I__. - International Military Testing Association

LEADER INITIATIVE: FROM DOCTRINE TO PRACTICE’
Alma G. Steinberg and Julia A. Leaman
U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
Introduction
Initiative has been considered to be an important component of good leadership, especially military
leadership (e.g., Headquarters Department of the Army, 1983; Rogers et al., 1982; Borman et al., 1987).
However, there has been very little research on the actual practice of initiative by military leaders. This
paper looks at leader initiative in Army combat units in terms of the relationship between leader initiative
and unit performance, inhibitors of initiative, and approaches for developing leader initiative.
Army doctrine is “what is written, approved by an appropriate authority and published concerning the
conduct of military affairs” (Starry, 1984, p. 88). Two doctrinal publications define and describe leader
initiative. One focuses on the Army’s doctrine for combat on the modern battlefield and is articulated in
FM 100-5 (Headquarters Department of the Army, 1982). It reflects “the views of the major commands,
selected Corps and Divisions and the German and Israeli Armies as well as TRADOC” (DePuy, 1984,
~86). According to FM 100-5, initiative is something that large unit commanders must encourage in
their subordinates. Initiative means to “act independently within the context of an overall plan,” “exploit
successes boldly and take advantage of unforeseen opportunities,’ “deviate from the expected course of
battle without hesitation when opportunities arise to expedite the overall mission of the higher force,” and
“take risks” (p. 2-2).
The second doctrinal publication addressing the importance of leader initiative focuses on militan,
leadership doctrine (Headquarters Department of the Army, 1983). Here initiative is defined as “the
ability to take actions that you believe will accomplish unit goals without waiting for orders or
supervision. It includes boldness” (p. 123). Emphasis is placed on the importance of communicating
values, goals, and accurate information about the enemy and other factors that affect the mission to
subordinates so that the subordinates, in turn, can use initiative to accomplish the mission when they
are out of contact with the leader or higher headquarters.
The data reported in this paper are from Army combat units. They were collected as part of a larger
project conducted in support of the Center for Army Leadership and the Combined Arms Training
Activity; the project focuses on determinants of small unit performance. Thus far, data have been
collected from five light infantry battalions that went through rotations at the Army’s Combat Training
Centers (CTCs). The goals of this project are to identify leadership and other factors important to unit
effectiveness and readiness, and to develop interventions for improving these factors.
Method
The data presented here come from several sources. They include data collected from units just
prior to their participation in a CTC rotation, data collected from units just after their participation in a
CTC rotation, ratings of observer-controllers (OCs) at a CTC, and written take-home packages that
provide feedback on unit performance at a CTC, as follows:
(a) Pre-CTC questionnaire responses by squad members, squad leaders, platoon sergeants, and
platoon leaders in battalions shortly before their CTC rotations.
(b) OC Ratings of CTC performance for two battalions,
‘The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the U.S. Army Research Institute or the Department of the Army.
455
.