CHAPTER 2
LITERARY REVIEW
“It is easy to speak of “getting an OER” or “giving an NCOER,” but it is hard
work to execute the leadership, the involvement, the developmental counseling,
and the personal relationships necessary for an effective ERS. Fortunately, the
rewards at the end—a Soldier, a unit, a team—serving the Nation in a relevant
and ready force make that hard work worth the effort.” -AR 623-3, pg 3
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to determine what changes to Army cultural changes
are necessary to make individual and leader development more effective. In an effort to
answer this, this study will research what constitutes the current Army standards and
culture. The means to answer this question is the review of current Army doctrine and
related studies conducted by the Army and Department of Defense. Secondly, this
research will review the processes the Marine Corps uses for evaluating and developing
their officers, providing a second point of view within the Department of Defense.
Finally, this research will reflect on existing material from the Jack Welsh inspired model
at General Electric from 1980 to 2001. The GE model also provides insight into the way
culture changed in a large organization. Together the literature review aims to provide
direct insight into the means and methods that could improve current policies within the
Army.
1
Army Regulation, Doctrine and Practices
This research will focus on three registers of information maintained by the
Army: Army Regulation (AR) and associated Department of the Army Pamphlets
(DAPAM), Field Manuals (FM), and associated research and articles written by members
of the army and Army Research Groups. Army Regulations outline guidance and policy
as they pertain to individual topics and provide insight into what the Army expects in
these programs. Field Manuals provide the doctrine, or the how, for soldiers to carry out
these policies directed in ARs. Finally, Army or Department of Defense (DOD)
sponsored research and study groups provide information that recommends changes to
doctrine or new best practices not yet incorporated into ARs or FMs. Together these three
elements provide for great breadth of information for this body of research.
Army Regulations
Army regulations outline the Army’s guidance and policy as they pertain to
individual topics and provide insight into the expectations of the Army. AR 350-1, Army
Training and Leader Development, “consolidates guidance and policy for Army training
and leader development.” (AR 350-1, pg i) The 600 series of Army Regulations establish
the general framework for responsibilities for all aspects of leader development (AR 600100 pg i), career management (DAPAM 600-3), and promotions (DAPAM 600-8-24).
The 623 series of ARs focuses on the evaluation system and the requirements for
preparing the requisite evaluation forms. Overall, the ARs provide the context and
framework for Army policies and give direction for doctrine.
2
Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development, states as it’s purpose,
“This regulation prescribes policies, procedures, and responsibilities for developing,
managing, and conducting Army training and leader development (ibid, pg 1).” The
regulation outlines, in the table of contents, responsibilities and specific training that the
Army directs (Ibid pgs i-vii). Leader Development is defined by this regulation as "the
lifelong synthesis of the knowledge, skills, and experiences gained through the three
domains of institutional training and education, operational assignments, and self–
development. (Ibid pg7)” The Army’s formal Leader Development Process is further
defined as “the growth of individual leaders through training and education, experience,
assessment, counseling and feedback, remedial and reinforcement actions, evaluation,
and
selection. (Ibid)” This latter, formal process constitutes the focus of this review.
The formal leader development process focuses on three areas, mostly from
operational assignments, that focus on developing the officer beyond the schoolhouse
environment. The first area of focus is the experience gained in operational assignments
and the application of learned skills. The second is the counseling and feedback
mechanisms within these assignments that aim to improve the officers performance
during their period in the job. Finally, the Army assessment and evaluation programs
measure performance against a predetermined set of criteria. (Ibid)
Experience from operational assignments “provide leaders an opportunity to
apply the skills and knowledge gained during institutional training to the requirements of
their assigned duty position (Ibid pg 8). Within these assignments, leaders will encounter
3
command directed leader training and leader development programs (Ibid pg 86). Central
to these programs are the Leader Development Action Plans (LDAP) created jointly with
the leader and their rater. Counseling and evaluation support forms establish, in writing,
short, near and long term goals for each leader. Unit commanders should interview newly
assigned leaders to identify qualifications, explain policies, and establish unit standards
(DA PAM 350-58 pg18). During this interview, the leader development action plan
should become the result of this counseling and it will then establish a foundation for the
leader to build.
