IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY 

FOR EFFECTIVE COMMAND CLIMATE: 

A STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE

Steven M. Jones

September 2003
ii

*****

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official 

policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. 

This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.

*****

Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic 

Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave., Carlisle, PA 17013-5244. Copies of this 

report may be obtained from the Publications Office by calling (717) 245-4133, FAX (717) 245-3820, or 

by e-mail at Rita.Rummel@carlisle.army.mil

*****

All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are available on the SSI Homepage for electronic 

dissemination. SSI’s Homepage address is: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/

*****

The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the national security 

community on the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming 

conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one

of our research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please let us know by e-mail 

at outreach@carlisle.army.mil or by calling (717) 245-3133.

ISBN 1-58487-138-5
iii

PREFACE

The U.S. Army War College provides an excellent environment for selected military officers and 

government civilians to reflect and use their career experience to explore a wide range of strategic 

issues. To assure that the research developed by Army War College students is available to army and 

Department of Defense leaders, the Strategic Studies Institute publishes selected papers in its Carlisle 

Papers in Security Strategy Series.

Colonel Steven M. Jones, the author of this Carlisle Paper and member of the Class of 2003, 

explores the nature of command climate in the U.S. Army, its antecedents, and its consequences. He 

then proposes strategic remedies relating to unit climate assessment, leader development, performance 

appraisal, and accountability systems.

STEVEN METZ

Director of Research

Strategic Studies Institute
iv

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR

STEVEN M. JONES, a colonel in the U.S. Army, is the Director of the Individual Training Directorate 

at Headquarters, TRADOC. Before joining TRADOC, he served as a Joint Education Policy Planner 

on the Joint Staff and Associate Professor of Behavioral Sciences at the U.S. Military Academy. He has 

also served in the 1st Armored, 2nd Armored, and 4th Infantry Divisions and commanded a genderintegrated Basic Combat Training battalion. Colonel Jones’ previous publications include a review 

of Jeffrey McNally, “The Adult Development of Career Army Officers,” Assembly, January 1993; and 

“Leadership,” International Military & Defense Encyclopedia, with Kevin Donahue and Leonard Wong, 

Trevor N. Dupuy, ed., Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 1993. Colonel Jones is a 1981 graduate of the 

U.S. Military Academy and holds master’s degrees from the University of North Carolina in Social 

Psychology, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in Military Art and Science, and the 

U.S. Army War College in Strategic Studies. He is the 2003 recipient of the Army War College’s USMA 

William E. Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic Writing Award for the monograph titled 

Improving Accountability for Effective Command Climate: A Strategic Imperative. 
v

ABSTRACT

Beyond new organizations and technologies, the Army Transformation process and end-state 

will entail a new cultural mindset. More than ever before, organizational (command) climate will 

become an increasingly significant prerequisite for unit effectiveness and combat readiness. Today’s 

organizational- and individual-level systems, however, are insufficient to ensure that positive 

command climate is universally established and sustained across the U.S. Army. While many Army 

units enjoy positive command climate, too many do not. Several adverse trends in command climate 

have persisted in the Army for nearly 30 years, perhaps because, in practice, the officer culture 

emphasizes short-term mission accomplishment more than long-term organizational growth, or 

because Army systems reinforce individual performance rather than organizational effectiveness. 

Either emphasis, if true, detracts from combat readiness. Compounding the problem, Army leaders 

are not taught how to assess or improve command climate nor rewarded when they do so. Army 

organizations, officers, and soldiers deserve better. Cultural norms and counterproductive evaluation, 

leader development, and accountability systems are at the root of the U.S. Army’s problems regarding 

organizational (command) climate. Absent a shift in cultural emphasis and adjustment of systems to 

reinforce the change, command climate will continue to suffer; and unit effectiveness, morale and trust, 

retention, and commitment will continue to be significantly degraded. This monograph explores the 

nature of command climate in the U.S. Army, its antecedents, and its consequences. Remedies relating 

to unit climate assessment, leader development, performance appraisal, and accountability systems are 

proposed.

1

IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EFFECTIVE COMMAND CLIMATE:

A STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE

Who, 30 years ago, could have imagined the extraordinary impact that the revolution in technology 

would have on our lives? Our commercial and military societies have demanded increased speed and 

effectiveness (and lethality, in the case of the military) from technology, and all expectations have been 

exceeded. Hardware as ordinary as today’s home computer or advanced as an F-16 fighter jet, each 

with virtually perfect efficiency, extend human potential beyond measure.

In spite of the amazing advances in technology, however, organizations continue to be plagued by 

ineffectiveness caused by flawed human (group) processes. Notwithstanding, the human dimension, 

not technology, remains the decisive element in most commercial and military activities. Judgment, 

creativity, and the synergy of teams remain a distinctly human phenomenon. In the context of 

warfighting potential, U.S. Army doctrine (Field Manual [FM] 3-0, Operations) equates military 

readiness to the combination of well-trained soldiers, adaptive leaders, and “versatile, agile, and lethal 

formations.”1 There has always been a clear recognition among Army leaders that absent effective 

group performance, the U.S. Army can neither deter nor win America’s wars. 

In the past 30 years, the transformation of the Army into a better trained, highly disciplined, 

and more capable organization has been dramatic. Investments in technology and in assessing and 

training quality people have paid off tremendously. Without a doubt, the U.S. Army’s transition to an 

all-volunteer force in the 1970s, the measured progress in racial and gender integration in the 1980s, 

and the extensive values-inculcation in the 1990s (to name just a few examples) have significantly 

improved professionalism and warfighting capabilities. That said, Army organizations in 2003 “are 

not nearly as uniformly effective as they can and must be.”2 Many of the organizational climate issues 

that constrained the Army in the 70s, 80s, and 90s continue to plague today’s Army. To the extent 

that organizational climate is causally related to effectiveness, organizational and individual process 

interventions may prove useful, especially in the context of the dramatic Army Transformation just 

getting underway.

In spite of all the attention being paid to technology, the success of Army Transformation for the 

21st century almost entirely depends upon the adaptability and effectiveness of the human component 

of Army organizations. As former Secretary of the Army Thomas White stated: “Hardware is the easy 

part. The hard part is the intellectual and cultural changes and training needed before the hardware 

shows up.”3 The Army Modernization Plan 2002, however, provides little substance concerning the 

human-centric organizational systems and foundations in command climate that are prerequisites 

for unit effectiveness.4 The White Paper titled “Objective Force in 2015” goes only slightly further in 

outlining a vision of (rather than the means of producing) “leaders [who] provide a command climate 

that supports initiative, innovation, and risk-taking”5 as a fundamental concept of the transformed 

Army. 

The question that must be addressed by the Army is: How do we achieve the level of organizational 

effectiveness required for the transformed Army―units that learn and improve continually, and inspire 

growth, innovation, and risk-taking among members? “Real change takes real change,”6 according to 

former Chief of Staff of the Army General Gordon Sullivan in his book, Hope is Not a Method. Although 

he was referring to the cultural ramifications of the massive Army drawdown in the mid-1990s, General 

Sullivan just as easily could have been addressing the dilemma now facing the Army as it transforms 

itself for the 21st century: “The leader must change the critical processes within the organization if he 

wishes to effect true change. Working upon the margins, in increments, will not effect substantive and 

enduring transformation.”7 From what we know about Army Transformation, it will entail a dramatic 

change in mindset. This change can be expected to result in new ways of thinking that will very much 

affect soldiers as well as the organizations they are a part of. Consequently, while positive command 
2

climate will increasingly become a prerequisite for the transformed force, it will prevail only if 

adequately measured and reinforced. Armywide transformation of command climate in organizations 

demands more focus on leader development and improved accountability mechanisms.

Far from being simply a conceptual consideration, enhancing unit effectiveness is a practical 

necessity. In the future, as the Army moves away from an individual replacement system toward 

lengthened command tours and increased tour stability, considerably more emphasis will need to 

be placed on building effective units which are going to stay together longer. Peaking organizational 

capabilities solely for a National Training Center rotation or an extended deployment, only to (virtually) 

disband the unit following the major target event, will not suffice in the future. Vacillating within a band 

of excellence will be increasingly recognized in the future as counterproductive to sustaining effective 

organizational (command) climate. The Army needs units that grow continuously, not just during 

peak periods―units that incrementally improve over the long term to build and sustain trust, cohesion, 

and increased readiness. Army Transformation demands more effective organizations, and more fully 

adaptive and innovative leaders who exercise battle command by “understand[ing] the distinction 

between the art and science and integrat[ing] people and technology in a synergistic fashion.”8

This paper begins by examining the literature regarding organizational (command) climate and 

its central role in influencing effectiveness and productivity. Thereafter, existing climate monitoring 

systems will be assessed, as will several long-standing climate problems that have plagued the Army. 

The research findings and conclusions of several former Army War College students are also explored, 

adding valuable insight and depth from seasoned practitioners about this contemporary issue. To get 

at the roots of current climate problems, systems inadequacies and ramifications will be analyzed. This 

paper concludes by proposing recommendations at the unit and the individual levels to adjust systems 

and sustain requisite improvements in organizational climates across the Army. 

BACKGROUND

The organizational foundation for achieving group effectiveness in the Army is command climate. 

In the words of Lieutenant General Walter Ulmer, U.S. Army Ret., “Our major difficulties emerge not 

from the character flaws of policymakers, but from a lack of adequate conceptual bases for . . . creating 

and sustaining a proper climate within our commands.”9 Said another way, “To be successful, team 

members must understand each other better, and must be willing to address problems by entertaining 

different perspectives.”10 Management must be aware that organizational climate (specifically, 

perceived rewards and care for subordinates) impacts employee attitudes and behavior.11

Obviously, there is a collective element associated with the organizational (or command) 

climate construct. Anyone with even minimal experience in an organization, however, recognizes 

that the leader (as an individual) also exercises considerable influence on organizational climate. 

Organizational, or Unit, Climate Assessment and Individual Leader Assessment (at least those aspects 

of leader assessment associated with climate) are closely related, but distinctly different. Similarly, 

unit and individual level leader development processes and interventions differ, but are not mutually 

exclusive. No analysis nor set of recommendations addressing one aspect but not the other would be 

complete. Hence, in this paper both the unit level and individual leader level of organizational climate, 

as well as the interactions between the two, will be examined before recommendations and conclusions 

are set forth.

The Organizational Impact of Climate.

The association between organizational climate (also referred to as unit climate and command climate 

interchangeably throughout this paper to accommodate its military application) and effectiveness is 
3

well established in the literature and in practice. Most climate theorists agree that “perceptions (of an 

organization’s members) significantly influence organizational outcomes and individual behaviors, 

such as productivity, performance, satisfaction, and personal growth.”12 A healthy organizational 

climate enhances development of individual leadership, and successful leadership contributes to 

the robustness of the organizational climate.13 In 1988, Schneider and Reutsh defined organizationalspecific climate as being closely related to manager-employee interactions, performance, and 

effectiveness.14 Others have defined climate as “a reflection of how organizational members feel about 

organizational factors such as job performance expectations, fairness of rewards and punishment, 

flow of communication, and example set by the organization’s leaders.”15 Organizations exist only if 

they create interdependency among individuals to produce or accomplish something. Climate is the 

critical link between the individual and the organization that ultimately shapes the effectiveness of the 

organizational processes and the quality of the organization’s accomplishments.16

Climate is a complex construct composed of perceptions about organizational structure, 

communications, allocation of responsibilities, rewards, risk-taking, warmth and support, performance 

standards, acknowledgement of conflicts, and identification,17 demonstrating a strong correlation 

with job satisfaction (r=.61).18 Taken together, these factors accounted for 53 percent of the variance 

in measuring climate when examined across several law enforcement organizations.19 At issue is 

“the creation and influence of social contexts in organizations.”20 Climate is the unspoken foundation 

by which team members interact with one another. The organizational factors, their antecedents, 

and their consequences as derived from an extensive literature review are provided at Figure 1. 

The link between quality of climate and unit productivity “has been affirmed in commercial and 

military settings.”21 In a study of 40 companies in two industries, the relationship demonstrated between 

climate and productivity was very strong (r=.71).22 According to Fortune magazine, key priorities of the 

best companies are teamwork, customer focus, fair treatment of employees, initiative, and innovation.23

“Most admired companies appear to be more successful at breathing life into culture, not just a few 

lines in the company handbook.”24 In contrast, prevailing priorities and attitudes in average companies 

are found to be: “minimizing risk, respecting chain of command, supporting the boss, and making 

budget.”25 The difference between striving for ideals in top quality organizations versus avoiding 

blame in average companies cannot help affecting an organization’s level of achievement. 

Findings in military settings are similar. “The ultimate criterion of any Army unit’s readiness is its 

performance in combat.”26 In spite of the absence of available data associating climate and effectiveness 

in combat, there is sufficient generalizable evidence from quasi-combat situations. A study conducted 

in 2000 at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) revealed moderate and significant relationships 

(r=.35) between platoon climate and how well platoons performed in tactical operations.27 In a 2001 study 

conducted among nearly 2,000 officers from all three Australian defense services, strong associations 

were found between organizational climate on one hand, and unit performance, organizational 

climate, and job satisfaction on the other, as well as a clear difference in climate between high and 

low quality leaders in highly demanding environments.28 Taken together, these findings illustrate that 

climate, organizational effectiveness, member satisfaction, and leadership are closely interrelated. As 

a component of climate, there is clear evidence that “the leadership process is a key contributor to 

organizational effectiveness and morale.”29

There is additional support for the importance of organizational climate in military settings. 

In the 1960s, a Navy study of climate demonstrated that ships with functional command climate 

performed better in tactical exercises.30 More recently, data from 138 junior officers in the 24th Infantry 

Division in 1999-2000 suggested that command climate was and continues to be the most significant 

variable in officer retention. The Division’s report concluded, in part, that “the most important part of 

the climate is to empower junior officers to lead and challenge their soldiers. Commanders who did 

so retained more junior officers.”31 At the organizational level, the evidence is clear that positive
4

Figure 1. Factors Associated with Organizational Climate.

command climates “act as a magnet that attracts and holds on to spirited employees who are 

motivated and committed.”32 At the individual level, “the key to the climate is leadership in general, 

and senior leadership in particular. The impact of senior leaders depends on conscious, knowledgeable 

efforts to share and nourish a command climate suited to the relevant organizational level.”33
5

A Leader’s Impact on Climate.

