Agile Birds: Junior Officer Professional Development During Training Hold Periods

, and Major Bret P. Van Poppel During one 30-day period in the summer of 2005, the Armor Officer Basic Course at Fort Knox accounted for over 170 newly commissioned lieutenants in a training hold status.1 Without question, leader development is very important to the Army. Since 1985, when General Wickham convened the Professional Development of Officers Study, the Army has aggressively sought to define and describe leadership and leader professional development. In 2005, the Director of the Army Staff established a review of education, training, and assignment of leaders (RETAL) task force and directed it to examine the policies and programs that govern the education, training, and assignments of Army leaders.2 This was a significant step toward functionally aligning and integrating leader development. The RETAL task force was instructed to evaluate the three principal components of leader development — training, education, and experience — and recommend appropriate strategies for “growing” adaptive future leaders.3 The contemporary operational environment and the Army’s operational tempo provide few opportunities for professional development and education outside of duty tours specified for such purposes. There are few signs that the pace will significantly decelerate in the near future. The Army Posture Statement 2006 (APS

2006) characterizes the near-term security environment as, “The Nation will continue to be engaged in along struggle of continuous, evolving conflict that… will manifest itself in complex, traditional, and irregular challenges.”4 The environment presents an intriguing paradox — the Army needs multifunctional leaders of character, yet it is so busy operating that there is little time available for the requisite learning and growing to produce such leaders. Junior officers, particularly lieutenants, represent a critical segment of Army leaders. Lieutenants arguably stand to benefit the most from professional development opportunities, feedback, and mentorship. The Army’s emphasis on leader development and the RETAL task force are positive, prominent steps in the direction of growing adaptive leaders. Nevertheless, it will be several years before the Army harvests the fruits of these efforts. In the short-term, Army leaders can use training hold periods that accompany initial officer training to shore-up gaps in education, training, and experience. Implementing the Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) and Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) may result in increased training hold periods or training hold time at some locations, thereby setting ideal conditions for formalized professional development programs. This article details one professional development experience, highlights lessons learned, and recommends strategies for

“donor” officers and host organizations to maximize the benefits of similar opportunities. Post-Commissioning Professional Development Opportunities Many professional development opportunities exist between the commissioning date and the first unit of assignment date. Some of these are formal programs, such as scholarships or fellowships, for advanced schooling or the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) Gold Bar Recruiting program. Others are targets of opportunity for internships with installation organizations. A few formal opportunities exist for post-commissioning advanced degrees through competitive scholarship or fellowship programs. Each year, several U. S. Military Academy (USMA) cadets qualify for post-graduate studies through internationally renowned scholarships. Available scholarships include the East-West Center Graduate Degree Fellowship located at the University of Hawaii; Marshall Scholarship in the United Kingdom; Rhodes Scholar in Oxford, United Kingdom; the Hertz Foundation Fellowship; and the Truman Scholarship. While these are exceptional opportunities for advanced education and professional development, few slots are available and selection is very competitive.5 Gold Bar Recruiting (GBR) is another formal post-commissioning opportunity available to many new lieutenants. As a GBR, the recently commissioned officer will remain at the university or college to assist the recruiting operations officer (ROO) for up to 140 days. Informal opportunities exist within the Army’s new framework for officer education and initial entry training. The BOLC model has three components: BOLC I (pre-commissioning training); BOLC II (a standardized, branch-neutral first course in tactical fundamentals); and BOLC III (branch-specific training). Some officers may attend training courses and schools between BOLC III and their first units of assignment. This model presents two or three periods of loiter time between courses or training hold (also known as “snow-birding,” “greybirding,” or “blackbird-ing”):

• Between BOLC I (commissioning) and BOLC II.

• Between BOLC II and BOLC III.

