Stronger Together: Leadership Lessons from Partner Forces

July 25, 2022 - First Lieutenant Dylan Nigh

Reading Time: 15 min

1. United Kingdom (UK) – Action-Centred Leadership

Central to much of the leadership philosophy taught to military leaders in the UK is John Adair’s model of Action-Centred Leadership. This model sets the basic priorities of officers and NCMs from the strategic down to the tactical level and assigns a high value to properly balancing them. The model starts with an assigned task for which a team has been assembled. The nature of the task will dictate which style of leadership is called for and how the leaders must monitor progress until completion. This focus on accomplishing the task provides the “action” in Action-Centred Leadership and the first of the three priorities a leader is expected to balance. The other two priorities are the proper building of the team and the empowerment of individuals. An effective leader will balance their time and efforts between these three priorities; they will make decisions equally motivated by mission success, the cohesion of the team, and the importance of each member.

For example, a sub-unit commander may be informed of an upcoming training exercise. They would study the nature of the exercise and what would constitute mission success, take stock of their unit, and plan a training and preparation schedule leading up to the exercise. Once there, they would monitor training events to make sure the plan is being executed, ensure the team members are properly fulfilling their roles, and check that each member is taken care of and oriented to the mission. While each priority is important and a proper balance should routinely be a goal, this sub-unit commander would understand that any of the three can take precedence if the situation calls for it. They would know when mission success trumps the needs of an individual or when it should be given less attention than the strength of the team.

2. New Zealand – Command and Plans Cooperation

Often the size of a nation and its location can dictate the priorities and nature of its armed forces, with New Zealand being a prime example. Its relatively smaller size and isolated location have led to its military being a comparatively lean and agile force with unique strengths and capabilities. One such strength is their capacity for mission planning and command. Leaders from New Zealand are routinely placed in charge of multi-national task forces and accomplish outsized effects on crisis response and peace-keeping missions. This is partly due to their focus on integrating operational planning and command. Regardless of their specialties or the service they are a part of, all leaders are trained in the planning process. This training is later put into practice at multiple levels, where those in command are always involved and constantly give feedback along the way.

This integration of command and planning is not unique to NZ, but it has allowed them to prioritize planning across their force and increase leaders’ involvement in the processes that lead to mission success. Commanders still avoid micromanaging their planning teams, but show they are invested and help guide them toward the desired outcomes. The importance of planning is further reinforced by requiring leaders to serve in plans and operation sections before returning to the larger force. This ensures no leader makes it to command without a firm understanding of the planning process and a respect for those who execute their vision.

3. United States (US) – Creating a Shared Identity

Similar to how New Zealand’s military has been shaped by external circumstances, the size of the US and its geopolitical goals have helped to develop its military into one of the largest in the world. Having such a substantial force comes with obvious benefits in terms of national defense and the broad range of capabilities that can be developed, but it equally presents unique challenges to those in charge. One such challenge is that of keeping service members motivated and involved when they are tempted to feel insignificant in the face of such a large organization. This has led US leaders to place a high premium on developing a shared identity regardless of the level at which they lead or the specific nature of their team. This compliments the sort of mission command practiced by most Western forces and is discussed in the book “Team of Teams” by General (RET) Stanley McChrystal.

Getting team members to “buy into” the mission and nature of the team means communicating the shared values of the team and what sets them apart from others. Formally this may start at the platoon level (16-60 personnel), but a truly successful unit sees it occur informally at the lowest level possible (1-4 personnel). A new member of a fire team would know based on the words and actions of their immediate leader that they are an integral part of something larger than themselves tasked with an important mission set. Once this is achieved at the lower levels, the trend can be reinforced using unit mottos, official values, and vision statements. Many units even offer branded clothing or equipment and routinely organize informal cohesion events for their members. While these gestures and more can be highly effective, the ultimate goal of building trust and purpose in a team is won or lost over the way that leaders treat those they lead. Those who are most successful create a shared identity through the small ways they show they care and are invested in the success of their unit.

4. Australia – Communicate in Multiple Directions

Many works have been written about the lessons that can be gleamed from the Australian Armed Forces, including Nicholas Jans’ seminal text “Leadership Secrets of the Australian Army.” Jans, and many more, have highlighted the egalitarian nature of the force and its focus on developing leaders through intentional training and practical doctrine. By combatting the myth of the “natural soldier” and distancing themselves from the more rigid hierarchy of their British predecessors, the Australians formed their own unique culture that values hands-on leadership and open communication. In this vein, they worked to prioritize the leadership skill of communicating in multiple directions.