Counseling and feedback within operational assignments aims to improve officer
performance within a given job and into the future of the officer’s career. Counseling
provides clear, accurate and timely feedback against the established criteria from the
LDAP. It also identifies strengths and a weakness, observed developmental needs, and reestablishes the standards for the next session (Ibid pg 7). Through proper counseling both
the leader and the supervisor will observe and record development producing a
predictable evaluation when the time arises.
The Army assessment and evaluation process measures performance against a
predetermined set of criteria. “The leadership assessment process measures subordinates’
leadership values, attributes, skills, knowledge, and potential to lead at specific levels
within the Army (Ibid)”. This assessment then becomes the bases for an evaluation of
performance, recorded as required. This evaluation, as a formal rating, becomes the
foundation for future promotion selections, schooling and assignments (Ibid). The
evaluation is the only lasting record of performance maintained in the officers personnel
records (AR XXX-XX).
4
The formal leader development process focuses much of its practices on the
operational assignments portion of leader development. The application of skills and the
LDAP establish the foundation for progressive leader development. In stride counseling
keeps focus on the LDAP and identifies additional leader challenges for future
development. The assessment and evaluation processes complete the cycle and give a
permanent benchmark for performance. Although described very generically in AR 3501, additional regulations go further into detail regarding specific actions directed and
rules that encompass those actions.
The 600 series of Army regulations and Department of the Army Pamphlets
contain more guidance for leader development to assist leaders and supervisors. AR 600100 sets policy for leader development within the Army institutions. DAPAM 600-3
serves as a guide to assist in developing officers career paths. AR 600-8-29 provides the
framework for officer promotions. These regulations are general in nature and provide
needed information for the development of the LDAPs and career progression identified
in AR 350-1.
AR 600-100, Army Leadership, sets policy for leader development and assigns
responsibilities for management of leadership development. In conjunction with FM 622, Army Leadership, they set the policy and doctrine for Army leadership. The Center
for Army Leadership is responsible for “research, doctrine development, leadership
assessment, training, and evaluation in all areas pertaining to Army leadership (AR 600100 pg 1).” This is an important distinction when considering revisions or suggestions for
future improvements in leader policy. The regulation outlines the Army’s definition of a
leader (Ibid pg1), leadership levels and the core competencies of a leader (Ibid pg3). It
5
describes the leader development processes including counseling in the same terms as AR
350-1 (Ibid pg 5) adding couching and mentorship as needed aspects in leader
development. Finally, it directs all leaders to ensure counseling and development of their
subordinates and for commanders to ensure that it takes place.
AR 600-100 identifies counseling as “central to leader development” (Ibid pg5).
Counseling serves as a part of a leader development process that drives the coaching and
mentorship processes through establishment goals for the subordinate. The second
chapter of the regulation identifies responsibilities for every leader (Ibid pg 6). These
responsibilities set the standards for leader development and counseling. Through
effective use of AR 600-100, supervisors, commanders and others should be able to learn
and describe the requirements for Army leaders and can establish criteria to analyze
individual effectiveness in each area.
DAPAM 600-3, Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career
Management, serves as a guide to the developmental opportunities available to help craft
a successful career (DAPAM 600-3 pg1). Each branch, specialty and functional area has
a specific chapter in DAPAM 600-3 that outlines the available opportunities for every
officer as each rank. As a mentorship guide to officers, DAPAM 600-3 allows officers,
supervisors, and mentors to identify the available career paths for subordinates and aides
in the development of mid and long-range goal development in the LDAP. This type of
source data provides for quick referencing of subordinate developmental paths for
insertion into the counseling and mentoring of leaders.
6
AR 600-8-29, Officer Promotion, outlines the officer promotion program and
establishes standards for promotion policy (AR 600-8-29 pg 1). AR 600-8-29 serves in
conjunction with DAPAM 600-3 in describing promotion rules and requirements once
career progression is complete. Again serving supervisors of leaders as a mentoring tool,
it assists in the development of the LDAP. It also outlines requirements for officers who
seek to appeal promotion results or the addition of information not included in a leaders
records (Ibid, pg 41). Understanding of the officer promotion program is essential in
leader development and serves both as an individual responsibility and as a supervisor’s
role in LDAP creation.