A leader’s behaviors relating to the climate factors outlined in Figure 1 directly affect organizational 

effectiveness.34 To the extent these leader behaviors meet or exceed member needs and expectations, 

members will be more satisfied. Not surprisingly, the relationship between member satisfaction and 

the overall performance of the leader has been found to be strong (r=.69).35 Undoubtedly, the leader 

plays an important part in establishing and nourishing the organization’s climate. “Climate is a shortterm phenomenon created by current leadership. The most important determinant of climate is the 

behavior of the leaders. A persistently negative climate erodes the trust and confidence of the members 

and adversely affects the organization’s readiness and effectiveness.”36 When the professed principles 

of leaders do not align with their actual practices, trust and confidence are degraded, and overall 

organizational effectiveness is compromised.

Perceived trustworthiness of the leader is a major part of the command climate. Trust is an essential 

component for imposing change.37 As was hypothesized in the Joint Readiness Ttraining Center study, 

trust becomes essential to unit success, particularly in combat, which requires a special spirit and 

bond among members if they are to be willing to make a self-sacrifice for the benefit of the unit and 

its mission.38 Under trustworthy leadership, the mission of the organization is pursued collectively so 

that the combined resources of the people working in the organization are greater than the sum of the 

individual parts.39

“The highest form of discipline is the willing obedience of subordinates who trust their leaders, 

understand and believe in the mission’s purpose, value the team and their place in it, and have 

the will to see the mission through.”40 However, only one-third of the officers and enlisted service 

members surveyed in the “Military Culture in the 21st century” study by the Center for Strategic and 

International Studies in 1998-1999 agreed with the statement: “In my Service, an atmosphere of trust 

exists between leaders and their subordinates.”41

In her book, Toxic Leaders (1996), Marcia Whicker describes three types of leaders―Trustworthy, 

Transitional, and Toxic―and the organizational consequences of each.42 Trustworthy leaders are 

good and moral leaders who put the goals of the organization and well-being of their followers first. 

Transitional leaders are described as self-absorbed and egotistical leaders who are neither uplifting 

in their long-term impact on others nor purposefully malicious toward them. Instead, Transitional 

leaders are focused on the approval of others and concerned with their personal role as leaders. Toxic 

leaders are maladjusted and malcontent, even malicious. These leaders succeed by tearing others down. 

According to the author, Toxic leaders find glory in turf protection, fighting, and controlling rather 

than uplifting followers. Transitional and Toxic leaders, especially, are often guilty of ingratiation. The 

Army needs fewer of these types of leaders. They will act differently around their bosses so they can 

facilitate positive assessments of their performance and behavior.43

The Interaction of Leader and Organization.

Nick Jans conceptually relates a similar leader dynamic (in terms of individual performance 

appraisal) to organizational effectiveness in a four-quadrant model (See Figure 2).44

In the model, Jans reveals the organizational conundrum that the Army finds itself in today 

whereby individual performance appraisal is placed ahead of organizational effectiveness. The Army 

has clearly defined performance indicators and effectively identifies leaders who are good performers. 

Good performers, however, may not be good leaders. Most soldiers would agree that performers who 

accomplish the mission at the expense of their people are not good leaders. Similarly, performers who 

alter their image to gain favor from the boss while demeaning colleagues or subordinates are not good 

leaders. Good performers who are not good leaders are not likely to build effective organizations, 
6

Figure 2. Leadership, Appraisal, and

Organizational Effectiveness.

nor inspire the level of unit readiness required for combat. In these instances, good performers are 

rewarded with positive performance appraisals, but are responsible for creating abysmal organizational 

climates.

The Quadrant I organization in Jans’s model illustrates the unhealthy combination of a poor 

individual leader (perhaps a Transitional or Toxic leader) or command team performance with low 

scores on the organization’s command climate surveys. A Quadrant I organization is not the kind of 

organization any of us would want to be in, and yet, according to the 2002 Army Training and Leader 

Development Panel (ATLDP) Study results, some of these organizations exist in the Army today.45

Fortunately, the Army chain of command, in conjunction with other readiness oversight mechanisms, 

most often is quick to identify and deal with the problems facing Quadrant I organizations. 

The current career and performance appraisal system in the Army, however, fosters many 

organizations which operate in Quadrant II. The leader seems to shine in the context of short-term 

performance indicators, but the organization secretly suffers from serious shortcomings; the leader 

is a good performer who is, in fact, actually a poor leader. In this case, effective leadership of the 

organization is lacking. “Impression management (with superiors) is rewarded, and advancement of 

an individual (Transitional) leader occurs at the exhaustion of units.”46 The leader is often rewarded as 

a top performer in spite of being responsible for serious organizational problems. Combat readiness in 

these types of units is highly suspect and fragile. New organizational systems are needed to identify 

and remedy these conditions. Extensive employment of Command Climate Surveys or feedback about 

the leader from insiders would readily expose this type of leader and organization, and discourage 

rather than reward the ineffective, destructive leadership that is at the root of the organization’s 

problems. 

Quadrant III of Jans’s model illustrates units that perform well in spite of poor leadership. Climate 

is effective because the quality of the leadership within (as opposed to at the top of) the organization 

outweighs individual leader weakness. In this case, positive command climate is sustained by other 

leaders within the organization. Quadrant III offers an example of leaders the Army would not want 

to advance in spite of the organization’s success. At issue for the Army is whether the leader’s rating 

officials are sufficiently able to differentiate the basis for the organization’s success. Too often, the 

Low

Low

High

High

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

LEADER

PERFORMANCE 

APPRAISAL

II

I III

IV
7

Army appraisal and selection systems fail to screen out these weak leaders.

Quadrant IV reflects a combination of strong individual leadership and the right organizational 

climate―the desired state. Fortunately, such a state often exists in the Army, but it is “frequently in spite 

of rather than because of the career system.”47 Leaders must be held accountable for their performance, 

not just as individuals but also for the effectiveness of their organizations. Measuring organizational 

climate, and reinforcing long-term organizational constructs in the individual performance appraisal 

system, will improve organizational effectiveness. 

Developing Climate-Savvy Leaders.

Since the leader is central to effective command climate, improvements in the Leader Development 

System are necessary. Aside from reviewing the Army regulations prescribing that a climate survey be 

conducted within 90 days of assuming company-level command, the Officer Education System does 

little to systematically train today’s Army leaders about how to measure and shape command climate. 

A common perception among experienced Army officers is that too many leaders are short-term 

focused and exhibit wanton disregard for what makes an organization effective.48 Leadership must 

be seen as a role rather than a position. Often, a subordinate with unique experience or expertise can 

significantly benefit the organization if afforded the opportunity to lead. Sharing the leadership role 

will likely promote rather than detract from a leader’s authority. Leaders need to come down from atop 

the organizational pyramid.49 As an organizational leader, ensuring that subordinate leaders practice 

what is preached in this regard is key to shaping climate.50 The Leader Development System must 

further emphasize institutional and operational means for shaping organizational climate. 

Leader development presumes mid- and long-term commitments to improving leader qualities 

by merging influences of many factors: military and civil education, self-study, experiences, feedback, 

reflecting, coaching, and mentoring.51 According to the Army Modernization Plan 2002, learning 

organizations will provide standards, tools for assessment, feedback, and self-development that will 

promote leader development. The “Objective Force” White Paper describes the U.S. Army in 2015 as 

having “implemented an assessment and feedback process at all levels of leadership that is conducive 

to experiential learning.”52 There is no time to lose―as Brigadier General John Gardner (TRADOC) 

recently noted—today’s lieutenants in the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team will command battalions 

in the Objective Force in 2015!53 Ensuring the Leader Development System reinforces rather than 

detracts from organizational efficiency will be an aspect of the analysis and strategic remedies proposed 

in this paper. 

COMMAND CLIMATE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

Having defined command climate and confirmed its impact on effectiveness and the central role 

leaders play in shaping organizational effectiveness, we shall now turn our attention to the manner in 

which command climate is measured. Lieutenant General Theodore Stroup, U.S. Army Ret., a former 

Army G-1, compares the process of measuring a leader’s skill and determining a unit’s climate to an 

iceberg: “It’s easy to see what floats above the water and to miss the true scope of what lies below.”54

Measuring climate constructs is difficult. Beyond that, however, is the need to differentiate and address 

separately unit climate and individual leader assessments. 

Unit Climate Assessment.

Recognizing that command climate is central to organizational effectiveness, the Army has long 

endeavored to identify and employ effective measures. That said, organizational climate is a relatively 
8

modern psychosocial construct. As recently as 1986, commercial industry developed and began using 

the Organizational Climate Index Survey (OCIS). The OCIS was the earliest attempt to combine a 

wide array of disassociated climate instruments in use at the time. It focused on job definition and 

meaningfulness, communications among leaders and workers, management practices (leadership 

behaviors), and motivation and morale.55

Meanwhile, following 4 years of intensive scientific research by the Army Research Institute (ARI), 

the Army simultaneously developed the “Unit Climate Profile (UCP),” publishing it as the Department 

of Army (DA) Pamphlet 600-69.56 In the Pamphlet, ARI acknowledges that “commanders who have 

an accurate awareness of the perceptions and views of the soldiers in their units possess a definite 

leadership advantage.”57 The UCP’s 82 questions measure the leadership’s accessibility (in the context 

of “an open-door policy” to see the commander rather than what is recognized today as engaging in 

open dialogue), innovation, feedback, risk-taking, and trust. In the UCP, commitment is addressed 

in terms of retention rather than in the psychological sense of loyalty. Advancement and promotion 

are referred to in the context of equal opportunity and fairness rather than clarity of expectations, 

accomplishment, or potential for increased responsibility. While there are three questions about officer 

and noncommissioned officer leaders in the unit, the single question in the UCP about the commander 

is: “As a leader, how is your unit commander?”58 The 1986 Army Pamphlet 600-69 remains a current 

Army document.

Leaders, more than their subordinates, are invested in and responsible for factors relating to the 

organization’s climate. It is not surprising to learn that leaders tend to perceive the climate more 

favorably than it is.59 Consequently, there is significant value in gaining feedback and different points 

of view from others about such a human-centric construct as command climate. Several organizational 

instruments assessing climate provide insight from multiple perspectives:

The Army “Command Climate Survey (CCS).” This update to the UCP appeared in 1998. In just 

10 minutes and 24 questions, this instrument addresses several important perceptual aspects of 

the organization: teamwork, leader care and example, openness of dialogue between seniors and 

subordinates, meaningfulness of work, fairness, adequacy of facilities and equipment, training 

adequacy, social environment, stress, exit interest, sexual harassment, rewards and recognition, mission 

clarity, and priority.60 Additional constructs may be added, on a case by case basis, such as: internal and 

external tasking predictability, learning opportunities, morale, and extent of mission distractions. 

Army Regulation 600-20, dated May 13, 2002, prescribes that the CCS be conducted within 90 days 

of a leader’s assumption of company command (and annually, thereafter) to help assess a variety 

of climate issues including unit readiness, racial and sexual harassment, leadership, cohesion, and 

morale.61 By regulation, results are anonymous and confidential. They are “intended for the company 

commander only, and are not to be reported up the Chain of Command.”62

The ARI and Center for Army Leadership have developed the CCS in both automated and paper/

pencil formats; a Commander’s Training Module is available to help commanders conduct the survey, 

interpret the results, develop action plans, and conduct feedback sessions.63 Likewise, the Army 

G-1 website provides an automated CCS, and additional instruments used in the civilian sector to 

whoever desires their use.64 An analysis of the CCS questions, however, reveals that the CCS does not 

measure trust, loyalty, commitment, teamwork, professional job satisfaction, or perceived alignment of 

proclaimed beliefs and actual practices, all of which have been demonstrated to contribute significantly 

to organizational climate (See Figure 1). About 30 percent of the automated CCS relates to perceptions 

about racial and gender equality.

According to ARI’s internet-based training module, the anonymous and confidential CCS 

instrument provides “a unique wide-angle view of key factors affecting the unit’s state of readiness.”65

It measures “what soldiers think and believe which affects their behaviors.”66 To the extent that a 

leader cares about what his subordinates think and feel, the CCS is a useful tool for gaining insight. 
9

Whether the leader has the motivation and skill to capitalize upon that insight to bring about needed 

organizational and personal change strikes at the heart of the issue for Army Transformation. 

The “Military Equal Opportunity Survey of Climate (MEOSC).” Founded in 1971, the Defense Race 

Relations Institute (DRRI) (now known as the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 

or DEOMI) was conceived to address “the fact that most persons entering the Armed Forces have 

insufficient knowledge and appreciation of the culture, experience, and sensitivities of other races 

to function well in a multi-racial environment.”67 The Military Equal Opportunity Survey of Climate 

(MEOSC) was developed in 1971 to assist commands in assessing organizational climate, particularly 

regarding racial matters. 

The Army’s racial and gender diversity programs are a practical necessity for organizations. Work 

force harmony, trust, and teamwork are related strongly to organizational factors such as effectiveness 

and productivity. The MEOSC assesses several workforce factors. Analysis since 1994 reveals 

moderate and significant correlations between effectiveness on one hand, and satisfaction (r=.46) 

and commitment (r=.25) on the other.68 Intercorrelations of effectiveness and organizational effect 

(organizational commitment, job satisfaction, cohesion, and organizational trust) reflect moderate and 

significant correlations ranging from r=.47 to r=.61.69

The current MEOSC, Version 3.1 developed in 1994, contains 124 questions, takes about 55 minutes 

to complete, and is not down-loadable from the Internet (although a down-loadable form may be used 

to order the MEOSC in hard copy form from DEOMI). The MEOSC may be used to comply with the 

AR 600-20 climate assessment requirements.

The “Ethical Climate Assessment Survey (ECAS).” Another somewhat similar, but rarely employed 

instrument is the Ethical Climate Assessment Survey (ECAS) described in FM 22-100.70 This relatively 

new instrument focuses on behaviors associated with ethical conduct. The ECAS is a good tool for 

assessing the degree to which organizational beliefs match organizational practices (and perceptual 

realities) from an ethical perspective. While the ECAS may be used as a simple and anonymous survey 

instrument, many leaders have found it useful for facilitating open discussion about expectations of 

conduct or ethical matters affecting the command. Like the MEOSC, the ECAS has only a limited scope 

and utility relative to the numerous factors affecting command climate. 

Individual Leader Assessment. 

