have buy in and be
empowered to act on the new requirements. With trust established as a key component of
adaptive and agile leadership, this can be measured through performance evaluations and 360
degree assessment feedback during counseling sessions. Adaptive and agile leadership tenants
and principles should not appear in a single document or field manual if they are to be
universally transferable throughout the formation. They should be codified and embedded in
multiple documents and processes that resonate within the Army culture for maximum exposure
and absorbance.
Similarly, opportunities to employ adaptive and agile ways of thinking should be
encouraged and not discouraged at the organizational level. Contrarian points of view are healthy
for conversation, provided they do not violate good order and discipline. Although conformity is
a mainstay to unit cohesion, it is also noteworthy to take into account alternative points of view
that may counter group think and draconian processes that may no longer be relevant.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 61
Evolve training to account for outcomes. Participating in the field leader reaction
course was found to be a significant contributor to developing adaptive and agile leadership. This
is because leaders were given a complex problem and were not told how to solve it. However,
this particular training event is largely associated with entry level enlisted and officers and is
considered a team building exercise as opposed to a developmental tool. Yet this training
opportunity was the first and only event that came to mind of a twenty-two year veteran of
service, which indicates the lessons they learned over two decades ago still resonate today. It is
interesting to think about how much more adaptive and agile they would be today if they had
more opportunities to employ abstract ways of problem solving through repetition over those
twenty years.
This type of training should be replicated and made available in concept to all officers
attending military education courses. Teaching leaders how to think as opposed to what to think
should also be incorporated into instruction and needs to be measured in the overall outcome of
the problem solving endeavor. Multiple teaching methods should be incorporated into learning
environments to account for the different types of learners within the organization, as opposed to
relying on rote memorization methods.
Future Research Suggestions
Expanding research on adaptive and agile leadership is important if future generations are
to reap the benefits from the current serving force. Future research should be expanded to a
wider target population in the form of scaled surveys. This provides an opportunity to engage a
wider range of participants and perhaps add pointed questions for the collective research effort.
The most insightful responses found in this research effort was the last question, which primed
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 62
the contributor to provide any additional thoughts on adaptive and agile leadership. This too
could be replicated at the conclusion of a more expansive collection questionnaire effort by
providing a comments section at the conclusion of the survey.
Replicating this study with other military organizations may or may not prove to be
beneficial. The Army as an organization is a land and terrain based entity that requires in many
cases human interaction on the battlefield (both internally and externally with a civilian
population). Other services may not have the same demand to be adaptive and agile and perhaps
are more process oriented as a culture.
This research identified key environments where adaptive and agile leadership
development can occur for officers, but it did not measure nor identify the key components of
those environments that encouraged growth. In particular, examining why a deployed
environment is more conducive for the application of adaptive and agile leadership than a
garrison environment would be insightful. Considering risk and cost, examining the conduct of
state side field leader reaction courses may prove to be just as insightful as observing leaders in
deployed environments. By understanding the conditions surrounding the application of adaptive
and agile leadership, it is possible to attempt to replicate them in multiple echelons of military
training throughout the formation.
More conclusions could be made about the impact of civilian education has on officers if
research compared those with and without graduate level degrees to one another. This research
focused only on commissioned officers and did not take into account non-commissioned officers.