Many leaders form a preference as to which direction they communicate, whether upwards toward management or downwards toward their team, but true leadership is able to do so in multiple directions: upward to leadership, downward toward those they command, across to their peers, outward to external units or entities, and inward to themselves. The flatter hierarchy of the Australian forces allow for more candid communication, but leaders are further taught the importance of interpersonal tact and self-reflection. Team members are allowed to speak honestly, but leaders know how and when to convey a message. They can be honest with themselves, cordial with peers, direct with their leadership, balanced with their team, or formal with external units. This more than anything shows how important nuance is to leadership; a lesson that is reinforced in the Australian Military through both experience and training.

5. Canada – Success Through Unified Efforts

Finally, Canada displays the importance of unified efforts through multiple venues. First, the Royal Military College of Canada, unlike its counterparts in nations like the UK or US, trains officer cadets from every service across the force. This mixed environment promotes networking and prevents the phenomenon of “stove-piping” where units and services kept isolated develop their own operational language. Future army, air force, and navy officers learn the same planning and operations processes and develop professional relationships before their careers even start. Secondly, every service has been unified into the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) since 1968. While this decision was not without its controversy, and many are still critical of the actual joint nature of the CAF , others believe that this has allowed Canadian Forces to attain a high degree of cohesion and shared understanding . Those who work in a joint environment with Canadian units can see firsthand how their leaders are quickly able to adapt to the environment and succinctly paint an operational picture. The take-away from these examples is clear; leaders should always look for ways to increase unity and create a shared understanding of the mission and the plan. The interconnected nature of the world and the modern operating environment means having a grasp on the capabilities and procedures of other teams is often critical to mission success. This can be accomplished through joint exercises, combined events like Menton Week, or shared PME. Most importantly, there is a missed opportunity when leaders from any force fail to study the lessons of others or to network with their peers abroad.

Conclusion

These five short lessons are only a small glimpse at the knowledge that is available to those interested in learning from partner forces, but they are enough to justify the effort. I would implore any leader from the five forces included and beyond to take this message to heart and to communicate the need to learn from each other to their peers. The more we do so, the more we improve our organizations and ourselves as leaders. If this article convinces just one leader to look toward their partners in an effort to learn, it has done its job.

First Lieutenant Dylan Nigh is a US Army Officer in First Special Forces Command (Airborne) currently serving as the Second-In-Command for the Technical and Information Support Company (TISC). He holds a bachelor’s in biology and a master’s in international relations and writes often on the topics of national security affairs and leadership development.

Notes

1 Diana Myers, “The Importance of Educating Foreign Military Officers.” The Importance of Educating Foreign Military Officers | Small Wars Journal. Small Wars Journal, August 17, 2018. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/importance-educating-foreign-military-officers.

2 Samuel Northrup, “U.S. Soldiers Train with Canadian Counterparts.” www.army.mil, 2017. https://www.army.mil/article/186339/u_s_soldiers_train_with_canadian_counterparts.

3 John Adair, The Action-Centred Leader (Farnham: Gower Pub Co, 1979).

4 Divina Paredes, “John Holley: Leadership Lessons from the Frontline.” CIO New Zealand, May 16, 2014. https://www2.cio.co.nz/article/545345/john_holley_leadership_lessons_from_frontline/.

5 Mark Stevens, et al., “Leaders’ Creation of Shared Identity Impacts Group Members’ Effort and Performance: Evidence from an Exercise Task,” PLOS ONE 14, no. 7 (July 11, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218984.

6 General Stanley A. McChrystal, et al., Team of Teams (London: Portfolio Penguin, 2015).

7 Nicholas Andrew Jans, Leadership Secrets of the Australian Army: Learn from the Best and Inspire Your Team for Great Results (Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2018).

8 Harry Moffitt, “Six Leadership Lessons Learned from a Career in the Australian SAS,” Leaders in Sport, August 24, 2021. https://leadersinsport.com/performance/six-leadership-lessons-learned-from-a-career-in-the-australian-sas/.

9 Royal Military College of Canada, November 10, 2021. https://www.rmc-cmr.ca/en.

10 Daniel Vincent, “The Canadian Armed Forces Are Not Joint (Yet): An Institutional Analysis of Canadian Jointness.” Canadian Forces College (May 2019). https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/308/305/vincent.pdf

11 “Leadership in the Canadian Forces,” publications.gc.ca, February 2005. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/dn-nd/D2-313-2-2005-eng.pdf.