Since organizational climate is shaped so strongly by the leader, it is also necessary to examine the 

measures used for individual performance appraisal. Leadership theorist Bernard Bass has suggested 

that “history has shown that an officer’s ability to create mutual respect, teamwork, and unit cohesion 

in his unit is critical to successful performance in combat.”71 In a dramatic contrast to the previous 

definitions of leadership, recently published Army leadership doctrine (FM 22-100) emphasizes 

the significant limitations of operating in the short term at the expense of improving for the long 

term.72 “Developing the next generation of leaders is arguably the most important legacy that senior 

leaders leave to the Army―we talk it, but don’t do it.”73 Leadership is now defined as having both 

a mission accomplishment (operating) and organizational growth (improving) component. Mission 

accomplishment generally correlates with short-term, easily defined goals and objectives, whereas 

organizational growth typically entails long-term investment and is difficult to measure. Assessment 

of leadership effectiveness must combine insights to both operating and improving skills. Because 

humans (and commissioned officers are no exception) are conditioned to repeat those behaviors they 

get rewarded for doing, assessment of leadership effectiveness must align with both the operating and 

improving priorities. 

The Officer Evaluation Report (OER, DA Form 67-9) is the Army’s principal instrument for leader 

assessment for commissioned officers. The OER assesses an officer’s performance and potential to 
10

successfully perform increased responsibilities. The OER mechanism is just one aspect of a broader 

evaluation and development system. Performance appraisals, annotated on an OER at least annually, 

have lasting implications for an officer’s career and promotion potential. In the U.S. Army, there are 

no performance-based pay raises or bonuses, and very few awards to recognize effective performance. 

While most officers recognize the value of serving in a leadership position as sufficient reward in itself, 

only the OER documents the appraisal of their performance. Notwithstanding the intrinsic rewards 

enjoyed by leaders, the OER serves as a powerful, extrinsic reward for a leader’s performance. At issue 

is the scope of the dimensions assessed by the OER, and whether the desirable leader behaviors are 

being systematically reinforced. 

The OER is directly associated with the Army’s doctrinal constructs defining leadership 

effectiveness: 21 values, attributes, skills, and actions.74 In purely quantitative terms, the OER is biased 

toward assessing mission accomplishment as opposed to long-term organizational development. 

Thirteen assessment points address mission (operating): Attributes (Mental, Physical, Emotional), 

Skills (Conceptual, Interpersonal, Technical, Tactical), and Actions (Communicating, Decision-Making, 

Motivating, Planning, Executing, Assessing). In contrast, only three assessment points relate to the 

long-term (improving) development of organizations: Developing (Invests adequate time and effort to 

develop individual subordinates as leaders); Building (Spends time and resources improving teams, 

groups, and units; fosters ethical climate); and Learning (Seeks self-improvement and organizational 

growth; envisioning, adapting, and leading change). Note that quantity of time expended, not quality 

of performance, is the unit of measure for Developing and Building. Even in regard to the Learning 

dimension, a demonstrated motivation to improve rather than achieving results is the basis for 

assessment. Further, narrative assessments on OERs almost exclusively favor mission-accomplishment 

achievements; anything else would be counter-normative and potentially even harmful to an officer’s 

career. In practical terms, most Army officers perceive that the three assessments related to longterm organizational development receive little, if any, attention from raters relative to the 13 (shortterm mission accomplishment) dimensions.75 It is likely that the salience of organizationally-related 

constructs has a culturally-induced, motivational component. Equally likely, it entails an informational 

component, as well. Chain of command emphasis and tools providing informational insight about 

organizational factors are needed to increase the attention paid to the organizationally relevant 

leadership dimensions. 

The alarming absence of quality-based standards for developing organizations is inconsistent with 

the Army’s current and future requirements. One senior Army officer recently concluded: “The OER 

simply does not provide the Army an evaluation of an officer’s ability to lead a unit or organization in a 

way that fosters cohesion, teamwork, and long-term health of the unit.”76 Nor do the Officer Education 

and Leader Development systems teach the leader how to measure or shape these constructs: “The 

Army needs to broaden its understanding of successful leadership from one that focuses almost 

entirely upon mission accomplishment, to one that includes long-term organizational health of the 

unit and its personnel alongside of mission accomplishment.”77

Another issue with the OER is the limited perspectives taken into account when assessing 

leadership effectiveness. “The picture of the whole person is only obtainable if all perspectives are 

taken.”78 Yet, in accord with the current Officer Evaluation System, “only two people make all the key 

recommendations to higher headquarters concerning the future of our Officer Corps.”79 Unfortunately, 

realities conspire to cause the rater to provide input based on distant observation, and the senior rater 

to view the evaluation as a staffing action.80 This situation may have been made even worse by recently 

imposed requirements for senior raters to manage subordinate appraisals in a normative system 

whereby the number of above average ratings are constrained to less than 50 percent of the overall 

number of ratings issued. 
11

Studies show that less than 25 percent of the individual’s work or management effectiveness is 

observed by the leader’s boss (rater).81 One-on-one contact between raters and their subordinate leaders 

is measurable in just minutes per day, considering the Army’s emphasis on decentralized execution, 

the excessive number of meetings, and a variety of other requirements that remove leaders from being 

on-site. Management by walking around provides raters some indication of what is going on within the 

subordinate units of their command, but what really happens beyond the rater’s direct purview? Few 

raters would be pleased to know that their subordinate leaders were producing outstanding results at 

the expense of their people, but recent evidence suggests it is frequently the case: “Too many officers 

run their units, their people (and sometimes themselves) into the ground in the pursuit of short-term 

mission success.”82 Said another way, it is “eas[y] to fool the boss. [Leaders can] fool some of the people, 

some of the time. The view you get depends on where you sit.”83

The Center for Creative Leadership has found that “there is no way to verify the presence or absence 

of some crucial leader behaviors other than to query the followers.”84 When assessing command climate, 

ground-truth within a unit must be informed by input from members of that unit. Most often, feedback 

from unit members is positive and constructive. Several studies addressing subordinate feedback have 

concluded that such feedback, in fact, often counters biases that raters exhibit such as “challenging the 

status quo, independent decisionmaking, and risk-taking [which] are positively rated by subordinates 

and negatively rated by superiors.”85 The Army does not have a system whereby subordinates and 

peers can participate in the growth of senior military leaders. Reflecting on this missed opportunity for 

developing effective leaders and organizations, one practitioner poignantly remarked that “a wealth of 

information is passing us by.”86 It is an inefficiency the Army can ill afford. 

Disturbing Trends in Command Climate. 

Countless studies of military professionalism, leader development, and the state of the Army 

culture have been conducted during the past 30 years. Among the most prominent are The Study of 

Military Professionalism and the Leadership for the 1970s studies conducted by the Army War College 

in 1970; the Continental Army Command (CONARC) Leadership Board study in 1971 (sampling more 

than 30,000 officers and soldiers); the 1985 Professional Development of Officers Study, or PDOS (14,000 

company and field-grade Officers; 285 general officers); the 2000 Army Training and Leader Development 

Panel: Officer Study Report to the Army (ATLDP, sampling the views of more than 13,500 officers, enlisted 

soldiers, and spouses); and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) American Military 

Culture in the Twenty-first Century study in 2000. The 1970 Study of Military Professionalism revealed a 

number of disturbing and (what have become) long-standing trends in command climate:

The existing climate includes persistent overtones of selfish behavior that places personal success 

ahead of the good of the Service; looking upward to please superiors instead of looking downward to 

fulfill legitimate needs of subordinates; pre-occupation with attainment of trivial short-term objectives; 

incomplete communication between junior and senior officers which leave the senior uninformed and the 

junior feeling unimportant.87

In the words of one respondent at the time, “the Battalion Commander frequently fools the boss, but 

rarely fools his peers or his subordinates.”88

Considerable attention has been given to the disturbing state of organizational climate in the Army 

as revealed by the year 2000 ATLDP findings: Army practices out of balance with beliefs, compromising 

unit readiness and leader growth;89 junior officers not receiving adequate leader development 

experience;90 insufficient opportunities to learn; pervasive micro-management found to be a part 

of Army culture;91 and the considerable communications gap between baby boomers and younger 
12

generations, resulting in a dramatic increase in captains leaving the Army.92 The ATLDP concluded, 

in part, that there is a lack of trust between junior and senior officers because of a strong perception 

by junior leaders that their senior leaders want to be “invulnerable to criticism and therefore use 

micro-management to block opportunities for subordinates to learn through leadership experiences.”93

Innovation, risk-taking, and leader development, all essential elements of Army Transformation, 

cannot thrive in such a climate.

Other troubling indications reinforce the ATLDP findings. A recent survey of Command and 

General Staff Officer Course majors suggests a widespread erosion of trust between junior and 

senior officers. And if declining captain retention rates were not discouraging enough, there is an 

unprecedented rate of lieutenant colonels and colonels declining opportunities to command battalions 

and brigades.94 Technology is not driving out many of the Army’s best and brightest; organizational 

climate is. Assessing and fixing command climate are a strategic imperative.

On the eve of Army Transformation, the present state of the command climate in too many Army 

units is cause for concern. Perhaps even more troubling, however, are the pervasive trends in the 

Army’s organizational climate that have remained virtually unchanged since the 1970s: absence of 

effective dialogue and openness up and down the chain of command; incomplete leader appraisal 

in the officer evaluation system; frustration about mission priorities, pace, and stress; inadequate 

readiness measures, low morale, and an over-emphasis on short-term results at the expense of longerterm outcomes.95

Coaching, mentoring, empowering, tolerance of mistakes, providing constructive feedback, and 

leading by example are universally accepted principles of effective leadership at all levels of the Army. 

Yet, the ATLDP evidence is clear that, in general, many Army leaders do not follow these principles. 

Former Chief of Staff of the Army General Dennis Reimer “sounded the ‘zero-defects’ alarm in 1996, 

but little to nothing has changed.”96

Thirty years of organizational feedback have revealed two additional truisms about Army leaders: 

peers, subordinates, and superiors often perceive leader competencies and effectiveness differently, 

and a leader’s self-delusion about his effectiveness is commonplace.97

The adverse trends seen in organizational climate over the past 30 years are not the result of 

inattention. On the contrary, the Army leadership has endeavored on a number of fronts to positively 

mold leaders and heal ailing organizational climates: behaviorally-based performance appraisal of 

leaders, standards-based training, performance and developmental counseling, equal opportunity and 

command climate surveys, and aggressive leader development initiatives are but a few examples. The 

question is not why actions have not been taken to curb command climate lapses, but rather why these 

well-intentioned initiatives have not taken root in the Army culture, and more to the point, what can 

be done to effectively overcome the climate shortcomings?

WHY EXISTING PROCESSES NEED IMPROVEMENT

In many ways, the Army has been out front in recognizing the value of measuring organizational 

climate. The Army determined in the 1970s that insights about command climate could promote team 

effectiveness. As a consequence, measures were developed to assess the constructs that shape command 

climate. The CCS has been disseminated throughout the Army, and its use prescribed at the company 

level on an annual basis. Notwithstanding, command climate problems definitely persist. Most likely, 

the causes relate to leader biases, failure to incorporate follower input, inadequate and inappropriate 

reinforcement, and the absence of sufficient accountability when the need for change is identified. 

Systems-wide shortcomings, dysfunctional cultural norms, and biased leader perceptions account 

for why command climate measures have failed. At the organizational level, hierarchical barriers, less 
13

than fully effective measurement, and inadequate accountability and rewards have interacted with 

individual leader level factors such as perceptual biases and fear of eroding leader authority to shortchange organizations. Measuring managerial effectiveness, examining decisionmaking processes, 

seeking information from team members, and building trust among the people in the organization are 

critical to an organization’s long-term survival. Leaders who adapt their behavior to conform to the 

expectations of their subordinates and superiors can respond to the complexity and dynamic pace of 

organizations.98

Organizational Level Shortcomings.

Hierarchical Barriers. In spite of the inherent value of multiple perspectives and feedback, 

perceptions about the potentially adverse impact of follower feedback on command authority have, 

in large measure, blocked the introduction of formal subordinate feedback systems and open dialogue 

in organizations.99 There is “an implicit ingredient of military culture [relating to] respect for authority 

and immediate, unquestioning obedience to others that causes some leaders to react viscerally to 

anything that challenges these core values.”100 Such a sentiment, according to some practitioners, is 

indicative of “a weak leader who would have nothing if he did not have the power of position and legal 

authority.”101 Leaders whose authority rests on the position they hold are ruling, not leading. 

Some leaders have doubts about open dialogue with subordinates. “Hierarchy is antithetical 

to dialogue, and it’s difficult to escape hierarchy in organizations.”102 Some senior leaders fear that 

participative leadership will lead to erosion of the chain of command. Others think that acknowledging 

leader shortcomings within view of subordinates is risky. “Concern regarding inappropriate 

democratization of the armed forces cannot be an excuse for avoiding the development of a reliable 

system for measuring and enhancing leadership,”103 according to General Ulmer. Leaders must want the 

benefits of dialogue more than the security of their rank and position. “Different views have increased 

value as a means toward discovering a new view.”104 Participation in decisionmaking by junior officers 

not only allows them to become part of the solution to problems, but also presents opportunities to 

develop their own leadership and managerial skills.”105 Senior leaders should recognize open dialogue 

as a vehicle for developing trust within the team. “We all face a learning challenge―to continually 

expand our awareness and understanding, and to see more and more of our connectedness to the 

world around us.”106 Interestingly, Army Operations doctrine (FM 3-0) already endorses collaborative 

exchange with others as a means for enhancing visualization of battlespace.107 The Army’s recognition 

that visualization of a physical reality (battlespace) is enhanced by multiple perspectives argues for 

enhancing visualization of the considerably more ambiguous social reality that leaders face―their units. 

Undoubtedly, views from differing perspectives provide a valuable means for solving problems, 

understanding and building trust, and developing subordinates’ innovation and risk-taking skills.

Need for More Effective Measurement. The persistence of command climate problems is due, in part, 

to insufficiently effective measurement. The perception of many practitioners is that “the Army doesn’t 

measure the process of leader development and the effectiveness of its organizations. Instead, [the 

Army] concentrates solely on evaluating the product on whether the mission gets accomplished.”108

While trends in productivity provide some indications about climate, so many additional factors affect 

productivity that climate alone is not a reliable measure. Focusing solely on the bottom line is also shortsighted. The Army needs to consider defining, assessing, and reporting organizational effectiveness 

in terms of mission accomplishment (reliability, quality, efficiency, etc.) and organizational growth 

(team cohesion, trust in leadership, morale, and commitment, etc.).109 In the strategic remedies being 

proposed, we shall revisit the weakness that the CCS assesses only some components of organizational 

effectiveness. 
14

Establishing the proper measures alone, however, will not be adequate to reverse the adverse 

trends seen in command climate. Systems reinforcing appropriate behaviors are also needed at 

the organizational and individual levels to achieve and sustain organizational growth as an Army 

priority. 

Individual Level Failure Factors.