Leaders exist at both levels within the Army, and adaptive and agile thinking should not occur in
a vacuum if it is to be widely accepted.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 63
Appendices
Appendix A Permission to Conduct Study
Appendix B Interview Questionnaire
Appendix C Consent Form
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 64
Appendix A Permission to Conduct Study
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 65
Appendix B – Interview Questionnaire (Sample: active duty commissioned officers in the ranks of: COL, LTC, MAJ, and CPT) This purpose of this interview questionnaire is to gather information from the experiences and opinions of personnel who have observed the application of adaptive and agile leadership development during their professional careers. Demographic Data Pay Grade: ______ Branch: ______
Gender: □ Male □ Female
Previous duty positions: ___________________________
Type of commissioning source: □ Officer Candidate School □ ROTC □ USMA
Civilian Education: □ BA/BS_____ □ Masters______ □ PHD/MD_______
Military Education: □ Career Course □ ILE/CGSC □ Senior Staff College
Interview 1. How do you define “adaptive and agile leadership”? 2. At what point in time in your career do you recall first hearing about adaptive and agile leadership? 3. On a scale of one to ten with 10 being outstanding and 1 being non-existent, how well to you feel the Army has promoted and implemented adaptive and agile leadership? 4. How, if at all, have you incorporated adaptive and agile leadership into your day to day activities? 5. How would you rate the significance of your growth as an adaptive and agile leader while deployed? 1 2 3 4 5 (insignificant) (minimal) (average) (somewhat significant) (very significant) Comments:
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 66
6. How would you rate the significance of your growth as an adaptive and agile leader while attending professional military education courses? 1 2 3 4 5 (insignificant) (minimal) (average) (somewhat significant) (very significant) Comments: 7. How would you rate the significance of your growth as an adaptive and agile leader while attending civilian education courses? 1 2 3 4 5 (insignificant) (minimal) (average) (somewhat significant) (very significant) Comments: 8. How would you rate the significance of your growth as an adaptive and agile leader while receiving counseling from a mentor? 1 2 3 4 5 (insignificant) (minimal) (average) (somewhat significant) (very significant) Comments: 9. How would you rate the significance of your growth as an adaptive and agile leader while attending a key note speaker symposium? 1 2 3 4 5 (insignificant) (minimal) (average) (somewhat significant) (very significant) Comments: 10. How would you rate the significance of your growth as an adaptive and agile leader while participating in mandatory training, such as Master Resiliency? 1 2 3 4 5 (insignificant) (minimal) (average) (somewhat significant) (very significant) Comments: 11. Are there any other Army programs that you have been exposed to that helped you become more adaptive and agile as a leader? If so, how did they help you and why do you feel they were successful?
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 67
12. How do you spend your time when you are not consumed with your primary duties at work? 13. Do you agree with the following statement: “Counter-insurgency operations require Army leaders to think outside of the box.”
□ don’t agree □ somewhat agree □ strongly agree
Comments: 14. Do you agree with the following statement: “While participating in counterinsurgency operations, communicating with your higher headquarters was more important than communicating with adjacent units.”
□ don’t agree □ somewhat agree □ strongly agree
Comments: 15. As a commissioned officer and leader of Soldiers, how do you maintain currency and continue to grow your adaptive and agile skill set? 16. What recommendations do you have that would help the Army promote and implement adaptive and agile leadership for future generations of leaders? 17. Is there anything that I missed and that you would like to offer that may inform future analysis of adaptive and agile leadership?
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this survey. Your input will greatly impact the quality of the recommendations resulting from this research.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 68
Appendix C – Informed Consent Form – E-Mail Survey Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study
Adult Consent Form
Study Title: An Analysis of the U.S. Army’s Adaptive and Agile Leadership Development
Student’s Name and Department: Johnathan H. Westbrook ([email protected]) Instructor’s Name and Department: Dr. Patricia Kelley ([email protected])
Introductory Statement
The purpose of this study is to research the application of the United States Army adaptive and agile leadership development phenomenon. By collecting data and opinions from you we hope to be able to gain insight as to where and how adaptive and agile leadership development occurs in order to make recommendations for further research to inform future generations of Army officers. What is the purpose of this study? The purpose of this study is to measure where and to what affect adaptive and agile leadership had on your professional growth and development as an Army officer. What will I do in this study? You were chosen to contribute to this study due to your proximity to the collective research effort and you’re posting within Army Training and Doctrine Command. I plan to record the interview through dictation on the provided questionnaires and also use audio recording to capture the dialogue from the interview. If you decide to participate in this research project, I will go over this consent form, ask your permission to tape the interview, and then go through a series of interview questions about adaptive and agile leadership.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 69
If you give permission for the interview to be taped, please sign here:______________ Alternative: If you do not wish the interview to be taped, please sign here:_________ How long will it take me to do this? Interviews should last approximately one hour and will be conducted inside building 950, room 4120 located inside TRADOC headquarters. Are there any risks of participating in the study? There are no risks associated with participating in this research study. At any time you feel under duress or wish to cease participation, you are free to do so on your own accord and will not receive reprisals for doing so. What are the benefits of participating in the study? By collecting data and opinions from you we hope to be able to gain insight as to where and how adaptive and agile leadership development occurs in order to make recommendations for further research to inform future generations of Army officers. Will anyone know what I do or say in this study (Confidentiality)? Your responses will be maintained solely by the researcher and will be kept confidential. No respondent names or other identifying information will be published in the research paper. Respondent comments, if used, will appear as respondent 1, 2, or 3, and so on. Will I receive any compensation for participation? There will be no financial compensation for participating in the research project. Is there a different way for me to receive this compensation or the benefits of this study? If it is not feasible to conduct the interview session, please fill out and return (scan email or return in person) to me at your earliest convenience. Please be as thorough as possible on our responses. Who can I contact for information about this study? Please feel free to contact either me or my professor, Dr. Kelley at the above emails. You are free to refuse to participate in this research project or to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in the project at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Your participation will not affect your relationship with the institution(s) involved in this research project.
