Running Head: ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP … · 2018-12-05 · fostering and developing adaptive and agile leadership growth. Broadening assignments also played a key role in the

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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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.


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 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


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)


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 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.


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.


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.


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


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-


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


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)


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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)


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.


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


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


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.


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?


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


Appendices

Appendix A Permission to Conduct Study

Appendix B Interview Questionnaire

Appendix C Consent Form


Appendix A Permission to Conduct Study


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:


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?


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.

Documents

Running Head: ADAPTIVE AND AGILE LEADERSHIP … · 2018-12-05 · fostering and developing adaptive and agile leadership growth. Broadening assignments also played a key role in the