A Prussian officer on horseback with a foot soldier. (Alamy)
A return to great power competition, as outlined in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, means a fundamental shift in the focus of U.S. military operations the past two decades. To win a great power competition, the Navy must start preparing today for the wars of tomorrow, which includes prioritizing the development of the junior leaders who will lead the conflicts of the future.
Today, the Navy alone of all the branches of the U.S. military lacks a formal program for deliberate leadership development. The first time most naval officers receive structured, Navy-sponsored leadership training is at an institution such as the Naval War College, if they are fortunate enough to attend. Good leadership skills can also be developed in many unstructured ways, such as learning from leaders (both good and bad) and seeking out a mentor for regular informal counsel. Many in the Navy feel that is good enough, as formal training is expensive and time-consuming.
Meanwhile, the Chief of Naval Operations’ Navy Leader Development Framework 2.0 remains exactly that—a framework. Although clearly well-meaning, it relies on a system of informal techniques (mentorship, on-the-job training, and self-guided education) built around a one-size-fits-all career track. It is not a mandate for deliberate investment in the careful cultivation of the Navy’s people and their character, as it should be for those who will lead the wars of the future as admirals, commanding officers, military strategists, and civilian senior executives.
The Prussian Model
Compare this to Auftragstaktik, the foundation of the 19th century Prussian Army’s professional military culture. Loosely translated as “mission command,” the concept has been advocated during various periods throughout American military history but has gained more popularity in recent years as the U.S. military grapples with wartime leadership challenges.
Auftragstaktik comprised two primary elements. First, it empowered junior leaders with wide authority and latitude to decide on a specific course of action in pursuit of mission accomplishment within the broad, nonspecific framework of the “commander’s intent.” This fostered an environment that taught leaders how to think and not what to think, and was more tolerant of mistakes considered necessary to learn how to lead. Second, it promoted an innovative, progressive approach to leadership development where junior leaders received deliberate training and mentorship aimed at cultivating their character and the qualities required to successfully execute Auftragstaktik–style warfare.
This training extended down through the ranks, from senior officers to the individual soldier. It began early and continued throughout a career, with more depth and intentionality as a soldier progressed to higher ranks. It fostered a professional environment that reinforced learning with true practical application integrated into all aspects of military life, both in training and on the battlefield. This imbued the military professional with important qualities necessary to fight and win, such as expertise (depth of knowledge and experience, the basis for making decisions); independence (a bias for action, taking initiative in the absence of standing orders or other guidance); and responsibility (real, meaningful ownership for the mission and the people).
Echoes of Auftragstaktik are found in the CNO’s Leader Development Framework 2.0, but they are reflected perhaps more vividly throughout his October 2017 feedback on the operational pause:
In many cases, our biggest challenges and opportunities for improvement are at this scale of the command. By virtue of piling on meaningless collateral duties and programs that contribute little to operational and warfighting excellence, we have confused these leaders, making it hard for them to see through the chaff and to prioritize the personal and professional development of their people. An astute and well-trained division officer and chief will ensure that their teams are trained, certified, well-rested, respectful, and ready to go. Good order and discipline will be manifest throughout the team....They are ready to be accountable for this responsibility. In too many cases, we have stolen leadership opportunities away from our small-team leaders; we’ve used a slide show instead of leadership by personal engagement. We have robbed our junior leaders of the ownership they so crave. We have smothered their initiative. We need to give it back—it’s why they joined the Navy.
Two Initiatives
To heed the CNO’s guidance to prioritize the personal growth and professional development of junior leaders, the Navy should invest in at least two different, mutually supportive initiatives.
First, it should establish a naval leadership center of excellence, where leaders at each rank from every warfare community will be sent to learn what good leadership looks like in both concept and in practice. They should receive structured training that goes beyond administrative requirements, for example how to write good performance evaluations and fitness reports, but focuses also on developing the character qualities of an effective leader through personal engagement and practical exercises. This process of continuous training would also serve as an opportunity to observe and identify up-and-coming leaders and evaluate them for positions and programs of increased responsibility.
In addition, a more intentional approach to the Navy’s Mentorship Program is needed, where junior personnel would be deliberately paired with a senior mentor early in their training pipelines. Senior officers and civilians could be incentivized to take on mentees, and a reward system could be developed to recognize excellence in mentorship (though the joy of responsibility for shaping the life and career of junior personnel should be enough for seniors who truly embrace an Auftragstaktik-style personal leadership philosophy). As junior leaders grow more senior, they would begin to take on their own protégés, and so forth.
The combination of these two initiatives would serve to create a kind of self-sustaining “leadership factory” whereby solid leaders are built from the ground up as they are prepared to lead the wars of tomorrow, and a positive naval leadership culture is developed from the inside out.
The Navy has a long history of resisting formal leadership development. It had to be almost forced by the U.S. Congress to create a Naval Academy in the 19th century, believing at-sea midshipmen training was more than sufficient. And it has for too long refused to screen and send the most promising officers to the Naval War College.
If we expect to win the next great power competition, the Navy must finally get serious about formal leadership training and character development. To paraphrase former CNO Admiral Thomas Hayward, the strength of our Navy lies not strictly with our ships or weapons systems but rather with our people. Any effort that emphasizes a single technological innovation or strategic initiative is doomed to fail without investing in the right people who will ultimately lead the fight and execute orders. Developing these junior leaders today, and cultivating their character and their talent, is no less than a matter of strategic importance to our national security. Concepts like Auftragstaktik provide both inspiration and practical guidance on how best to develop our junior leaders—officer, enlisted, and civilian.
Lieutenant Harris currently serves as a tactical watch officer at the Naval Ocean Processing Facility in Dam Neck, Virginia.