As a whole, the 600 series of regulations and DAPAMs provides needed
information for the leader and supervisor to consider when developing LDAPs. The
leader requirements in AR 600-100 are imperatives in establishing initial counseling.
DAPAM 600-3 assists both the leader and supervisor in the development of a successful
career path. AR 600-8-29 describes officer promotions and how individuals function
within that policy. Although general in nature, these policy documents are essential to
know when constructing LDAPs with subordinate leaders in an effort to make the best
officer possible.
The last of the Army regulation to consider in this research are the two 623 series
documents: AR 623-3 and DAPAM 623-3. AR 623-3 describes the policies and tasks
performed in preparing and completing the Army Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)
including the Officer Evaluation Report (OER) (AR 623-3 pg i). DAPAM 623-3
describes the procedure used to complete the ERS and the OER (DAPAM 623-3, pg i).
The primary role of the ERS is to assist the Army in making personnel management
7
decisions (Ibid pg 4). However, the secondary function of the ERS is to encourage leader
professional development and mission accomplishment (Ibid). It is in these documents
that the Army specifically states its policy for leader professional development
counseling.
A key component of the secondary function of the ERS system is the ongoing
senior/subordinate communication (counseling) that goes into the ERS, supporting the
Army’s people-oriented program (AR 623-3, pg3). Initial counseling, conducted within
the first 30 days of the rating period, sets the standards for which the officer is to perform
their duties during the rating period. Officers receive periodic follow-up counseling in
order to provide performance feedback and redefine roles and expectations. Finally, the
officer receives an Officer Evaluation Report from his rater that covers their performance
and demonstrated potential evaluated during the rating period. The regulation identifies
that this is hard work but the rewards in the end are a better unit (Ibid).
The first step in starting the ERS is the initial counseling, directed by AR 623-3,
conducted within the first 30 days of the rating period. Prior to this counseling, the officer
should receive their raters and senior rater’s officer evaluation report support form (OER
Support Form DA 67-9-1), mission or objectives (Ibid, pg 23). During this time, the
officer and their rater will have a face-to-face counseling session and come to an
agreement on the duty description for the officer, the standards for performance, and
goals to accomplish for this rating period (Ibid, pg 23). Record of this counseling appears
on the officers OER Support Form. If the officer is the rank of WO1, CW2, 2LT, 1LT, or
CPT, they will also fill out a DA Form 67-9-1a, Junior Officer Developmental Support
Form (JODSF). Once agreed upon, the senior rater receives the working copy of the
8
forms and initials their approval on the form (Ibid, pg 24). The rated officer receives the
working copy back from the senior rater, then keeps, and maintains the copy for the
duration of the rating period. “Simply requiring the rated officer to submit written
performance objectives on DA Form 67–9–1 … at the beginning of the rating period
without a follow-up face-to-face meeting is an unacceptable shortcut of this provision”
(Ibid, pg23 and 24).
The AR requires, as part of the OER Support Form, for officer to identify
developmental counseling responsibilities as part of their own major performance
objectives (Ibid, pg 24). It is such major performance objectives that officers are rated
against in their OER.
Periodically, during the rating period, the rater will again conduct a face-to-face
counseling with the officer. The purpose of this counseling is to provide performance
feedback, update objectives and refine the duty description on the working copy of the
OER Support Form (DAPAM 623-3, pg 5). Follow-up counseling is required every
quarter for LTs and WO1s, but only once during the mid-way point for CPTs and CW2s,
then only on an as needed basis for field grade officers according to both 623-3
documents. In this fashion, the rated officers have the opportunity to refocus and stay on
track with rater expectations. After the follow-up session, the rater and senior rater will
date and/or initial on the working copy of the rated officers OER Support Form in order
to keep a record of the counseling (DAPAM 623-3, pg 5).