Leader Self-Awareness. The nature of perceptions about leader behavior is a “function of the 

perceptual vantage point in regard to changing status quo and empowerment.”110 Like all perceptions, 

impressions and attributions of leader behavior are frequently varied. While supervisors have 

traditionally been believed to be the most objective, they have been found not to be.111 Similarly, studies 

indicate that leaders demonstrate a particular blind spot (themselves) when identifying areas needing 

change within an organization. According to a researcher assessing health organizations, it is the CEO 

who is “unwilling to address himself as the problem; everyone knows it (except the CEO), and the 

employees are talking behind his back.”112 It is difficult to look critically at one’s own behavior; leaders 

typically do not take time nor have the ability to be introspective. Unfortunately, by not being so, they 

often undermine their own initiatives.113

Humans have bias, most strongly devoted to esteem-maintainance and ego-enhancement. Bias 

represents a perceptual difference in perspective between self and others, influenced by differential 

information, motive, and perceptual schemas.114 As a direct consequence of the bias, a “leader’s selfperception is often not congruent with ratings from either followers or peers.”115 The leader could 

enhance his effectiveness by “opening himself to self- (and other) examination, learning, and then 

working to remove the barriers that may be limiting his growth and performance.”116 Said another way, 

“a leader must be self-aware; that is, knowing self and how to lead self so he can know and therefore 

lead others.”117

Because leadership represents a highly dynamic and complex social phenomenon, the leader’s 

self-awareness is essential. Follower perceptions about a leader, valid or invalid, often play a 

greater role than objective reality in enabling (or blocking) a leader’s effectiveness. A leader’s actual 

honesty, for example, is of little relevance if subordinates think the leader to be a liar. Consequently, 

organizational member feedback is useful to a leader for self-regulation of behavior and adaptation 

to one’s environment. “Feedback (particularly from peers and subordinates) is becoming one of the 

most important resources concerning job-related performance.”118 For the leader, especially, unit 

member feedback “has a competence-creating function and provides information for environmental 

mastery.”119

Environmental mastery implies achieving an equilibrium between the expectations and practices 

for the leader and the led, and enhances the level of mutual trust that underwrites positive command 

climate and unit effectiveness. In practice, “the better a commander knows his subordinates, the more 

he will trust them . . . and their judgment. Trust will come only by spending time with the people who 

will, essentially, be operating in the field on his behalf.”120 The essence of leadership is what occurs 

within the hearts and minds of followers. Followers and peers often know much about the leader that 

superiors do not know.121 To achieve maximum effectiveness, command climate systems must fully 

engage all members of the organization to obtain feedback about the leader and the organization as a 

whole.

A useful recent addition to the list of essential leader traits is “SAw,” or self-awareness, defined as 

the ability to assess abilities and determine strengths and weaknesses in an operational environment, 

and learn how to sustain strengths and correct weaknesses. The ATLDP reaffirmed leader SAw and 

adaptability as the Army’s enduring strategy-based competencies for the 21st century.122 Adaptability 

is defined as willingness to incorporate needed changes, including the learning necessary to be 
15

effective. 

SAw has been found to be both a personality trait and skill.123 High SAw represents a high correlation 

between self-understanding and others’ perceptions of an one’s traits and behaviors. Regrettably, SAw 

is found in only a minority of leaders.124 Naturally high SAw is found in typically high-performers who 

have an accurate self-image regarding their own competency and performance dimensions. Low-SAw 

leaders, on the other hand, are more likely to ignore or discount feedback from others, suffer career 

derailment, and have negative attitudes toward work.125 Leaders improve their SAw level by learning 

and applying SAw-relevant skills, and by taking advantage of feedback from peers, subordinates, 

supervisors, spouses, etc. Leaders should seek to be as self-aware as possible to promote their own 

effectiveness as well as that of their organizations. Knowing where one stands, and where one wants to 

take the organization, provides the only rational basis for leading change. As William Steele and Robert 

Walters aptly declared, “Adaptability without self-awareness is irrationally changing for change’s 

sake, not understanding the relationship between abilities, duties and the environment.”126

Need for Improving Reinforcement (Reward). Doing what is rewarded, a conditioned response, is 

among the most powerful of human motivations. Command climate problems persist, in part, because 

the Army is reinforcing leaders for doing the wrong things. As we have seen, the emphasis placed 

on a leader’s ability to develop an effective organization and to create and sustain a healthy unit 

pales by comparison to the priority placed on assessing his or her individual performance in terms of 

mission accomplishment.127 People who rise to high levels are often extremely achievement-oriented, 

very forceful, and highly demanding. Executives can often get outstanding results in the short run by 

sacrificing the organization’s ability to maintain high performance in the long run.128 Perhaps worse, 

“the cross currents of personnel changes ameliorate the effects of poor leadership―the body of soldiers 

disheartened by a poor leader is itself in such a state of flux, and the leader himself changes so often, 

that even the best senior leaders find it hard to spot (destructive) trends of any kind.”129

Absent positive or negative reinforcement from superiors, leaders rarely have the motivation 

to “understand and commit to personal leadership change.”130 Our performance appraisal system 

focuses on here-and-now competencies, individual skills and training proficiency, not organizational 

development aptitude. Developmental aptitude is necessary so leaders can attend to new organizational 

priorities and ensure the long-term health and vitality of the organization.131 A leader’s developmental 

aptitude is measured best by those being developed, and best revealed by the overall effectiveness of 

the organization. Creating and sustaining a highly adaptable organization are just one example: “A 

well-developed workforce does not react to change―it creates change.”132 Leader Development via 

diverse types of training and experiences is essential for enabling the acquisition of knowledge, skills, 

and abilities relevant to present and future challenges. The Army’s Leader Development System must 

further address the active enrichment of organizations.

At present, the Officer Evaluation Report (OER) and its accompanying OER Support Form are 

the primary tools for reinforcing desired leader behaviors. Together, these forms guide development 

and appraisal of officers according to performance goals established by the rated officer and his or 

her supervisor. Regrettably, OER assessments provide a skewed and incomplete picture of leadership 

ability and potential, and consequently reward behaviors that do not put organizational effectiveness 

first. In the long term, the OER System results in the selection and ascension of leaders who do not 

place organizational effectiveness first. These phenomena contribute significantly to the Army’s 

current command climate challenges. 

The OER makes “no mention of the command climate created by the rated officer. Senior Raters 

receive little, if any, feedback on the command climate created by the rated officer and therefore seldom 

make it part of the evaluation report.”133 Moreover, “the current Officer Evaluation System focuses 

on and rewards immediate goals.”134 Given that the Army’s definition of leadership addresses two 

components (operating/mission accomplishment, and improving/organizational growth), improving 
16

organizations needs to be at least equally emphasized in practice. Because short-term outcomes 

are disproportionately valued and reinforced, other important organizational factors relating to 

institutional culture and command climate are ignored.135 The issue for the Army is straightforward: 

Enforce the leadership standard that has been defined in Army Leadership doctrine. 

The Interaction of Leader and Organization.

Leader Development System Shortcomings. Leader development “presumes mid- and long-term 

commitment to improving leader qualities by merging the influences of many factors: military and 

civilian education, self-study, experience, feedback, reinforcement, coaching, mentoring.”136 There is 

much training and emphasis regarding leadership, but no leader development training specifically 

about how to promote organizational effectiveness, or even the criteria most appropriate for evaluating 

effectiveness. The ramifications of this void are significant. According to Major General John Faith, 

U.S. Army Ret., a full one-third of today’s leaders do not sufficiently trust, and hence empower, their 

subordinates.137 The results of the ATLDP support this conclusion.138 Such an absence of trust results in 

the over-management of subordinates, “a failure far from obvious to their bosses as the unit produces 

the desired near-term results.”139 According to General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army Ret., senior leaders 

have “gone too far in over-planning, over-prescribing, and over-controlling.”140 Given the misconstrued 

basis for interpreting the unit’s effectiveness, leaders and their bosses mistakenly reward and reinforce 

“zero-defects” leadership.

Organizations and subordinates are not sufficiently studied in the Officer Education System. While 

the Officer Leader Development System offers an extensive education, it “fails to teach officers on the 

basic counseling skills so necessary in our Army.”141 Not knowing how to counsel effectively, and 

therefore not being comfortable with the counseling process, have resulted in a cultural aversion to 

counseling, dialoguing, and developing. Absent the much needed open dialogue in an organization, 

the practical benefits relating to the development of leaders and increased effectiveness of organizations 

are lost, at all levels. Open communication between raters and subordinate leaders “humanizes the 

environment . . . and functions as a mechanism for integrating [leaders] into the corporate structure 

and culture.”142 Dialogue and feedback serve to increase the skills and effectiveness of both the rater 

and the subordinate leader, which in combination directly contribute to a more positive command 

climate, increased productivity, and a reduction in turnover.

The Army puts a premium on operational experience, as well it should. Learning by doing is a 

hallmark of the military profession. A leader’s operational experience, however, is largely created and 

shaped by his or her superior. Getting the job done without effective coaching is not only a missed 

opportunity for the individuals involved, but a significant impediment to organizational climate and 

growth. There is insufficient feedback from higher to lower and lower to higher. Open dialogue is 

necessary for the growth of individuals and the organization as a whole, but it takes courage. “Providing 

honest feedback is hard,”143 said General Reimer recently. “Only by developing a plan for achieving 

and sustaining behavior change is learning enhanced.”144 Supervisors must provide feedback, coach 

when opportunities present themselves, and provide a measure of accountability for change.

The goal of effective coaching is “identify[ing] convergences and divergences, or agreements and 

disagreements, on job performance.”145 Armed with insight from multiple sources, a coach works with 

the leader to close the gaps between what is being provided by the leader, and what is valued and 

expected by the members of the organization. Leaders often lose sight of what is effective and do not 

take time or effort to reflect on the impact of their own actions. Coaching from peers and superiors 

helps leaders decode information received from multiple sources. Coaching bypasses biases relating to 

a leader’s perceptual filters and helps interpret feedback from others that may be “overly cautious and 
17

soft-pedaled due to the leader’s role and status.”146 Coaching is neither evaluative nor punitive; it is 

developmental. This is not to say that there is no accountability for achieving developmental objectives. 

Like other objectives, leaders are expected to demonstrate specific achievement of developmental goals. 

Leaders that do not develop, in spite of coaching, are not the leaders the Army needs.

Leaders, themselves, also have a large role in guiding their own professional development. Selfdevelopment is poorly operationalized in the Army. It is far more than prescribed reading lists and 

access to Internet resources, or even responding to coaching as described above. Self-development is 

focused on personal growth recognized to be relevant by the individual learner, guided by an effective 

coach, and energized by a system of accountability that motivates growth and learning. For the leader 

at the helm of an organization, self-development includes looking inward at his behaviors, and focusing 

on ways he can improve the climate of the organization.

Insufficient Accountability. Certainly, different perceptions of a leader result from the different 

schemas and information available to the individuals viewing him or her.147 Addressing the expectations 

of organizational members typically leads the organization to be more effective and productive. Getting 

the needed insight from constituents is part of the challenge; making required changes is the other part. 

Since subordinates cannot hold the leader accountable for making needed adjustments, and superiors 

do not have all the information, systems are needed to reinforce appropriate organizational changes.

“If you want to get serious about management effectiveness, you have to measure it and hold 

people accountable.”148 Likewise, rewarding outstanding performance in shaping command climate 

is the fastest and surest way to promote it throughout all organizations. Actions, be they reward or 

punishment, speak louder than words. In a developmental-only process (as with the current Army 

CCS system), the leader owns the information with little or no accountability requirement for action, 

and little change occurs.149 Accountability provides the motivation for change. 

IMPLICATIONS OF FAILING TO FOCUS ENOUGH ON THE ORGANIZATION

Insufficiently Effective Organizations. 

At this point, one might argue that there is ample evidence the U.S. Army is the best in the 

world, and most of its leaders and organizations are reasonably effective. Notwithstanding, reasonably 

effective leaders and organizations will not meet the needs of the future force and are not adequate to 

support Army Transformation. How will the Army create and sustain innovation and risk-taking in 

organizations plagued by micro-management and poor command climate? How will organizations, 

which have suppressed their problems and peaked for relatively short-term deployments, perform 

when members remain together for considerably longer periods? What about the ability of the Army to 

transform culturally into a more highly adaptive learning organization? The persistence of serious climate 

problems today and throughout the past 30 years demonstrates convincingly that the organizational 

mindset and ability to retain aggressive, innovative junior leaders are in jeopardy. The implications of 

today’s organizational climate problems are extensive. Left unresolved, they will significantly hinder 

Army Transformation, currently the single most-important strategic objective of the first part of the 

21st century. 

Consider the dramatic and positive cultural impact that After-Action Reviews (AARs) have had 

on the Army since 1980 when they were first introduced. According to Lieutenant General Frederic 

Brown at the time, “There is no precedent for exposing a unit chain of command to a no-holds barred 

battle against OPFOR where a leader’s failure is evident in exquisite detail to his subordinates. No 

Army―including the Israeli Army―has dared to do this.”150 General Sullivan reflected similarly: “There 

was a lot of resistance, but we had to do it because in higher performing organizations, the parts are 

supposed to talk to one another.”151 In spite of the huge operational gains associated with the use of 
18

AARs for collective training, we have failed to develop processes that provide leaders with the same 

brutally honest assessments, resulting in those leaders and their organizations being disadvantaged. If 

the Army was truly a learning organization, individuals would welcome the opportunity to receive and 

grow from feedback, and systems would be in place to facilitate it. 

FM 22-100, Army Leadership (August 1999), suggests that “the excessive emphasis on current 

operations at the expense of improving actions will threaten the future of the Army.”152 This issue 

was described previously in the context of individual level factors; however, short- versus longterm emphasis also has dramatic impact on organizations. Rewarding only the bottom line is having 

unintended consequences. Said one savvy CEO, “We don’t want [leaders] to improve the bottom line, 

and collect bonuses for doing so, while discouraging, misusing, or burning out the talented people who 

produced those results.”153 In many respects, this sentiment echoes the tension between doing things 

right according to rules and procedures (management) and doing the right things in concert with the 

needs of personnel (leadership).