• Between BOLC III and follow-on training courses (for some students). Traditionally, training hold periods carry a negative connotation. These periods are typically characterized as “dead time,” which lasts for days or months.6 Training hold periods are often one of the first Army experiences for officers. While these periods are usually inevitable, they do not have to be wasted time. Junior officers can use this time for professional development and it can be mutually advantageous for host organizations. The following case study describes the experience of two newly commissioned armor officers who worked as junior operations research analysts while in a training hold status. Case Study: Junior Officers Become Junior Analysts Two junior officers reported to Fort Knox for Maneuver Officer Basic Course in July 2005 and assumed a training hold status. On the first day of regular duty, unit leadership requested volunteers with a degree in marketing or economics. The junior officers reported to the Director, Center for Accessions Research (CAR), U. S. Army Accessions Command (USAAC). For the next six weeks, a professional staff of field grade officers and equivalent grade civilian analysts would train these “junior analysts” on tools and techniques of operations research and systems analysis. Much like any other analyst in the CAR, the junior analysts would provide strategic insight to Army leadership on the Army’s marketing, recruitment, and initial entry training of soldiers and officers. After assignment to a specific division within the CAR, the division chief placed the junior analysts under the supervision of a major. They were to conduct an analysis of a command climate survey administered to all members of a large and geographically separated command. Following initial guidance and some formal software training, the junior analysts began their project. The challenge in this initial project was not the data analysis, but rather organizing the data logically. Flaws in the design of the survey questionnaire increased the difficulty in analysis — most of the responses were open-ended and therefore very difficult to code for data entry and analysis. To aid in the analysis, other analysts in the CAR provided training in text mining software specifically designed for open-ended responses. The junior analysts identified major themes and trends in responses for each question. They analyzed another sample to determine statistical variation in responses. Their final product comprised a summary paragraph and associated charts for each survey question. The CAR submitted this analysis to the commanding general for his review. The junior analysts were further instructed to analyze an extensive study of college students’ attitudes and perceptions of the military. The study measured responses of over 3,500 undergraduate college students from over 30 four-year colleges and universities; the study produced over 150,000 data points. This analysis required familiarization with new software, and the junior analysts participated in a two-day software-training course prior to commencing their analysis. “The contemporary operational environment and the Army’s operational tempo provide few opportunities for professional development and education outside of duty tours specified for such purposes. There are few signs that the pace will significantly decelerate in the near future. The Army Posture Statement 2006 (APS 2006) characterizes the near-term security environment as, “The Nation will continue to be engaged in along struggle of continuous, evolving conflict that… will manifest itself in complex, traditional, and irregular challenges.” 34 —