Finally, at the end of the rating period, the rated officer completes the last
portions of the OER Support Form and returns it to the rater (Ibid, pg 23). The rater will
9
then consider the OER Support Form information in their preparation of the OER, DA
Form 67-9 (Ibid, pg 24). The rater forwards the rater created OER and the rated officer
created OER Support Form to the senior rater for review and senior rater comments on
the OER. After the OER is complete, the senior rater returns the original OER Support
Form to the rated officer. This completes the cycle for the ERS (Ibid pg 24).
The regulation and associated DAPAM provide a clear policy for the
senior/subordinate communication process and it’s expected outcomes. Initial counseling
sets the tone for the entire rating period through a co-created plan for executing the rated
officer’s mission. Periodic follow-up counseling helps to keep the officer on track and reestablishes the changing role of the job, mission or objectives. Finally, the OER is a
completion of a process not the process itself and relies on supporting documents to
round out the evaluation. In the end the OER does not serve as the developmental tool, it
is the counseling and feedback that leads to the OER that is the leader development tool
needed for future officer development.
Army Field Manuals
Army field manuals explain fundamental Army doctrine and principles on a
variety of subjects. The principal field manual for leadership and leader development is
FM 6-22, “Army Leadership” (FM 6-22, forward). As it pertains to this research, FM 622 provides guidance on three areas of concern. The first is the definition of leadership
and the inherent responsibilities of a leader. The second is the Leaders Requirement
Model describing what a leader is and does. Finally, the FM describes the role of a leader
in developing others, including tools for effective counseling. Although FM 6-22 focuses
10
on Army leadership through the strategic level of leadership, it is important for this
research to focus on the Army expectations for the direct leader subordinate relationship
and development.
The 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” (FM6-22, pg1-2). The FM goes on to refer to developmental
counseling as an imperative in improving the organization (Ibid, pg1-3). Personal
example is another key term used throughout the first chapter of the FM. The importance
of personal example could actually have a more profound impact than words spoken
(Ibid, pg1-2). By putting a premium on example and development of others, the Army
doctrine establishes that actions taken by the leader are more important than what the
leader says.
The Leader Requirements Model describes what a leader is, leader attributes, and
does, leader competencies (Ibid, pg.2-4). The FM describes leader attributes as a leader
of character, a leader with presence, and a leader with intellectual capacity. Leader core
competencies include three principals: leads, develops and achieves. Together these
attributes and competencies identify the qualities and standards expected from every
officer.
Identified within the core competencies is “develops” and its subcategory,
develops leaders. The importance of counseling to leadership is evident in that it takes up
an entire annex of the FM. The FM encourages counseling as one of the ways to develop
others and improve organizations and mission accomplishment. “Counseling is the
11
process used by leaders to review with a subordinate the subordinate’s demonstrated
performance and potential” (Ibid, annex B1). Within the FM, several different methods,
reasons and tools are included to assist in the counseling process. Several other chapters
of the FM as well as annex A of the FM describe fully the application of the LRM in
order to aide in the counseling process. Through proper application, counseling will
enable the leader to clearing state goals and objectives, praise good performance, and
finally improve on weaknesses of others.
As the principle doctrine for leadership, FM 6-22 provides the framework for
which the Army defines and applies leadership principles. It encompasses the Army
Leader Requirements Model describing what a leader is and does. It also describes how a
leader develops others using the LRM. When paired with the policies listed in the Army
regulations above, FM 6-22 sets the groundwork for what a leader, officer, needs to
accomplish in order to have a good organization, develop others, accomplish the mission,
and receive a food evaluation.
Army studies on leadership culture
The Army conducts several leadership development focused studies every year.
The Qualitative Leadership Assessment Survey (QLAS), conducted by the Center for
army Leadership and Army Research Institute, forms the basis for many of these studies.
Recently, the Army’s Strategic Studies Institute published a new study in April titled
“Towards a U.S. Army officer Corps Strategy for Success: A Proposed Human Capital
Model focused upon Talent” (pub912) that has incited an Army wide, web based,
discussion about officer talent management. The Army Training and Leader
12
Development Panel “Officer Study report to the Army” from 2002 is the oldest, but most
cited report when it comes to policy currently used for officer development. Although not
an exhaustive list of available studies, these three seem to have the most impact on other
studies and, along with the Army Posture Statement, set the tone for current and future
leader development practices.