In spite of the Army’s expressed definition of effective leadership, Army systems reward 

leaders more on management success than leadership; more on individual skills than organizational 

effectiveness. As discussed in depth earlier, the leader appraisal system (Officer Evaluation System, 

OES) emphasizes mission accomplishment rather than effectiveness, cohesion, and adaptability. OES 

places almost no weight on developing subordinate leaders, creating effective and cohesive teams, or 

inspiring momentum for achieving high goals. Leaders focusing on what they perceive to be important 

to their superiors often do not attain maximum self-development, sufficiently develop subordinates, or 

create a better organization. “The focus on individual performance appraisal does not allow the Army 

to identify problem areas in time to intervene. Consequently, the long-term damage to people and 

[organizational] effectiveness goes unnoticed.”154

Measuring organizational climate serves as a predictor of upcoming production trends.155 Getting a 

sense of what the workforce is feeling allows the leader to assume the initiative in heading off problems 

before they develop. Climate dimensions relating to work pressure, autonomy, peer cohesion, and 

supervisor support have been demonstrated to be correlated with perceived worker stress, which leads 

to withdrawal behaviors (absence, turnover, and injury).156 “Feedback from peers and subordinates 

is important because it comes from the individuals who have by far the most contact with us.”157

The Army’s senior leadership would be wise to systematize organizational dialogue as a means for 

enhancing effectiveness: “The primary goal of feedback is development. Open communication fosters 

trust and teamwork which generally lead to empowerment and productivity.”158

Missed Opportunities to Develop Army Leaders.

The virtually exclusive focus of the OER and Army culture on short-term mission accomplishment 

has resulted in too little emphasis on developing effective organizations. There may be instances where 

such a priority may be justifiable, but not as a rule. Leader development has suffered because getting 

the job done has generally been accomplished at the expense of developing the long-term effectiveness 

made possible through investments in junior officers and the organization.159 The Army culture proudly 

embodies a Can Do spirit. Getting results, however the job gets done (albeit ethically, of course), has 

become paramount. When accomplishing the mission, is it not better in the long term to lead the entire 

team rather than just a few members of the team?160 Are not the individual team members as well as 

the organization better-served when mission accomplishment reflects the achievement of all rather 

than of a few? Would not raters prefer having subordinate leaders who lead the whole team when 

opportunities allow for doing so? Growing an organization and the members within it means that 

merely accomplishing the mission is not enough. Army leadership doctrine emphasizes this point, but 
19

too often in practice its significance falls on deaf ears. Even for the raters who recognize the value of 

truly effective leadership, there are insufficient means for them to assess whether such valued practices 

are in effect. Sadly, even when organizational practices are ideal, insufficient systems have adverse 

consequences. Left unrecognized or unrewarded, even the most solid organizational practices may be 

expected to dissipate.

While it is important to develop all leaders for the immediate benefit of Army organizations, it 

is especially important to develop those with the most talent who will be selected for advancement 

and challenged by additional management complexity and responsibility.161 There is no evidence that 

leaders, in general or as individuals, are being systematically developed by their supervisors. The 

“senior-ranking population is clearly not the only one suited to identify superb leaders.”162 Top-down 

appraisal and selection ignore the perspectives of peers who would serve alongside the selectees in 

combat, as well as the perspectives of key subordinates whom they would lead on a daily basis and 

who would be charged with carrying out their decisions and directives.163 “Army officers must exhibit 

more important attributes than just merely keeping the boss happy”;164 multi-rater feedback provides 

the means to ensure they do. 

Results from the ATLDP indicate the need for continued emphasis on prescribed training and leader 

development principles including Know Yourself: “The relationship between self-awareness (SAw) and 

adaptability is symbiotic.”165 The greater the SAw gained, the more adaptive the leader. Commitment 

to lifelong learning can narrow the knowledge gaps in education and operational experience. 

The “TOP 50” companies in the Fortune 1000 have many features in common. One such feature is 

that they all actively pool and share knowledge within the organization, not only for the betterment 

of the company (e.g., AARs), but also for the betterment of the individual.166 At every turn, top 

companies create learning opportunities through personal and leader development programs. One 

CEO commented, “We’re a better company because we identify and reward what superiors simply 

can’t perceive.”167 Another CEO was more direct: “There is too much careerism. We counter it with 

peer and subordinate feedback.”168

Leaders need to identify their personal development needs. The best sources of information 

needed to do so are: obtaining feedback from others, using models of good practice, and completing 

self-analysis questionnaires.”169 Systematic and anonymous feedback from others provides otherwise 

unrecognized perspectives. So much of what we understand about leadership we learn from our leader 

models―what they do, what they measure and inspect, what questions they ask. Inferences from 

these models of leadership promote the development of the next generation of leaders. Self-analysis 

questionnaires provide an added insight about blind spots and relative weaknesses. 

The mere practice of seeking and incorporating subordinate feedback promotes individual selfworth and organizational buy-in. Seeing how one’s input leads to organizational growth fosters his 

or her increased engagement, commitment, and innovation.170 Subordinates who are not permitted to 

provide input often lose confidence in themselves and their leaders, and grow anxious about the value 

of their contributions to the organization. Absent recognition of their value to the team, subordinate 

commitment wanes. 

Inconsistency with Stated Beliefs. 

Few things drain the energy of organizational members more than the failure of organizational 

practices to match the organization’s proclaimed beliefs. Certainly at the collective level, the practice of 

doing After-Action Reviews matches the organizational priority and belief that organizations benefit 

from maximizing unit learning and growth, no matter how painful the feedback. At the individual 

level, however, there is no analogy. If the Army is truly a learning organization, it must place a similar 

spotlight on individual leaders to improve organizational climate. 
20

Inconsistency between stated beliefs and practices breeds distrust and skepticism among 

organizational members. Unfortunately, in addition to the example cited above, many of the Army’s 

mismatches relate directly to leader development. Strong evidence suggests, for example, that 

supervisors actually punish out-of-the-box thinking, innovation, and empowerment while verbally 

advocating the same.171 Likewise, micro-management practices are highly inconsistent with rhetoric 

emphasizing risk-taking and innovation. Beliefs and practices must be aligned, and leader/soldier 

expectations satisfied if organizational climate is to thrive. If implemented, multi-rater feedback would 

be expected to contribute to aligning the Army Leader Development System (OES) and performance 

appraisal system (OER) with our Army’s stated objective of being a learning organization: one that 

harnesses the experience of its people and organization to improve the way it does business. Multi-rater 

feedback is a powerful means for linking individual level leader development with the organization to 

foster more effective units and reinforce the U.S. Army as truly a learning organization. 

The Army contends that the leadership trusts subordinate officers and noncommissioned officers, 

yet we do not enable them to help grow and select the most effective leaders.172 Without question, 

subordinates and peers have insights that raters and leaders themselves lack. Those unique perspectives 

must be tapped to further the development of leaders and Army organizations: “Only the led know 

for certain the leader’s moral courage, consideration for others, and commitment to unit above self. If 

we prize these values, some sort of input from subordinates is required.”173 Clearly, the inconsistency 

between stated Army beliefs and practices in regard to these important climate factors is inconsistent 

with transformational objectives. These differences must be reconciled to enable command climate to 

flourish.

What is needed is a full recognition of the importance of both individual and organizational 

learning. “Effective leaders [do] things to develop skills and increase the knowledge gained from 

experience, in success and failure. They recognize the necessity of continually gathering information 

. . . they encourage subordinate [leaders] to set longer time horizons.”174 Effective leaders continually 

assess and improve their organizations. They put the organization ahead of themselves.

Strategic Remedies.

That which is not inspected, is neglected.

 Classic Military Proverb

Recently retired Chief of Staff of the Army General Eric Shinseki stated in his vision that “the 

development of bold, innovative leaders of character and competence is fundamental to long-term 

health of the Army organization.”175 Likewise, former Chief of Staff of the Army General Reimer recently 

said, “Leadership is the key to the future”;176 however, new mindsets in organizational climate must be 

accompanied by appropriate systems that reinforce them. “Results [i.e., mission accomplishment] are 

not enough! We need to hold leaders accountable for how they get results. We must find ways to hold 

leaders accountable for developing, inspiring, and empowering the people who produce those bottomline results, as well as for the results themselves.”177

Vision theorists say, 

The new vision requires a dramatic letting-go of the conventional values that ossified the old topdown hierarchy. It will demand far more leadership quality than ever before. It calls for full and daily 

communication between managers and workers in a work culture that fosters trust, learning, participation, 

and dignity, and it depends on leaders who are committed to it.178
21

The need for change to achieve the desired tranformational end-state is clear―the question is, how to 

achieve it.

As one considers the direction and range of systems needed to facilitate a distinct shift in 

organizational climate, former Army Chief of Staff General Sullivan’s blueprint for downsizing the 

Army in the early 1990s is instructive (See Figure 3).179

1. Change is Hard Work.

2. Leadership Begins with Values.

3. The Intellectual Leads the Physical.

4. Real Change Takes Real Change.

5. Leadership is a Team Sport.

6. Expect to Be Suprised.

7. Today Competes with Tomorow.

8. Better is Better.

9. Focus on the Future.

10. Learn from Doing.

11. Grow People.

Figure 3. Eleven Rules for Guiding Change.

Six of General Sullivan’s rules are especially relevant in providing the architecture needed to create 

the sea-change in culture and mechanisms for Army Transformation in the 21st century. 

Rule 1. Change Is Hard Work. Leading change requires leaders to do two jobs at once―

accomplishing today’s missions, and developing tomorrow’s organizations. Army Transformation 

entails the requirement for a qualitatively more effective organization.

Rule 4. Real Change Takes Real Change. The leader must set conditions for, and change the critical 

processes within an organization to effect true change. It can be painful and it takes time.

Rule 5. Leadership Is A Team Sport. Effective leaders invest time and energy to engage all members 

of a team synergistically. Army Transformation will demand teamwork. Beyond increased output, 

teamwork inspires subordinates with a sense of commitment to the organization that fuels innovation 

and the momentum for transformation.

Rule 9. Focus On The Future. From an organizational perspective, the leader is the only team 

member focusing on the future. Subordinates have confidence in leaders who know where the 

organization is headed. The leader must inspire commitment to a positive and provocative vision of 

the future.

Rule 10. Learn From Doing. A learning organization―one that looks inward as well as outward to 

learn and grow―is critical to transformation.

Rule 11. Grow People. Creative, confident, and committed people enable organizations to 

successfully transform. People are rewarded in order to promote the growth necessary to achieve the 

established vision.

General Sullivan’s prescription represents an organizational development strategy. As a discipline, 

organizational development is the planned process for changing an organization so as to be more 

effective in accomplishing its desired goals. Such development is focused not on personal growth 

of individuals within the organization, but rather on developing structures, systems, and processes 

within organizations to improve effectiveness.180 The Army pursued an elaborate Organizational 

Effectiveness (OE) program with vigor in the 1970s and 1980s, and it enjoyed considerable success 

according to Colonel William Barko, a former certified OE trainer.181 In spite of popularity among 

many U.S. Army leaders who believed OE to be successful (improving communications, climate, and 
22

overall organizational effectiveness), the program’s image as a counter-cultural fad was difficult to 

overcome. Absent a demonstration of quantifiable impact and measurable benefits, the OE program 

was unsustainable and died. Putting organizations first again is long past due. 

The solution begins with an appreciation of the embedding (creating change) and reinforcing 

(sustaining change) mechanics of shaping a group climate.182 Relevant embedding mechanisms 

include: attention to what leaders measure and control, deliberate role modeling and coaching, and the 

application of consistent criteria for allocating rewards and status, as well for recruitment, selection, 

and promotion. To sustain the changes injected into the culture, reinforcing mechanisms include 

establishing organizational systems and procedures for accountability, and broadly disseminating 

consistent statements of philosophy, creeds, and charters. Change is sustained only as long as 

embedding and reinforcing mechanisms are introduced. During the past 30 years, several wellintentioned strategies to positively shape organizational climate in the Army were doomed to fail, and 

ultimately did fail because reinforcing mechanisms were absent. In contrast, the strategic remedies 

proposed in this paper provide embedding and reinforcing mechanisms for the organization and 

individual level factors affecting organizational climate. 

Transformation of the Army to the Objective Force of 2015 will involve changes in the way the Army 

handles (beyond managing) people. “Fine-tuning the evolving processes, determining how soldiers 

are adapting to the changing environment, and ensuring the appropriate cultural transformation will 

require a continuous feedback loop.”183

Climate management will be a key enabler to “improve the collective effectiveness, provide 

the opportunity for members to realize their potential, and develop their individual skills and 

performance.”184

Nick Jans proposes a useful model of organizational effectiveness that integrates the roles of the 

leader and organization in accounting for climate (See Figure 4).185 This model follows from the fourquadrant model of organizational effectiveness presented in the background section of this paper 

(Figure 1). Modified here slightly to incorporate additional insights emerging from this research, Jans’s 

model illustrates a process whereby individual performance appraisal reinforces rather than detracts 

from the organization. Not addressed by Jans’s model, however, is the need for continuous feedback 

from the organization, and accountability for change when organizational climate, performance, or 

morale are ascertained to be substandard. The strategic remedies proposed in this paper provide 

for the essential feedback and accountability mechanisms that are relevant at the individual and 

organizational levels.

Organizationally-focused Interventions. 

Update Command Climate Survey Metrics. Good surveys “provide data that are quantifiable, 

valid, reliable, objective, comparable, replicable, generalizable, and capable of indicating trends.”186

“They are the principal method of obtaining reliable data regarding climate.”187 Widely-used climate 

instruments that assess respect, trust, team morale, opportunity to participate in decisionmaking, 

cohesiveness, innovation, risk-taking, and care for people frequently account for as much as 53 

percent of the variance in predicting effectiveness.188 Command climate surveys also create awareness. 

Merely measuring certain facets of the organization alerts all members to the values and constructs 

that are important. Most often, those aspects of the command that are not measured will receive 

little or no attention. Beyond immediate impact on organizational effectiveness, such salience also 

contributes to the development of values and priorities held by the next generation of leaders. 

The personnel portion of Army Transformation puts strong emphasis on leveraging technology 

and using the Internet for personnel business practices. As soon as soldiers gain full access to the 

Internet and routinely use the Army portal, the Army easily will be able to increase its ability to conduct 
23

Figure 4. Model of Organizational Effectiveness.

surveys.189 Relative to the climate instruments commercially available and in use today, the Command 

Climate Surveys in use by the Army G-1, Army Research Institute, and Department of the Army 

Inspector General are reasonably adequate in scope except, as discussed earlier, for not addressing 

organizational trust, loyalty, commitment, openness, cooperation, teamwork, and professional 

satisfaction.190 Additionally, the CCS should incorporate measures that address values and beliefs 

(as distinguished from practices); latitude and power to use authority to operate within the scope of 

one’s duties; the organization’s measurement and feedback mechanisms to monitor health of the team; 

developmental opportunities; pace and stress; humor; extent to which family needs are attended to; 

and sensitivity to personal needs. These important climate constructs are not being measured by the 

instruments used in the Army today, yet they are essential aspects of an effective command climate. 

