COMMENTARY
simplify the existing guidance and to establish a distinction between DOD Directive 5000.01, which describes the system, and DODI 5000.02, which describes the system’s operation. To effectively implement these and many other changes, leadership needs to operate in a leader-follower collaborative setting because decision-making is no longer a singular process driven by the command-and-control approach to leadership. In this operational environment, leaders need to seek feedback from the functional working levels before they make decisions promoting innovation or other forms of change.
While creative destruction happens within the Army and often affects the workforce negatively, there are also things done well. When the U.S. Army Futures Command was stood up, Lt. Gen. Paul A. Ostrowski, principal military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, announced that the future Army will stand on three pillars:
• Futures and concepts. • Combat development. • Combat systems.
Ostrowski took the time to travel and meet with the acquisi- tion workforce to communicate his vision. Change is hard, he said in one interview, and “the key is to understand and be able to move forward in a multidomain fight against a peer or near- peer competitor.”
He continued by emphasizing that the Army needs to empower others to make decisions and take risks. During the standup of the Army Futures Command, leaders effectively delegated author- ities to program executive offices (PEOs) and program managers (PMs), enabling them to focus on capability development rather than on getting to a milestone.
Tis communication and empowerment initiative worked well. It was clearly communicated and executed. What I believe needs to happen next is for PEO and PM leaders to empower their work- force to make decisions and take risks.
When leaders do not empower others to make decisions and take risks, they develop unreasonable goals, reduce team effectiveness and eliminate brainpower. Tis is because we think outside of the box and meaningfully contribute our knowledge when we know that someone believes in us. For example, readers may remem- ber the 1968 study that identified the Pygmalion effect, which demonstrated that positive expectations influence performance.
Similarly, the 1920s Hawthorne experiment showed that paying attention to others improved productivity.
My review of evidence also indicates that decisions made without employees’ contributions can have devastating effects on organi- zations. Jerald M. Liss, in his 2013 study “Creative Destruction and Globalization: Te Rise of Massive Standardized Education Platforms,” argued that creative destruction managed in this way eliminates specialized knowledge responsible for creativity and innovation while focusing on efficiency, and it erodes employee morale or trust in the leadership. For example, had Army leaders listened to their experts in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle program of the 1960s, they could have avoided the staggering cost of rede- signs and modifications. Several dedicated leaders left, removing their specialized knowledge from the program. Te Bradley was in production for 17 years, costing billions of dollars.
Even more importantly, as I learned during the 2½ years of research for my dissertation, leaders play a critical role in eliminating such devastating effects of creative destruction on organizational effec- tiveness. For example, leaders who do not seek feedback almost always negatively impact all five elements that comprise organiza- tional effectiveness (leadership, decision-making, people, culture and commitment). Employees look to their leaders for wise and transparent decisions, which demonstrate that leaders are vested in the well-being of their organizations as well as their employees. Tey expect them to share and listen to what is really happening in their organization. Additionally, practicing effective two-way communication assists leaders in demonstrating good steward- ship of taxpayer money. As Frederick Herzberg stated in his 1974 study, “Motivation-Hygiene Profiles,” organizations are only as healthy as their employees.
COMMUNICATING TO BUILD THE FUTURE ARMY Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan, in their 2001 book “Creative Destruction,” claim that when communication is lacking, employees change how they perceive their leaders. Tey don’t view the leaders as worthy of following. Instead, employees see them as task-oriented managers who, by some unexplained chance, became leaders.
As the 2018 Army Strategy states, the Army is responsible for deploying, fighting and winning our nation’s wars. Being respon- sible for something or someone requires knowledge. Leaders need to understand their employees and their values to appropriately assess how they can make their organizations better. My review of the literature on emotional intelligence and communication can
https://asc.ar my.mil 67
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