The QLAS seeks to provide raw data about leader development issues in a
consistent manner to ARI and CAL. The data, and subsequent report, are “For Official
Use Only”, and it’s information is not available for general public scrutiny. However,
portions of the data are available for this study as it pertains to identifying behaviors or a
culture that undermines the leader development process. As such, the 2009 report
identifies that less than half of Army officers believe that OER is fair, identifies high
quality officers, or assist in leader development. Further analysis of the data provided
could be beneficial in identifying if there is a behavior problem that underlines these
findings.
This year the Army’s Strategic Studies Institute wrote a provocative report about
moving the Army to a talent based Officer Management System. This monograph
identifies several issues that are different in the force now from in the past. These
changes stem from an officer pool that is increasingly coming from the enlisted ranks
rather than the traditional USMA and ROTC commissioning pools. Another key
component is the need to change management practices away from the old conscript era
practices to a new modern practice based on the current industry standards (pub 912, pg
14). Further, within the study, the need arises to screen, cull and vet talent better than we
13
have in the past(Ibid, pg 20). It is these points that created the current buzz within Army
Leadership regarding significant changes in leader development and assessment.
The ATLDP Officer Study Report to the Army was, in 2002, the seminal
document that propelled the current changes in Army leader development. A direct result
of this document was the creation of the LRM described in FM 6-22 (TR-1199, pg V).
Sighting that there was diminishing direct contact between seniors and subordinates, a
lack of acceptance of the current OER system, and a culture of raters that fail to use the
leader development portion of the OER process 9Ibid, pg OS-2 and OS-9). Although the
study is now seven years old, it remains the most comprehensive study of officer leader
development and management.
Although there are several studies conducted annually, and periodically, these
three provide the Army’s foundation for current leader development discussions. The
QLAS provides consistent feedback of leader impressions regardless of changes made to
the system. The SSI study is driving the current discussion of a new model for managing
officers and officer talent. Finally, the ATLDP studies remain the seminal studies on
leader development in the Army as a whole.
Separate from Army Studies is the Army Posture Document and the directed
Army Leadership Development Strategy. This document again is a FOUO document
intended to frame the issues of leader development for the Army. One recommendation
from the strategy is the need to mentor and develop others (ALDS, pg 11). Again when
describing the needs and role of mid-grade officers, the need to counsel, couch, and
mentor are included with other paradigm shifts (Ibid, pg 13). Although freshly penned
14
during the writing of this thesis, the ALDS seeks to open the dialogue for change in
Army leader development.
Scholarship Writings relevant to this research:
As this research continues, relevant and used resources will appear.
Marine Corps Fitness Report
In contrast to the Army’s Officer Evaluation Report is the Marine Corps Fitness
Report. All Marine officers, commissioned or non-commissioned, receive the same
standardized fitness, or evaluation, report. A simple comparison would be for the Army
to adopt either the NCO or Officer Evaluation Report for all evaluations. However, the
Marine Corps fitness report is much more complex and reflects a hard reflection at what
the Marine Corps values in a leader, yet retains flexibility to be effective across the whole
Corps leadership. The Marine Corps Order that establishes the policy is MCO P1610.7F
W/CH 1, dated May 2006. This document provides the majority of information on this
topic for purposes of this research. For purposes of this literary review, the research will
focus on describing the administrative requirements in preparing the report, supporting
documents and processes, Marine Corps expectations and requirements for the report,
rater and senior rater responsibilities, and the Marine Corps oversight of the program.
Through understanding the process the Marine Corps has created the researcher can gain
insight into the reasons why the Marine Corps changed to this form of evaluations over
previous forms and their expectations for leader evaluations.