While the MEOSC has value in assessing racial and gender fairness issues, it is of questionable 

value as a climate instrument because its scope is insufficient to address the broader organizational 

constructs. As a consequence, it should be offered as a supplement rather than as an alternative to the 

CCS. 

With regard to the frequency and levels of application for the Command Climate Survey (CCS), AR 

600-20 should be amended to prescribe the completion of a CCS within 90 days of a new commander’s 

arrival and annually thereafter, at all levels of the Army from company to MACOM. From a practical 

standpoint, surveys should be assigned randomly and confidentially to a representative sample 

one and two levels below the surveying headquarters (e.g., Corps headquarters would survey a 

representative sample of officers and soldiers assigned to division and brigade level command sections 

and staffs). Survey results should go to the organization’s commander, as is currently the case, but 
24

followed up by a prescribed Action Plan developed with the assistance of a commander’s designated 

outside-the-chain coach (to enable evaluation-free, i.e., nonthreatening, feedback), and then approved 

by the commander’s rater. Such a procedure ensures appropriate, well-considered actions will be taken 

to address climate shortcomings and promote organizational effectiveness.

The 2000 CSIS Study Report called for development of organizational climate surveys that would 

become part of the Unit Status Reporting (USR) system.191 Elevating organizational climate to a level at 

least on par with materiel readiness is long overdue. Such surveys would provide the Army’s senior 

leaders insight to which units “reward competence, set clear priorities, allow free flow of information, 

inspire trust, support learning, and stimulate motivation and versatility.”192 Implementing command 

climate feedback into the unit readiness report is entirely consistent with embedding important 

organizational constructs and reinforcing desired leader development priorities. 

Leader-focused Interventions.

Reassess and Expand OER Constructs. In general, “the Army needs to focus leadership performance 

feedback on climate in the unit, on performance of its component teams and the leadership group, and 

less on the observed performance of the individual leader.”193 The OER system serves several important 

purposes, namely, evaluation and development. OERs are essential tools for selection boards, which 

clearly indicate that “the OER is giving them what they need to sort through a very high quantity 

of officers and select those with the greatest potential.”194 “Yet, OERs are important not only for the 

function they serve on boards, but also for the behavior they engender in the officer corps.195 Appraisal 

and development are both important facets of the OER system; both need to be maximized to create 

better leaders and stronger organizations. 

The extent to which leader appraisal and leader development systems affect command climate 

and organizational effectiveness is in question. One problem is that the OER is insufficiently precise to 

discriminate except in the most egregious instances of poor leadership. According to the experiences 

of General Faith, senior officers serving on selection boards are compelled to apply their own scales 

of values to weigh overly-inflated, and therefore nondiscriminating, evaluation reports.196 This 

challenge has been somewhat mitigated by the forced distribution system, but not entirely. Personal 

performance must never be made superior in importance to unit performance and effectiveness, and 

yet that is precisely the result of the current OER system. To reinforce the climate that is essential in a 

learning organization, such desiderata as making the organization better, morale, team aggressiveness, 

consideration of others, and commitment to unit above self must also be addressed. Building must 

become at least as important as operating, and trusting, dialoguing, team-building, and caring and 

taking care of people and families must become a part of individual performance assessment. Adding 

these dimensions to the OER will almost certainly embed and reinforce them within the values of the 

Army officer corps.

When it comes to climate, Army senior leaders will need to refocus on long-term goals and 

look beyond the traditional readiness statistics to assess qualitative, less easily measured factors.197

Additional consideration should be given to incorporating peer and subordinate input in OERs, 

although that argument will not be made here. I am satisfied that raters and senior raters, made aware 

of CCS results and resulting Action Plans, will be able to ascertain individual leader performance and 

potential more completely. To the extent that organizational factors and insights are made a priority for 

inclusion in every leader’s evaluation, cultural change toward creating and sustaining more effective 

organizations is certain.

The absence of prescribed development for all officers, instead of simply the most junior 

ones, cannot be justified. Leader development is a means for influencing leadership, which affects 
25

organizational climate. Developing officers who are attentive and responsive to organizational factors 

will promote improved climate across the Army. The current OER system prescribes the employment of 

a Developmental Support Form (DA Form 68-9-1a) for all lieutenants and junior warrant officers. This 

is consistent with the nature of a learning organization. The OER Developmental Support Form system 

should be immediately expanded and prescribed for use by all officers, warrant officer to lieutenant 

general. No officer is beyond development; to suggest otherwise flies in the face of our cultural belief 

in the Army as a learning organization.

Coaching provides the means for modulating 360-degree feedback to modify behavior. 

“Professionals have coaches. Amateurs do not.”198 Army leaders are professionals, and coaches are 

indeed needed and appropriate. Perhaps most appealing, there is no need to hire outside consultants 

to be coaches. The Army’s commitment to leader development has ensured that an ample supply of 

coaches is immediately available and accessible. Beyond merely talking about it, effective coaching 

must be made a cultural cornerstone and practical reality.

As Colonel Jon Moilanen observes in a recent Military Review article, “Leaders mentoring 

leaders in a clearly defined manner, and complementary coaching of soldiers and teams, reinforces 

learning and motivation to adapt. Direct and recurring advice and council among leaders reinforces 

adaptive behaviors.”199 Coaching has been demonstrated to contribute quantifiably to organizational 

productivity (up 53 percent), retention (up 39 percent), and job satisfaction (up 61 percent) according 

to 100 executives from Fortune 1000 companies.200 Not surprisingly, history illustrates that General 

George Patton, among others, took his obligation to mentor junior officers very seriously, and did so 

aggressively and continuously throughout his career.201

The ATLDP reveals that the Army is doing an especially poor job dialoguing with, counseling, 

and coaching junior officers. “One of the reasons that senior officers may not be doing it is that they 

don’t really know how to properly do it.”202 It is for this reason, and because leader development 

applies at every level, that coaching must be modeled beginning with those at the very top of the Army 

organization. “Transformation requires enormous amounts of energy. One of the catalysts to generate 

this energy is the leader who must model required new behaviors.”203 Coaching, really coaching and 

developing subordinate leaders, is one of the new behaviors most essential to successfully transform 

command climate across the Army.

Coaches assist leaders by “tailoring learning activities to address specific developmental needs, 

and increase the likelihood for success in a way that classroom education cannot.”204 Feedback alone, 

however, will not be sufficient unless it is accompanied by formalized action planning to ensure that 

needed changes take place.

Creating Mutually-Reinforcing Systems. 

The failure to integrate organizational and individual level systems was quite possibly the root 

explanation for why several well-intentioned efforts over the past 30 years have fallen short in 

improving organizational climate. The remedies just proposed will, by themselves, yield little or no 

result if feedback and accountability at both the organizational and individual levels are not fully 

integrated. Hence, prescribing 360-degree feedback and associated action planning are essential 

systems-integration mechanisms. 

Use 360-degree Feedback to Improve Organizations and Leaders. The effective basis for performance 

appraisal and/or leader development greatly depends upon the position of the perceiver. The extent 

to which leaders fulfill expectations varies with rater priorities, exposure frequency, and cognitive 

processes.205 Consequently, for both performance appraisal and leader development, a 360-degree 

multi-rater approach is needed. A multisource appraisal and feedback system effectively links 
26

organizational and individual leader factors in effecting a positive organizational climate.

Multisource feedback has evolved over the past 2 decades primarily as a developmental tool―”a 

means to help people build new skills and overcome weakness.”206 Regrettably, the empirical support 

for its organizational impact has lagged considerably behind.207 That said, recipients, as well as 

organizational members who have provided feedback, believe “multiple sources are better than an 

individual one when it comes to assessing behavior.”208 Research indicates that construct validity 

among peers is greater than it is within the leader himself. Empirically, peer evaluations, more than 

leader self-reports, have been found to be the most predictive of subsequent job advancement.209

No less than 60 percent of the Fortune 500 companies use multi-rater feedback mechanisms for 

development (and/or appraisal) of leaders.210 In an extensive survey of 47 leading global corporations 

and 26 academic institutions, 76 percent said 360-degree feedback programs were likely to be used 

extensively in the year ahead, for building competencies in management and leading organizational 

change. According to a number of industrial leaders, 360-degree feedback is the tool of choice.

211

The general trend in executive practices is toward greater learner involvement in real problems 

and in their own organizations.212 Among other things, 360-degree feedback provides a “vehicle to 

explore [the progress of] strategic initiatives, furthers the organization’s change agenda, and fosters 

increased cohesion among team members.”213 This tool helps executives gain insight into performance 

competencies by showing them how their peers, subordinates, and superiors perceive them. It “assists 

leaders in contemplating what is working, needs to change, and compares core practices and behaviors 

with expectations.”214

The best way to determine how members of an organization perceive the leader and his competence 

is to ask them directly.215 Leader development certainly does not stop at the company or even battalion 

levels. In fact, a very good argument could be made that the value of feedback increases at higher 

levels due to increasingly ambiguous and complex challenges and skill requirements. Hence, the 

value of multi-rater feedback applies to, and must be instituted at, all levels of the Army organization. 

Implementing multi-rater feedback makes the subordinates and peers all the more astute in observing 

leadership styles and behaviors.216 Dissonance in such an open environment results in personal 

and organizational pressures that actually facilitate growth and motivation for change. Increases in 

organizational trust resulting from 360-degree feedback have been demonstrated as leading to desired 

changes in leader behavior.217

In teams where learning is emphasized as a priority, peers value the participation and competence 

of colleagues.218 When scientifically examined, peer demographics were not found to introduce 

any systematic bias into the peer evaluation process―not age, own performance level (Grade Point 

Average), work or supervisor experience, marital status, etc.219 Jealousy or mal-intent did not emerge 

in peer evaluations of colleagues. There was, however, a trend suggesting peer ratings of leaders are 

significantly lower than leaders’ ratings of themselves. This discrepancy confirms the overwhelming 

evidence that leaders tend to perceive themselves more favorably than peers.220 Using peer feedback 

to bypass a leader’s perceptual filters provides significant and unique insights of value to a leader’s 

development. 

Likewise, subordinates appreciate leaders who provide feedback regarding performance, who 

communicate expectations, and who engage subordinates in the planning process. The 360-degree 

feedback mechanism, in conjunction with a Command Climate Survey, facilitates the full involvement 

of subordinates in the progress the organization is making. Further, these instruments promote 

clarification of leader expectations and a means for directly engaging subordinates in the growth of the 

unit.

A recent example of employing effective multi-rater feedback is that described by Brigadier 

General Edward Harrington, Director of the Defense Contract Management Agency: “We wanted to 
27

identify where significant change was called for, set up a process to structure the changes, and then 

lay out detailed plans to exploit these opportunities. We used 360-degree [feedback] because without a 

true team effort . . . facing the future would be even tougher than it already was. The results revealed 

a need for significant redesign and change in the ways we were organized, operating, and managing 

things.”221 In following up by an action plan to ensure that agreed-upon changes were carried out, 

General Harrington illustrates that this team is a learning organization.

Other examples of 360-degree assessment being used in a military context include the entire Special 

Forces community and the Ranger Battalions,222 ROTC and the service academies, Combined Arms 

Staff and Service School (CAS3), Warrant Officer Staff College, and a number of the basic branch officer 

courses. While no known data has been published demonstrating its usefulness in a military context, 

investigations by the Center for Army Leadership in 1998 support its use in Army organizations.223

More recent examinations of 360-degree feedback in a military context by Dr. Owen Jacobs of the 

Industrial College of the Armed Forces suggest that all who use it like it a lot.224 Lieutenant General 

John M. LeMoyne, the Army G-1, acknowledged the potential benefit of 360-degree feedback, but 

added that implementing it would require a reallocation of resources that is not possible at this time.225

The 360-degree apparatus may have been cumbersome and too expensive in the past, but it does not 

seem to be so today. The Internet and commercial, low-cost software make 360-degree instruments 

readily available, affordable, and in wide use throughout the civilian sector. While some skepticism 

is likely and must be overcome prior to implementation, the actual mechanics of implementing a 360-

degree feedback system are relatively straightforward and not time-consuming. According to General 

Reimer, “Moving the Officer Corps to 360-degree feedback is a good thing―certainly, developmental 

feedback is needed. Using it might avoid some leadership disasters in the future.”226

The power of a 360-degree perspective comes from “the continuous feedback of observers who 

have a context within which to identify what people do well and what they need to improve on.”227

Leaders especially (and all people in general) want to be liked and to be right; to know where they 

stand in ambiguous social environments.228 The 360-degree feedback mechanism provides the means 

to obtain such useful information. Of those who have used 360-degree feedback, 75 percent judge it to 

be successful. Moreover, 92 percent found it useful, claiming “it helps initiate a new form of dialogue 

by focusing on facets of performance otherwise neglected in traditional boss/subordinate interactions 

and appraisals.”229 Social information swirls around within organizations. Frequently, members of the 

unit know things that the leader does not. The 360-degree feedback mechanism provides leaders an 

ear to what’s on the minds of their soldiers, and a basis for intervening to make the organization more 

effective. 

Implementing a 360-degree system signals a “culture change of information sharing that is equally 

dramatic as the practical benefits.”230 It prompts a change in people’s mindset, day-to-day behavior, and 

growth at individual, organizational, and Army levels. Such a culture change requires that multi-rater 

feedback be viewed as a process rather than as an event―a process aimed at increasing and improving 

critical competencies and behaviors rather than a single event providing a snapshot of performance.231

Prescribe Action Plans. “There must be an absolute commitment to hold leaders at all levels 

accountable for the extent to which they are creating the kind of culture and work environment that the 

Army believes is essential.”232 Action planning to resolve individual and organizational shortcomings 

enhances accountability for change in a learning organization.

The Army Leader Development System requires precisely defined, tailored, and demanding 

self-development activities, and improved learning from operational experiences.233 Mentoring of 

subordinate leaders by coaches provides “a continuum of improved performance, rather than a 

finite end point.”234 Building and sustaining a unit learning environment that reinforces continual 

organizational and individual improvement are fundamental to transforming the Army into a learning 
28

organization.

Recommendations Restated in Order of Priority.

1. Improve accountability. Shortcomings identified in the results of the CCS (organizational) and 

360-degree feedback (leader-specific) must be attended to by the chain of command by prescribing 

formal action planning for both mechanisms, and establishing a nonevaluative (nonthreatening) 

“coaching mechanism” for reinforcement. Likewise, to promote organizational climate as a valued 

component of readiness, successes in changing command climate must be celebrated and rewarded in 

units, at all levels throughout the Army. 