Please note that if you are not satisfied with the manner in which this study is being conducted, you may report (anonymously if you so choose) any complaints to the MSA Program by calling 989-774-6525 or addressing a letter to the MSA Program, Rowe 222, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859.
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 70
My signature below indicates that all my questions have been answered. I agree to participate in the project as described above. ______________________________ __________________ Signature of Subject Date Signed A copy of this form has been given to me. _________ Subject’s Initials ______________________________ __________________ Signature of Responsible Investigator Date Signed
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 71
References
Bass, B. (1990). From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share
the Vision. Organizational Dynamics. 18(3), 19-31.
Boal, K. (2000). Strategic Leadership Research: Moving on. Leadership
Quarterly.11(4), 515-535.
Boises, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and Trust Are Key: Unlocking
the Relationship Between Leadership and Team Performance. Leadership
Quarterly. 26(6), 1080-1090.
Brown, R. B. (2007). The Agile-Leader Mind-Set. Military Review. 87(4), 32-44.
Bullis, C., & reed, G. (February 2003). Assessing Leaders to Establish and Maintain
Positive Command Climate, A report to the Secretary of the Army.
Burpo, J. (2006). The great captains of chaos: developing adaptive leaders. Military
review, 66. Retrieved on March 02, 2016 from olcs.cmich.edu (ebscohost)
Caldwell, W. B. (2009). Building Adaptive and Agile Leaders. Engineer. 39(2), 8-11.
Flynn, G. (1999). Stop toxic Managers Before They Stop You! Workforce, 78(8), 40.
Kerr, C., Lloyd, K. (2008). Pedagogical Learnings for Management Education:
Developing Creativity and Innovation. Journal of Management and
Organization. 14(5), 486-503.
Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (2009). Organizational Dynamics and Human Behavior (2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Lin, H. & McDonough, E.(2011) Investigating the Role of Leadership and
Organizational Culture in Fostering Innovation Ambidexterity. IEEE
ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 72
Transactions on Engineering Management. 58(3), 497-509.
March, J. G., & Heath, C. (1994). A primer on decision making: how decisions happen.
New York; Toronto; New York: Free Press; Maxwell Macmillan Canada;
Maxwell Macmillan International.
Mitchell, S.R. (2012). Observations of a Strategic Corporal. Military Review. 92(4), 58-64.
Senge, P. (1993). The art & practice of the learning organization. In M. L. Ray, A.
Rinzler & A. World Business (Eds.), The new paradigm in business: emerging
strategies for leadership and organizational change. New York, NY: J.P.
Tarcher/Perigee.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358.
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M.E. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making.
Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.
Title 10 – ARMED FORCES, Subtitle B – Army, PART 1 – ORGANIZATION,
CHAPTER 307 – THE ARMY.
US Army. (2006). Army Leadership: competent, confident, and agile. Washington, DC:
Hq.,Dept. of the army.
US Army. (December 8, 2010). The Profession of Arms: Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC).
Whittinghill, C., Berkowitz, D., & Farrington, P. (2015). Does Your Culture Encourage
Innovation? Defense Acquisition Research Journal: A Publication of the
Defense Acquisition Community. 15(2), 216-239.