Under the supervision of an assigned mentor, the analysts began examining the data in aggregate and then by demographic segment, such as gender, ethnicity, and years in school. Within a week, they began to gather significant results and presented an in-progress review (IPR) to their division chief. Following three weeks of compiling their own results and insights from other analysts, the analysts presented a one-hour presentation and interim report to the Director, Deputy Director, and other members of the CAR. For their final requirement, the analysts drafted an information paper to summarize their work and serve as a point of departure for follow-on analyses. Lessons Learned An unorthodox training hold opportunity carries many benefits that may emerge as the officer matures and progresses in rank. Nevertheless, the chance to serve as junior analysts on a diverse and professional staff was a high-quality professional development experience. Many factors contributed to this enriching experience, including unique skill development, problemsolving, flexible learning environment, mentorship, and project and task organization. Working with the ‘big’ Army equipped the lieutenants with basic analytical skills most of their contemporaries will not have early in their careers. By the end of their assignment, the two junior officers had organized and analyzed mounds of data and had written a report for a commanding general. They worked with analysis software and became familiar with the standards for conducting military briefings and information papers. Additionally, the lieutenants gained many valuable and unique skills, to include designing studies and experiments; marketing research types and methodologies; data collection fieldwork; data entry and analysis techniques and pro cedures; types of data; data analysis software, including Excel spreadsheets, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), and text mining software; and survey questionnaire design. Problemsolving was one of the most important benefits of this experience.7 There were many new tasks that appeared daunting initially; however, problem decomposition proved to be very manageable. The junior analysts learned and employed elements of the military decisionmaking process (MDMP) and troop leading procedures (TLPs), such as backward planning, identifying key concepts, and understanding the commander’s intent. With the assistance of the mentor, the lieutenants first defined the problems and relevant issues, and then decomposed these problems into manageable components. Much like the planning involved in a military operation, problem definition, problem decomposition, and the mentor’s input were critical to successful problemsolving. In his article “Learning and Transformation,” in the September-October 2005 issue of ARMOR, Major David Culkin asserts that: “…adequately defining the bounds of a problem is essential to developing a unit mission that addresses the problem…defining the problem for subordinates in a time-constrained situation may be more important than deducing a mission.”8 In the end, the problemsolving process was an effective one, due in part to the mentor’s leadership and guidance. More importantly, the mentor defined the problem — not the mission — and encouraged the lieutenants to employ innovation and creativity. This flexible environment promoted ownership in the project and imbued the analysts with the confidence to develop unique solutions. The learning environment was a significant benefit of this experience. An appropriate balance of formal training, mentorship and guidance, and hands-off work time characterized this internship. To communicate the tasks and intent of the analysis, the mentor employed a task-purpose-endstate (TPE) model. While a model of task-conditions-standards (TCS) is widely employed in the Army to define and describe individual-level tasks, the TPE model is much less prescriptive. The TPE model “The environment presents an intriguing paradox — the Army needs multifunctional leaders of character, yet it is so busy operating that there is little time available for the requisite learning and growing to produce such leaders. Junior officers, particularly lieutenants, represent a critical segment of Army leaders. Lieutenants arguably stand to benefit the most from professional development opportunities, feedback, and mentorship.” “A few formal opportunities exist for post-commissioning advanced degrees through competitive scholarship or fellowship programs. Each year, several U. S. Military Academy (USMA) cadets qualify for post-graduate studies through internationally renowned scholarships.” — 35 focuses on the purpose and commander’s intent — the why— rather than on the task and its description, thereby encouraging problem solvers to operate within the commander’s intent. In War as I Knew It, General George S. Patton cautions against prescriptive guidance, “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.9 For this case study, the flexibility of the TPE model promoted creative solutions to the challenging and open-ended projects. Seasoned with some mentorship and guidance, the TPE model promoted initiative, innovation, and creativity, especially in junior officers whose methods had not yet been shaped by years of operational experience. Mentorship was a critical component of this experience. Although addressed previously, the value and importance of mentorship cannot be overemphasized. As defined in U. S. Army Field Manual (FM) 22-100, Army Leadership, mentorship is defined as the “proactive development of each subordinate through observing, assessing, coaching, teaching, developmental counseling, and evaluating that results in people being treated with fairness and equal opportunity.”10 Mentoring a junior officer is important in that it establishes trust and promotes learning. An opportunity is not necessarily an experience and it is critical for the mentor to give guidance and purpose throughout the professional development program or task. Creating a quality professional development program will “expand the competencies of the lieutenant and prepare him for performance at his next duty level.”11 Mentored professional development opportunities are always valuable, especially for junior officers. Recommendations The case study discussed in this article was a rewarding experience for the junior officers and the Center for Accessions Research — and one that others should capitalize on. Senior officers and directorate-level