2. Make Organizational Climate Reportable as a Readiness Factor. Develop and incorporate a clear 

summary metric addressing the “health” of organizational climate into the Unit Status Report. Doing 

so will provide senior leaders insight about team effectiveness, an essential readiness component. 

Possible yes-or-no queries might be like the following: Organizational climate (as measured during the 

most recent CCS or 360-degree assessment) contributes to unit readiness and effectiveness (Yes/No); 

Unit rewards competence (Yes/No); Unit sets clear and appropriate priorities (Yes/No); Unit promotes 

open dialogue and free flow of information throughout the organization (Yes/No); Unit inspires trust, 

supports learning and risk-taking, and stimulates motivation and innovation (Yes/No).

3. Prescribe 360-degree Assessment. Organizational members’ feedback about the leader will directly 

inform needed changes in leadership, and indirectly contribute to command climate, effectiveness, and 

combat readiness. All 360-degree assessments should be employed on an annual basis, at all levels 

from company to MACOM, and at an interval approximately 6 months from the organization’s CCS 

so that the actions associated with each mechanism complement one another. Because implementation 

of 360-degree assessment is a delicate task in any organization, careful consideration, planning, and 

oversight will be required initially and for several iterations, so as to ensure that positive outcomes 

prevail. 

4. Modify the current Officer Evaluation Report. The OER must be adapted to assess more 

organizationally-relevant constructs, such as inspiring loyalty to the unit, improving the organizational 

facilities and systems, morale and teamwork, unit responsiveness and adaptability, cohesion, family 

outreach, care for the welfare of soldiers, and commitment to unit above self. In appraising an 

individual leader, raters and senior raters should be directed to include generalized data relating to 

360-degree feedback and the CCSs, as well as the outcome of actions taken by the leader to overcome 

real or perceived shortcomings. 

5. Amend the Command Climate Survey (CCS). Modify the CCS (see Figure 5 for sample survey 

items) to also address: commitment, trust, team morale, receptiveness to new ideas, cohesiveness, 

innovation and risk-taking, sensitivity to people and their families, values and beliefs versus practices, 

autonomy, developmental opportunities, feedback mechanisms, and values, pace, and stress. Prescribe 

that the CCS be used at all levels, company to MACOM, within the first 90 days of a new commander’s 

assignment and on an annual basis thereafter.

6. Prescribe Coaching. To facilitate development of Action Plans (noted in Restated Recommendation #1), an Army-wide process for coaching is needed that allows a non-chain of command coach 

(who is equal in rank and experience to the rater) to assist the subordinate leader in interpreting survey 

results and 360-degree feedback, and developing an appropriate action plan. Thereafter, the subordinate leader should be required to present a summary of the feedback results and proposed action plan 

to his or her rater. Such a mechanism provides the subordinate leader with nonevaluative and experienced coaching, facilitates organizational and leader development, and enables the chain of command 

to reinforce and assess corrective actions for the good of the organization, the leader, and the Army. 
29

• I trust my leaders to do the right thing.

• I am committed to the NCOs in my unit chain of command.

• I am committed to the officers in my unit chain of command.

• The morale of my unit is where it needs to be, to be effective in combat.

• I’m satisfied that I’m given a say in the things that directly effect my quality of life.

• Our team is tight (cohesive).

• I feel free to voice concerns to my chain of command.

• I’m satisfied that my chain of command will hear me out about concerns I have.

• People in my unit work well together.

• I can depend on the members of my unit to look out for me.

• My leaders expect me to use my initiative to solve problems.

• Leaders in my unit are sensitive to the needs of my family.

• I like my job.

• I know what is expected of me in doing my job.

• There is a good match between what the commander says and how we operate.

• In my unit, an atmosphere of trust exists between leaders and subordinates.

• Leaders in my unit are sensitive about my needs, on and off duty.

Figure 5. Proposed Additions to the CCS.

7. Prescribe Formal Development for All Officers. Improving leadership will indirectly enhance 

organizational climate. Capitalizing on a system that already exists by using the OER Developmental 

Support Form (DA Form 68-9-1a) for all commissioned ranks up to and including the grade of 

lieutenant general. Developing subordinate leaders will reinforce the transformation of individuals 

and organizations and of the coaches and those who are coached, and will provide modeling for future 

generations of leaders. 

8. Discontinue the MEOSC as a Command Climate Instrument. The MEOSC (and ECAS) lacks 

sufficient scope to qualify as an adequate alternative to the CCS. Amend AR 600-20, Army Command 

Policy, so as to eliminate the MEOSC as a command climate instrument. Retain and use the MEOSC 

as a supplemental climate survey to investigate diversity-related issues (and the ECAS to investigate 

ethical-related issues), on a case-by-case basis only. 

CONCLUSIONS

Transformation of the U.S. Army in the 21st century cannot occur without a command climate 

that ensures Army organizations are as effective as they can be. Effective command climate will not 

take root until effective measures and accountability are imposed. Much attention has been drawn to 

the need for a cultural transformation to facilitate the Army’s transformation; however, it is merely 

rhetoric if real change does not transform the mindset of leaders at every level. 

More than ever before, the Army needs to train the soldier, develop the leader, and build the 

team―now. The essential dynamic of combat power will be competent, confident leaders and soldiers 

operating in cohesive and highly effective teams. Preparing to fight the network-centric wars of this 

century will be easy relative to the real leadership challenge of developing soldiers and officers “who 

not only can adapt month to month to different cultures but also can continually adjust and readjust 

their reflexes.”235

Without a doubt, the perception of climates within organizations is essential to understanding 

team members’ job satisfaction, which leads to learning and development, and affects commitment and 

retention. “If senior leaders begin to focus more on the welfare of their own organizations, a whole host 
30

of desirable behaviors [will] result.”236 The officer corps must be driven to truly establish the Army as 

a learning organization, and in doing so reprioritize self, superiors, subordinates, and unit. 

As noted recently in the 2001 CSIS Report, Army transformation depends on leaders who will develop 

organizational and command climates that encourage loyalty, initiative, and risk-taking. Senior leaders 

who model transformational behaviors and create the conditions to foster a learning organization 

represent only the first part of the change mandate. Equally important are the adjustments to strategic 

systems which are needed to reinforce change: adjusting the focus of performance appraisals to put 

organizations first; expanding the levels of organizations routinely using climate surveys; establishing 

coaching as a means for safely interpreting feedback and developing response measures; imposing 

requirements for action planning to ensure accountability for change; and renewing emphasis on 

leader development for all ranks. 

As former Secretary of the Army White appropriately emphasized, Army transformation will entail 

getting the most from people and organizations through a new cultural mindset. True to Secretary 

White’s vision, the proposed systems adjustments combined with effective leadership will directly 

contribute to successfully enabling Army transformation in the 21st century.

ENDNOTES

1. Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-0, Operations, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army, June 14, 

2001, foreword.

2. Similar sentiments were echoed in 1970 and 1986 by Lieutenant General Walter Ulmer, as expressed in “Leaders, 

Managers, and Command Climate,” Armed Forces Journal International, July 1986, p. 54. 

3. Thomas White, Secretary of the Army, in an address to the Army War College, Carlisle, PA, November 18, 2002, 

cited with permission of Secretary White.

4. Department of the Army, Army Modernization Plan 2002, Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2002, 

Appendix C: Training and Leader Development.

5. Department of the Army, “Objective Force in 2015, Final Draft,” Office of the Objective Force Task Force, 

Washington, DC: Department of the Army, December 8, 2002, p. 8. Hereafter cited as “Objective Force in 2015.”

6. Gordon Sullivan and Michael Harper, Hope is Not a Method, New York: Broadway Books, 1996, p. 105.

7. Sullivan and Harper, p. 237.

8. “Objective Force in 2015,” p. 12. 

9. Ulmer, p. 55.

10. Bernard Bass and B. Avolio, “Platoon Readiness as a Function of Leadership, and Platoon and Company 

Cultures,” U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Sciences, March 31, 2000, p. 62.

11. R. Isaac, “Organizational Culture: Some New Perspectives,” in Handbook of Organizational Behavior, R. T. 

Golembiewski, ed., New York: Marcel Dekker Inc, 1993, p. 99.

12. Marie Griffin, “Job Satisfaction Among Detention Officers: Assessing the Relative Contribution of Organizational 

Climate Variables,” Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 21, 2001, p. 220.

13. Walter Ulmer, “Notes on Leadership for the 1980s,” Military Review, reprint from July 1980, January-February 

1997, p. 77.

14. Summarized from R. Isaac.
31

15. J. Collins and T. Jacobs, “Trust in the Profession of Arms” in The Future of the Army Profession, Don Snider, Gayle 

Watkins, and Lloyd Matthews, eds., Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 2002, p. 468.

16. L. James, “Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, 1982, p. 

219.

17. Isaac, p. 96.

18. M. Patterson, R. Payne, and M. West, “Collective Climates: A Test of Their Socio-psychological Significance,” 

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, December 1996, p. 1676.

19. Griffin, p. 222.

20. Daniel Denison, “What Is the Difference Between Organizational Culture and Organizational Climate?” The 

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, July 1996, p. 638.

21. Walter Ulmer, “Creating and Assessing Productive Organizational Climates,” Army War College Course 

Handout, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2002, p. 1.

22. P. Kangis, D. Gordon, and S. Williams, “Organizational Climate and Corporate Performance: An Empirical 

Investigation,” Management Decision, Vol. 38, 2000, p. 536.

23. Anonymous, “What Makes A Company Great,” Fortune, October 26, 1998, p. 218.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., p. 219.

26. Bass, p. 3.

27. Ibid., p. 62.

28. Nick Jans, The Real C-Cubed: Culture, Careers, and Climate, Australian National University: Strategic Defence 

Studies Center, 2002, p. 111.

29. Ibid., p. 112.

30. Owen Jacobs, “RE: Climate & Culture,” electronic mail message to Steven Jones, November 10, 2002. 

31. L. Stabb, Transforming Army Leadership―The Key to Officer Retention, Strategic Research Project, Carlisle, PA: U.S. 

Army War College, April 2001, p. 17.

32. Wall, p. 16. 

33. Ulmer, “Leaders, Managers, and Command Climate,” p. 54.

34. Ann Butcher, “Supervisors Matter More Than You Think: Components of a Mission-centered Organizational 

Climate,” Hospital and Health Science Administrator, Vol. 39, Winter 1994, p. 9.

35. Ronald Downey, “Development of a Measure of Army Leadership Climate: The Military Behavior Survey,” US 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Sciences, December 1974, p. 67.

36. Roderick Magee, “Strategic Leadership Primer,” Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, Department of Command, 

Leadership, and Management, 1998, p. 33. 

37. Ulmer, “Leaders, Managers, and Command Climate,” p. 54.
32

38. Bass, p. 18.

39. Marcia Whicker, Toxic Leaders, West Port, CT: Quorum Books, 1996, p. 165.

40. FM 22-100, Army Leadership,Washington, DC: Department of the Army, August 1999, p. 3-2.

41. Lloyd, p. 69.

42. Whicker, p. 15.

43. Joseph LeBoeuf, Feedback: A Critical Leadership Resource, Strategic Research Project, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War 

College, April 1997, p. 17.

44. Jans, p. 118.

45. Department of the Army, “The Army Training and Leader Development Panel Officer Study Report to the 

Army,” Washington, DC: Department of the Army, May 2001, pp. ES-8 to ES-9.

46. Jans, p. 118. 

47. Ibid.

48. This conclusion was universally held among Army War College Strategic Research Papers cited in this paper, as 

well as among the 2003 Army War College colleagues informally solicited.

49. This analogy was derived from Patricia McLagan’s provocative use of the symbol that “leadership for the future 

is no longer a position located at the top of an organizational pyramid,” presented in Patricia McLagan and Nel Christo, 

The Age of Participation, San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Hoehler, 1995. 

50. Butcher, p. 9.

51. J. Moilanen and D. Craig, “Leader Development in a Transforming Army,” Military Review, Vol. 80, May-June 

2000, p. 13.

52. “Objective Force of 2015,” p. 9.

53. Brigadier General John D. Gardner, TRADOC, in a forum with Army War College students, Carlisle, PA, 

February 11, 2003, cited with permission of General Gardner.

54. Theodore Stroup, “Actions Speak Louder Than Words,” Military Review, Vol. 19, January-February 1996, p. 46.

55. Summarized from a chronology of events presented by J. Nave, “Gauging Organizational Climate,” Management 

Solutions, Vol. 31, June 1986, pp. 14-19. 

56. DA Pamphlet 600-69, Unit Climate Profile Commander’s Handbook, Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 

October 1986. 

57. Ibid., p. 1.

58. Ibid. Refers to Question 3 of the UCP.

59. Isaac, p. 92.

60. Office of the Inspector General, Department of the Army, “DCST/Individual Training Directorate Climate 

Survey,” Fort Monroe, VA, April 2001. 

61. Summarized from “Command Climate Survey,” Army, Vol. 48, March 1998.
33

62. Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy, Washington, DC: Department of the Army, May 13, 2002, p. 74.

63. Summarized from “Command Climate Survey and Training,” undated, U.S. Army Research Institute for 

Behavioral Sciences, available from http://www.ari.army.mil/ari-web/surveys/command climate; Internet, accessed October 25, 

2002.

64. The Office of the Army G1 website is located at http://www.odcsper.army.mil; Internet, accessed October 22, 2002.

65. ARI “Command Climate Survey and Training,” p. 5.

66. Ibid.

67. George Henderson, Human Relations in the Military, Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1975, p. 44.

68. Stephen Knouse, “Diversity, Organizational Factors, Group Effectiveness and Total Quality: An Analysis of Relationships 

in the MEOSC-EEO Test, Version 3.1,” Technical Manual, Washington, DC: Defense Equal Opportunity Management 

Institute, 1996, p. 5.

69. Ibid., p. 8.

70. FM 22-100, p. D-3.

71. Timothy Reese, Transforming the Officer Evaluation System: Using a 360-degree Feedback Model, Strategic Research 

Project, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, April 2002, p. 9.

72. FM 22-100, p. 1-4.

73. Thomas Weafer, Averting the Train Wreck of Captain Attrition―A Leadership Solution, Strategic Research Project, 

Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, April 2001, p. 10.

74. FM 22-100 defines leadership effectiveness in terms of 21 dimensions described in detail in Chapter 2.

75. An informal verbal survey was taken of 22 senior Army officers participating in an Army War College elective 

seminar. There was universal agreement that, in practice, the OER’s organizationally-related dimensions are viewed 

as unimportant relative to the mission accomplishment-related dimensions. While hardly scientific, such a finding is 

provocative and likely to be indicative of a widespread perception.