The Marine Corps does not view the FITREP as a leader development tool. The
MCO states that it is not a communication to the Marine, nor a counseling document
15
(Ibid, pg 13). The stated goal is to provide an accurate profile of the Marine’s
professional qualities. The process seeks to identify the most qualified Marines for
promotion, assignments, and retention. The Commandant’s guidance for the
PES is: "The completed fitness report is the most important information
component in manpower management. It is the primary means of evaluating a
Marine’s performance.” (Ibid, pg 14)
FITREP Administrative Requirements
The FITREP begins when a Marine receives assignment to a new Reporting
Senior (RS). The S1 equivalent would then move that officer under the profile of the RS
within the Automated Personnel Evaluation Systems (A-PES). Early in the rating period,
the RS must log into their A-PES account and verify that the newly assigned Marine is
under his profile (Ibid, pg 16). The RS must meet with the new Marine and agree on duty
descriptions and expectations for the rating period. This not only begins the evaluation
process for the FITREP, but also the leader development process.
As with any evaluation, administrative information is standard in many regards.
The Marine Corps FITREP is no different from the Army, with the exception of a few
inputs that the Marine Corps feels provides better insight into the capabilities of the
Marine Reported On (MRO). These inputs include specific scoring zones for the Physical
Fitness Test, weapons qualification, and weight/body composition (Ibid, pg 51). These
scores, rather than a pass/fail mark, provide for a better overall picture of the MRO.
16
Counseling is not a key component in the A-PES process like it is in the Army
ERS. RSs must counsel at the beginning of the rating period in order to verify duty
descriptions and expectations. A continuous and regular interaction between MRO and
RS provides feedback and verifies duty descriptions, establish new goals and develop
performance. The Marine Corps views counseling as assisting future performance, while
evaluations are more about past performance. The MCO goes as far to say, “Any
counseling program which relies on final evaluations as a tool to force behavioral
changes is without merit and must be avoided” (Ibid, pg 16). This one statement
highlights the Marine Corps desire to separate counseling from evaluation processes.
At the end of the rating period, the MRO initiates the evaluation process.
Accelerated promotion requires justification pg 50
Objectivity and returning reports pg 62
Different for COL and Flag officer pg 93
RS responsibilities pg 96
Master Brief pg 124, 163
Inflated reports 127
Reporting senior profile 127
WS as support form 143
17
Apes 148
The Jack Welsh General Electric Model for Implementing Organizational Change
Although in the Army we do not always get to choose our team, HRC does a lot of that
for us, we can sure ensure that teams are fairly manned. We can also ensure that the most
talented are recognized and retained, and more importantly that the team members that
are not making it do not receive promotion to the next level of play.
Other methodologies used to research the subject
Summary and conclusions (Why your study is a needed addition to the knowledge in the
field you have outlined)
“The U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report; why are we writing to someone who
isn’t reading?” April 1998; by David P. Kite, Major, U.S. Army. This thesis researches
that the changes to the current OER did not address the issues found with the old OER.
Similar Army surveys in 2001 have found this to be the case as well. The literature in this
case indicates that known flaws in the OER have gone unaddressed over the past 10
years.
The use of books and articles form Jack Welsh provide non-proprietary
information on the leadership processes adapted at General Electric corporation. This
18
provides context to how a corporation of similar size to the Army is able to conduct
leader assessment and evaluations. The website, www.welshway.com is a collection of
articles, videos and philosophy of Jack Welsh post General Electric.
Other articles, books and websites from James McNerney, Robert Nardelli, and
Jefferey Immelt. These three were all in consideration to replace Jack Welsh at GE and
were all long time GE officers. Jeff Immelt replaced Jack Welsh at GE in 2001 and
continued the leadership evolutions created under Jacks watch. James McNerney became
CEO of 3M, the company that currently tops the Hay Institute list of Best Leader
Developing Companies. James McNerney has since moved on to head Boeing
Corporation. Robert Nardelli left GE and became CEO of Home Depot until 2007 then
headed Chrysler until mid 2009.
Chapter Three
Methodology
19
This thesis uses a mixed methodology referencing the leader change model that
Jack Welsh used at General Electric to facilitate change in the Army culture. Case study
of the current Marine Corps policy on evaluation will reveal how the Army OER
compares to other DoD evaluation systems and if there is a better mechanism available.
Oral history interviews from Marine and Army leaders will add to this case study and
other components. By researching Army policies and comparing them to other models,
this research hopes to identify proven techniques that the Army can either enforce or
adopt into its own program.
20