The Pillars of Leadership

During the late 70's the military was still smarting from the aftermath of Vietnam.  Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had created a most UNmilitary culture among the career officer ranks.   As a captain of industry, he was very numbers driven.   There was little to no emphasis being placed on leadership development in the officer education system.  The Nine Principles of War of  von Clausewitz was supplanted by such things as Operations Research and Systems Analysis and Design.   The people element was downplayed.  Many of the military's best officers were being sent to graduate schools to get MBA's.  Leadership development was an afterthought.  The late 70's saw a metamorphosis where leadership was concerned.   New Manuals were written.  Mid-career officers were being trained to be leaders as much as managers.  Ethical decision making was also emphasized far more than quantitative analysis.  While both leadership and management skills were essential to a well-run military force, there was a lot of catching up to do in order to ensure that the younger officers had the basic foundations of leadership engrained.

The foundation of the Army's leadership curriculum was the concept of the Four Pillars of Leadership.  They were (and are):

• Courage
• Candor
• Competence
• Commitment

While "courage," in a military sense, invokes overcoming one's natural fears of the battlefield (officers are expected to lead by example...the principle of, "Follow Me!") equally emphasized was the moral aspect of courage.   There had been a trend (sadly) of senior officers leaning on junior officers to do such things as falsify reports.  Careerism was rampant.  Many succumed to the pressure.   Moral Courage was needed more than ever.
  
Linked closely to Courage was "Candor."   I remember that our annual evaluations in those days (which were and still remain highly inflated) had a series of questions on the form.  One of the questions read:  "Is this officer a 'yes' man?"   Clearly the correct answer was, "no."   Sadly, there were too many "yes men" around in those days and the Army was working hard to encourage junior officers to speak up and for seniors to encourage such candor (respectfully articulated, of course).   In essence, it is hard to display moral courage if one is not candid.

The pillar of Competence is certainly not peculiar to the military.  Leaders in all walks of life are expected to be competent.  The principle was there to encourage officers to master their profession and to strive to be prepared in advance for higher levels of service.   The Army school system was especially good at assisting officers to be competent.  Beginning right after commissioning, new lieutenants were sent to the Officer Basic Course.  Depending upon their branch of service (e.g., Infantry, Artillery, Medical Service Corps, Engineer, etc.) these courses ranged in length from nine to sixteen weeks.  They taught the basic skills expected of a platoon leader.  At the five to seven year period in career progression, captains attended the Officer Advanced Course.   This school prepared them to move on to staff officer and company command positions.  This program lasted for about six months.  The next level of formal education came after one was promoted to major.  It is called the Command and General Staff College.  This is a 10-month long program that prepares Army officers to serve on the general staff at division level and to command battalions and brigades.  The final formal school rung on the ladder is the Army War College.   Very promising lieutenant colonels and colonels are board selected to attend this year-long program.  One does not make general officer without having graduated from this course.   In between the Advanced Course and the Command and General Staff College, some officers are sent by the Army to get a master's degree in a relevant subject.  Many are being groomed to serve a tour as a faculty member at a service academy.  Subjects include such things as Political Science, Economics, International Relations.   If an officer is not selected to attend graduate school at the Army's expense, it is fully expected that a master's degree will be earned on one's own time (nights and weekends).  Suffice it to say that the Army puts a high premium on competence and tries not to expose its officers to assignments beyond their level of professional development.

The final pillar, Commitment, is essential.  Officers lead by example.  It is difficult to lead if one is not committed to the task and to the institution or organization.  Army leadership is hazardous.  The people officers lead depend upon them to accomplish the mission with the minimal amount of casualties (if any).

So why this review?  Well, after 12 years of active duty I joined the corporate world as a junior executive in a very large corporation.  I was both excited about my transition and dismayed.   I saw very little courage, less candor, a generally high degree of TECHNICAL competence, and a marginal to low degree of commitment.   Over the past 25 years I have not seen much improvement.  The places where I do see it (and as an executive recruiter and coach I see a lot of different organizations and evaluate a lot of executive talent) the one common denominator is that the organizations are led by an executive who exudes Courage, Candor, Competence and Commitment.   Good leaders are simply hard to find, and the typical professional development track for corporate executives is predominantly self-directed with little to no emphasis on leadership development.   It is no surprise to me that many business schools have suddenly determined that number crunching courses, while necessary, MUST be balanced by well-developed leadership curricula.

It has been said that you lead people and manage resources.  Leadership is an influencing process.  Management is a control process.  This is a big reason why (even though I once held the position in the Fortune 500) that I dislike the term, "Human Resources."  If by human resources we mean "people" then there is a more appropriate title for the function of HR in my view.

What have your organizations done to ensure that up and coming executives are developed as leaders?
http://www.esiassoc.com/   http://www.michaelkburroughs.com/