76. Reese, p. 9.

77. Ibid., p. 5.

78. O. West, “You Can’t Fool the Troops,” Proceedings, September 1998, p. 53.

79. T. Hamnes, “Time for a 360,” Marine Corps Gazette, 1986, p. 49. 

80. Ibid.

81. West, p. 54.

82. Reese, p. 9.

83. Hamnes, p. 50.

84. Walter Ulmer, “Military Leadership into the 21st Century: Another Bridge Too Far?” Parameters, Vol. 28, Spring 

1998, p. 12.

85. West, p. 53. 
34

86. Ibid., p. 54.

87. Department of the Army, “Study on Military Professionalism,” Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, June 1970, p. 13. 

88. Ibid., p. 25.

89. ATLDP, p. ES-8. 

90. Ibid., p. ES-9.

91. Ibid., p. ES-2. 

92. Ibid.

93. Ibid., p. ES-9.

94. Peter Varljen, “Leadership: More than Mission-Accomplishment,” Strategic Research Project, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army 

War College, April 2001, p. 1. 

95. These trends represent common outcomes associated with the recommendations emerging from the following 

major Army studies conducted since 1970. See “Study on Military Professionalism,” 1970; CONARC Leadership Board, 

1970; “Follow-up on Military Professionalism Study,” 1971; “DOD Study of Active Duty Personnel,” 1999; “Army 

Training and Leader Development Panel Study of Officers,” 2000; “American Military Culture in the 21st Century” Study, 

2000; and the “Army Training and Leader Development Panel Study of Warrant Officers,” 2001.

96. Weafer, p. 11.

97. Conclusions drawn from study trends; see Endnote 91, above. 

98. Summarized from conclusions of Sosik, Potosky, and Jung, “Adaptive Self-Regulation: Meeting Others’ 

Expectations of Leadership Performance,” Journal of Social Psychology, April 2002. 

99. Albeit nonscientific, a sizable and semi-random sample of Army War College students were polarized viscerally 

when queried about introducing multi-rater feedback into a military chain of command. While a clear majority supported 

the notion, several students had concerns about implementation and consequences.

100. Weafer, p. 23. 

101. Ibid.

102. Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline, New York: Doubleday, 1990, p. 245.

103. Ulmer, “Leaders, Managers, and Command Climate,” p. 55.

104. Senge, p. 247. 

105. Bass, p. 19.

106. Senge, p. 171.

107. FM 3-0, p. 5-12.

108. Varljen, p. 1. 

109. Moilanen, p. 4. 

110. Salam, “In the Eyes of the Beholder: How Leadership Relates to 360-Degree Performance Ratings,” Group and 
35

Organizational Management, Vol. 22, June 1997, p. 185. 

111. Ibid., pp. 188-189.

112. Shir Bibchik, “Are You the Problem?” Hospitals and Health Networks, Vol. 76, May 2002, p. 42. 

113. Ibid., p. 39.

114. Marvin Shaw and Philip Costanzo, Theories of Social Psychology, 2d Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982, p. 255. 

For additional insight about the perceptual biases, refer to Jones and Nisbett, 1972, in the Social Psychology literature.

115. Jans, p. 109.

116. R. Brickley, “Key to Becoming CEO of Your Business: Agent, Know Thyself,” National Underwriter, Vol. 103, 

October 25, 1999, p. 17.

117. M. Ernsberger, “Leadership: It is Not For the Faint of Heart,” Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 66, June 1, 2000, p. 

509.

118. LeBoeuf, p. iii. 

119. Ibid, p. 13.

120. Matthew Karres and Michael Richardson, “Innovation from Below: The Role of Subordinate Feedback in 

Irregular Warfare Operations,” Unpublished Masters Thesis, Monterey, CA: U.S. Naval Post-graduate School, June 2001, 

p. 78.

121. Ulmer, “Leaders, Managers, and Command Climate,” p. 54.

122. ATLDP, p. 1.

123. Summarized from C. Fletcher and C. Baldry, “A Study of Individual Differences and Self-awareness in the 

Context of Multi-source Feedback,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73, September 2000, p. 304. 

124. Ibid.

125. Ibid.

126. William Steele and Robert Walters, “21st Century Leadership Competencies,” Army, August 2001, p. 3.

127. Reese, p. 6.

128. Summarized from R. Kaplan and C. Palus, Enhancing 360-Degree Feedback for Senior Executives, Greensboro, NC: 

Center for Creative Leadership, 1994. 

129. Reese, p. 5.

130. Jacobs, November 10, 2002.

131. G. Bader and A. Bloom, “How to Do a Peer Review,” Training and Development, Vol. 48, July 1994, p. 62.

132. Ibid. 

133. Stabb, p. 20.

134. M. Galloucis, “Is It Time For a 360-degree Officer Evaluation System?” Army, Vol. 51, November 2001, p. 49. 
36

135. Major General John Faith, in a forum with Army War College students, Carlisle, PA, October 16, 2002, cited with 

permission of General Faith.

136. Jacobs, November 10, 2002.

137. Summarized from Major General John Faith, “The Over-controlling Leader: The Issue Is Trust,” Army, June 1997. 

138. ATLDP, p. 2.

139. Faith, “The Over-controlling Leader,” p. 11. 

140. Wesley Clark, “Implementing Needed Change-Reforms to Structure and Process,” in National Strategies and 

Capabilities for a Changing World, Washington, DC: Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, 2000, p. 72.

141. Stabb, p. 18.

142. Michael Zey, The Mentor Connection, New Brunswick, Canada: Transaction Publishing, 1991, p. 214. 

143. Dennis Reimer, in a forum with Army War College students, Carlisle, PA, November 7, 2002, cited with 

permission of General Reimer.

144. “Leadership Self-development: Abilities,” U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences, 

available at http://www.ari.army.mil/lsd2/abilities/design.htm; Internet, assessed October 24, 2002.

145. D. Bushnell, “360s Offer Managers Views From Outside,” Boston Globe, August 4, 2002, sec. G1.

146. C. Savage, “Executive Coaching: Professional Self-care for Nursing Leaders,” Nursing Economies, Vol. 19, JulyAugust 2001, p. 182.

147. K. Parry, T. Proctor, and S. Thompson, “Perceived Integrity of Transformational Leaders in Organizational 

Settings,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 35, January 2002, p. 82.

148. B. Rosner, “The Rewards, and Risks, of Bold HR,” Workforce, Vol. 80, January 2001, p. 71. 

149. Alan Church and D. Bracken, “Advancing the State of the Art of 360-degree Feedback,” Group and Organizational 

Management, Vol. 22, June 1997, p. 152. 

150. Office of the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, “Forging a New Army,” in Certain Victory: The US Army in the Gulf 

War, Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1993, p. 357. 

151. Lee Smith, “New Ideas from the Army, Really,” Fortune, Vol. 130, September 19, 1994, p. 204.

152. FM 22-100, pp. 6-26, 6-27.

153. Coates, p. 72.

154. Jans, p. 118.

155. W. Goff, “Managing Field Organizations For Outstanding Results,” National Underwriter, Vol. 103, August 16, 

1999, p. 29. 

156. M. Hemingway and Carla Smith, “Organizational Climate and Occupational Stressors as Predictors of 

Withdrawal Behaviors and Injuries in Nurses,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, September 

1999, p. 296.

157. J. Rovero and R. Bullis, “Assessing Self-Development,” Military Review, Vol. 78, January-February 1998, p. 38.

158. Ibid.
37

159. Varljen, p. 2.

160. These questions emerged from discussion with Colonel Cortez Dial, U.S. Army War College faculty. He 

recognized that when leading, mission accomplishment representing all members of the team is almost always superior in 

the long run to mission accomplishment representing only a few team members. 

161. Bushnell, p. G1. 

162. Ibid.

163. Galloucis, p. 49.

164. Ibid.

165. ATLDP, p. OS-21.

166. Tammy Galvin, “Birds of a Feather,” Training, Vol. 38, March 2001, p. 59. 

167. West, p. 53. 

168. Ibid., p. 54.

169. “Diagnosing Learning Needs,” U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences, available from 

http://www.ari.army.mil/lsd2/abilities/diagnose.htm; Internet, accessed October 24, 2002, p. 2.

170. Henderson, p. 9.

171. Salam, p. 195. 

172. Hamnes, p. 50.

173. Galloucis, p. 50. 

174. Gary Yukl, Leadership In Organizations, 2d Ed., Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1989, p. 223.

175. Eric Shinseki, “CSA Vision Statement,” Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1999.

176. Dennis Reimer, in a forum with U.S. Army War College students, Carlisle, PA, November 7, 2002, cited with 

permission from General Reimer.

177. Dennis Coates, “Don’t Tie 360-Feedback to Pay,” Training, Vol. 35, September 1998, p. 72.

178. Bob Wall, Robert Solum, and M. Sobol, The Visionary Leader, Rocklin, CA: Prima, 1992, p. 20.

179. Sullivan, p. 237.

180. Summarized from S. Hicks, “What is Organizational Development?” Training and Development, Vol. 54, August 

2000. 

181. Varljen, p. 17. 

182. These seminal concepts are presented by Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass, 1997.

183. A. Steinberg, M. Peterson, and S. Fisher, “How Army Research Institute Surveys Support Army 

Transformation,” Army AL&T, July-August 2002, p. 19.
38

184. Jans, p. 108.

185. Ibid., p. 112.

186. Steinberg, p. 20. 

187. Ulmer, “Creating and Assessing Productive Organizational Climates,” p. 2.

188. W. Johnson, A. Johnson, D. Kranch and K. Zimmerman, “The Development of a University Version of the 

Charles F. Kettering Climate Scale,” Education and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 59, April 1999, p. 337.

189. Summarized from Steinberg, et al., p. 19. 

190. Coates, p. 73.

191. Center for Strategic and International Studies, “American Military Culture in the Twenty-First Century,” 

Washington, DC: CSIS Press, February 2000, p. 79.

192. Ibid.

193. Jans, p. 107.

194. Eric Shinseki, “CSA Sends-OER,” Message from Department of the Army, Washington, DC: Department of the 

Army, November 20, 2000. 

195. Weafer, p. 11.

196. Major General John Faith, in a forum with U.S. Army War College students, Carlisle, PA, October 16, 2002, cited 

with permission of General Faith. 

197. Faith, “The Over-controlling Leader,” p. 12.

198. Savage, p. 181.

199. Jon Moilanen, “Leader Competency and Army Readiness,” Military Review, Vol. 82, July-August 2002, p. 62.

200. Ibid., p. 78.

201. The importance of coaching, and general information about General Patton’s commitment to the development of 

junior officers, are well-presented in Roger Nye’s, The Patton Mind: The Professional Development of an Extraordinary Leader, 

Garden City Park: Avery, 1993.

202. Weafer, p. 15. 

203. R. Miles, Leading Corporate Transformation: A Blueprint for Business Renewel, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997, p. 16.

204. Savage, p. 179. 

205. Salam, p. 196.

206. Coates, p. 73. 

207. Church, p. 150.

208. Ibid.

209. Summary of conclusions drawn from T. Shore, L. McFarlane, and G. Thornton, “Construct Validity of Self and 
39

Peer Evaluations of Performance Dimensions in an Assessment Center,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, February 

1992.

210. Bushnell, p. G1.

211. J. Conger and K. Xin, “Executive Education in the 21st Century,” Journal of Management Education, Vol. 24, 

February 2000, p. 79.

212. Ibid., p. 78.

213. Ibid. 

214. Bilchik, p. 42.

215. Derived from the conclusions of L. Wah, “Managing-manipulating? Your Reputation,” Management Review, Vol. 

87, October 1998. 

216. Ibid., p. 50. 

217. D. Edwards, “Examining Employees From All Angles: The 360-degree Evaluation,” Behavioral Health 

Management, July-August 2001, p. 61.

218. Derived from conclusions drawn by O. Persons, “Factors Influencing Students’ Peer Evaluations in Cooperative 

Learning,” Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 73, March-April 1998. 

219. Derived from empirical results of W. Sherrad, W. Raafat, and R. Weaver, “An Empirical Study of Peer Bias in 

Evaluations,” Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 70, September 1994. 

220. Self-serving biases are human nature, a means for protecting one’s self-image and maintaining self-esteem. It 

should be noted that, although not well-established in the literature, there also seems to be an effect whereby leaders 

systematically underrate themselves. This may be an attempt to exaggerate humility, avoid perceptions of conceit, 

or hedge bets for the sake of conservatism. Whatever the biases, lower or higher, the fact that leader ratings are 

systematically skewed is the issue here. For additional information about self-promoting biases, see Shaw and Costanzo, 

pp. 253-255. 

221. Brigadier General E. Harrington, “Director’s Update on 360-degree Assessment,” Defense Contract Management 

Agency, September 2002, available at http://www.dcma.mil/communication/Directors; Internet, accessed September 27, 2002. 

222. Lieutenant General John LeMoyne, Army G-1, in an address to the U.S. Army War College Class of 2003, 

Carlisle, PA, November 1, 2002, cited with permission of General LeMoyne. 

223. This conclusion is attributable to Dr. Craig Bullis, who conducted research regarding the use of 360-degree 

feedback in Army organizations on behalf of the Center for Army Leadership in 1998.

224. Jacobs, November 10, 2002.

225. LeMoyne, November 1, 2002.

226. General Dennis Reimer, in a forum with U.S. Army War College students, Carlisle, PA, November 7, 2002, cited 

with permission of General Reimer.

227. S. Wimer and K. Novack, “13 Common Mistakes Using 360-degree Feedback,” Training and Development, Vol. 52, 

May 1998, p. 72.

228. For additional information about social comparison theory, see any social psychology text; or Shaw and 

Costanzo, pp. 259-269.
40

229. B. Jones, “How’m I Doin?” Management Review, Vol. 86, May 1997, p. 10.

230. Ibid., p. 73.

231. Ibid., p. 76.

232. Jans, p. 117. 

233. Moilanen, p. 57. 

234. Ibid., p. 60.

235. Smith, p. 208.

236. Ulmer, “Notes on Leadership for the 1980s,” p. 77. 
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE

Major General David H. Huntoon, Jr.

Commandant

*****

STRATEGIC STUDIES INSTITUTE

Director

Professor Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr.

Director of Research

Dr. Steven Metz

Author

Colonel Steven M. Jones

Director of Publications

Ms. Marianne P. Cowling

Publications Assistant

Ms. Rita A. Rummel

*****

Composition

Ms. Gretchen S. Smith