civilians, as well as junior officers, should actively seek these mutually beneficial opportunities. The Army’s priority on leader development, coupled with new opportunities within BOLC’s emerging architecture, offer ideal conditions for ad hoc professional development during training hold periods. We offer several recommendations to help create a successful experience from this potential opportunity. For directorate-level officers and civilians, it is essential to empower junior officers with resources, training, guidance, and mentorship that will create the conditions for success. The process begins with the selection of the junior officer. Matching education, skills, and personality of the officer to the organization’s mission and core competencies is a key to success. Overall project organization and management are also very important. A project organization similar to a four-or six-week cadet troop leader training (CTLT) experience works well for short-duration opportunities. To frame the experience, well-defined scope, goals, and objectives are essential to bound and guide the overall experience, as well as the individual tasks. We found the use of milestones with specific calendar dates to be very effective in guiding progress and maintaining effort levels. If applicable, skills training — whether formal or informal — will provide the foundation for junior officers to effectively solve problems and negotiate projects. While supervision is important, quality mentorship is critical. In this vein, we discovered that assigning an appropriate field-grade officer or equivalent-grade civilian to mentor the junior officers to be essential. To conclude a project or internship, a culminating event is a very effective technique for “book-ending” the experience. As an example, a final briefing or a professionally published article is an excellent capstone event. Lieutenants interested in investing in their own professional development can realize substantial benefits from opportunities such as the one described in this article. These assignments differ from a typical, operational duty assignment because they have the potential to offer experience and insight into unusual fields of operations or arcane Army functions. We recommend actively and aggressively seeking opportunities that align with personal skills, undergraduate education, and interests. Much like managing one’sown career, managing a project will require both individual effort and input. Once assigned to a project, it is critical to ensure goals, objectives, and milestones are clear, well defined, and accommodate the conditions of the training hold period. Presenting the results of interim or final work has many benefits, to include collaborating and gaining insights from others, keeping the organization’s leadership apprised of efforts and progress, developing oral and written communication skills, and guiding the experience with hard-stop requirements. Finally, we recommend advocating positive professional development experiences to fellow officers — word-of-mouth marketing can be the most influential channel for sharing benefits and contributing to peer-to-peer development. Notes 1Recommendation of Major Holly F. West, Center for Accessions Research, data provided by the office of the S3, Operations, 2d Squadron, 16th Cavalry, Fort Knox, KY. 2Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2006 Army Posture Statement, online at http://www.army.mil/aps/06/. The APS 2006, states, “The complexity of the 21st century security environment requires more Army leaders at all levels. To be effective today and tomorrow, we are growing anew breed of leader…who is able to rapidly transition between complex tasks with relative ease. …The future environment will demand Army leaders at all levels be multi-skilled, innovative, agile, and versatile.” 3Ibid. 4Army Posture Statement, 2006, page 2, http://www.army. mil/aps/06/. 5For additional information, please visit www.usma.edu. 6It is not uncommon for lieutenants to be tasked to landscap-ing details, or simply nothing at all. 7As identified by Lieutenant Ozier and Lieutenant Lareau, the single most significant benefit of working in this nontraditional setting was acquiring analysis and problemsolving skills early in their careers. 8David Culkin, “Learning and Transformation,” ARMOR, September-October 2005, pp. 12-17. 9General George S. Patton Jr., War as I Knew It, Houghton Mifflin Company, May 1978. 10U. S. Army Field Manual, FM 22-100, Leadership, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 31 August 1999, Chapter 3. 11Jonathon A. Hall and Eric A. McCoy, “Designing a Lieutenant Professional Development Program,” Army Logistician, November–December 2002. Lieutenant Davis Ozier is currently serving as an infantry platoon leader, C Troop, 3d Squadron, 73d Cavalry, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. He received a B. A. from Vanderbilt University. His military education includes the Mounted Officers Basic Course, Scout Leaders Course, and Ranger School. Lieutenant Christopher Lareau is currently serving as XO, C Troop, 4th Squadron, 73d Cavalry, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC. He received a B. A. from Boston University. His military education includes the Mounted Officers Basic Course and Scout Leaders Course. Major Bret P. Van Poppel is a communications research analyst, Center for Accessions Research, U. S. Army Accessions Command, Fort Knox, KY. He received a B. S. from the United States Military Academy (USMA) and an M. S. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His military education includes the Infantry Officers Basic Course, the Infantry Officers Advanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and the U. S. Army Command and General Staff College. He has served in various command and staff positions, including assistant professor, Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, USMA, West Point, NY; commander, B Company, 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry, Camp Greaves, Korea; support platoon leader, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis, WA; and mortar platoon and rifle platoon leader, 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry, 6th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Wainwright, AK. The authors express sincere gratitude to Colonel Ralph H. Gay, Mr. Kevin Lyman, and other members of the Center for Accessions Research for providing this unique opportunity for professional development. 36 —