Colloquium Brief

U.S. Army War College and

Bush School of Government and Public 

 Service, and

 Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs 

 at Texas A&M University

LEADERSHIP AND NATIONAL SECURITY REFORM

Dr. Joseph R. Cerami

The Bush School of Government and Public Service

Dr. Jeffrey A. Engel

The Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs

Ms. Lindsey K. Pavelka

The Bush School of Government and Public Service

KEY INSIGHTS:

	 •	 Graduate programs in policy schools of public and international affairs are paying increasing attention to the study of leadership

and the development of leaders for public service careers. Policy schools at the University of Virginia, Harvard University, and

Texas A&M University are finding new ways to educate future leaders; promote interdisciplinary leadership research; and provide

a foundation of knowledge and skills for the next generation of government reformers.

	 •	 Despite such advances in leadership studies, more remains to be done to improve the ethical education of current and future

leaders.

	 •	 Further attention should also be paid to the interpersonal and group dynamics of leaders at the nation’s highest levels, including the

president and his/her upper echelon national security team. While large scale, “whole of government” reform is desired by many

scholars and contemporary students of national security policy, the majority of conference panelists expect only incremental change

absent a new crisis on the order of the Cold War or the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

	 •	 Reforms enacted since those 2001 attacks have made significant improvements in the nation’s security apparatus from its Cold

War framework, but panelists agree more still must be done to further improve homeland security, intelligence sharing, and

counterintelligence coordination, without simultaneously hindering civil liberties protections for citizens.

	 •	 Advances in information technology offer tremendous opportunity for further integration of the nation’s intelligence community,

and similar effort should be made to increase coordination between homeland security operatives at the local, state, and federal

level, while paying due attention to the increasing role of cyber security; environmental concerns; and economics, trade, and

development.

	 •	 The panelists concur that reform should not be politicized. Past experience shows that changes typically occur not with the aid of

foresight, but rather in rash response to a new, unforeseen threat. The Cold War and 9/11 offer two examples of mass restructuring

of the national security system, with subsequent improvements at a slower pace. Partisanship in this realm can only lead to hasty

results, of the kind unlikely to prevent future attacks; indeed, it is only in the spirit of nonpartisanship in security affairs that true

reform might withstand the knee-jerk desire to enact immediate reform in the aftermath of a new attack.

	 •	 Reform is best done strategically, progressively, and through leadership that combines expertise and experience with a spirit of

change.

Visit our website for other free publication

downloads

http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/

To rate this publication click here.
2

Introduction.

	 On June 24, 2009, the Bush School of Government and Public Service, the Scowcroft Institute

of International Affairs at Texas A&M University,

and the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies

Institute conducted a Washington, DC, conference

onLeadershipandGovernmentReform.Twopanels

discussed “Leader Development in Schools of

Public Affairs” and “Leadership, National Security,

and ‘Whole of Government’ Reforms.”

	 The conference theme focused on the need

for significant changes in leader development

and government reform—even more than the

post-World War II changes accomplished by the

National Security Act of 1947 and the GoldwaterNichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act

of 1986—to improve the alignment, coordination,

integration, and interoperability among largely

autonomous U.S. Government agencies. The two

conference panels were challenged to discuss

leadership in a broader sense rather than focusing

solely at the top, or on presidential leadership. The

aim was to think more generally about reformminded leadership from the top, middle, and entry

levels, in order to better prepare the nation for the

new security challenges of this still-young 21st

century.

Panel 1: Leader Development in Schools of 

Public Affairs. 

	 Panel 1 includedfourindividuals who aredeeply

concerned with education, leader development,

public policy, international affairs, and ethics. Their

publications, teaching and—very importantly—

theirinstitutions are all committed to promoting the

cause of student development and public service.

	 In introducing the first panel, Dr. Joseph

Cerami commented on the Bush School’s approach

to leader development for a graduate school of

public and international affairs. One guiding idea

is that leadership education is integrated into the

2-year program and not viewed as a stand-alone

activity. The Bush School’s curriculum supports

student efforts in individual learning and leader

development, andrecommends that studentsdesign

their coursework to provide a base of knowledge

and skills as a foundation for their desired career

paths. The students’ final, second year, core course

is a team-based capstone research project under

faculty direction for a real-world client. The Bush

School also emphasizes two additional layers of

leadership development: first, experiential learning

through leadership positions in the student government association, public service organizations,

intramurals, internships, and community service;

and second, personal development or self-study.

The program includes an assessment center and

menu of tools for improving self-awareness including online assessments of personality profiles,

individual learning styles, a personal assessment of

management skills, personal values assessments,

and emotional intelligence.

	 Dr. Eric Patashnik has written extensively

on government reform, performance, and public

administration and management. Dr. Patashnik

discussed his work as Associate Director in

establishing the Batten School of Leadership and

Public Policy at the University of Virginia. In the

course of the Batten School’s dean search, Dr.

Patashnik compiled a list of ideas their finalists

shared about the need for integrating leadership

and public policy. Those ideas emphasized efforts

to:

	 •	 Feature courses that bring together leadership and public policy through successful and failed

cases of change management and innovation.

	 •	 Emphasize leadership across policy networks.

	 •	 Understand a variety of leadership roles,

along with the significance of context and leading

at different organizational levels.

	 •	 Focus on leadership successes rather than

just distilling lessons from failures.

	 •	 Teach followership skill, emphasizing listening, feedback, and challenging behaviors.

	 •	 Think about leadership in a number of

courses, not just one course, and weave leadership

studies throughout the curriculum.

	 •	 Break down the concept of leadership

into discrete, teachable skills (speaking, writing,

missions, crisis, negotiations, etc.).

	 •	 Recognize differences in backgrounds of

students by differentiating the curriculum.

	 •	 Reimagine the field of leadership by engaging with other social science disciplines.

	 •	 Consider leadership in student admissions
3

selection criteria.

	 •	 Define leadership broadly so all faculty and

students can see their connections to the field.

	 Dr. Todd Pittinsky is the Research Director

for Harvard Kennedy School’s Center for Public

Leadership (CPL). Its webpage notes that their

Center is “dedicated to excellence in leadership

education and research...by creating opportunities

for reflection and discovery for students, scholars,

and practitioners from different disciplines, sectors,

cultures, and nations that promotes a dynamic

exchange of ideas.” Dr. Pittinsky introduced

his research on leading across boundaries and

intergroup leadership. He suggested that by focusing on collective identity, taking a group of different

individuals and finding commonalities between

them, groups will discover ways to integrate their

strengths rather than solely focusing on who they

are as individuals.

	 The fourth panelist was Dr. Joel Rosenthal of

the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International

Affairs. The Carnegie Council has been hosting U.S.

Army War College small group visits to CarnegieNew York, and conducts faculty workshops there

on Humanitarian Interventions and other topics

regarding the military, international affairs, and

ethical leadership. As their webpage says, “The

Carnegie Council is the world’s leading voice

promoting ethical leadership on issues of war,

peace and global social justice.” Rosenthal explored

the connection between ethics and leadership,

suggesting that there is a need for schools of public

affairs to follow the lead of other professional

schools, like business, medicine, etc., who offer

separate courses on ethics. Referring to a previous

panelist’s comments and the Bush School’s mission

of preparing principled leaders,Dr.Rosenthal posed

the question, “What is Principled Leadership?” He

suggested three ideas at its core: (1) pluralism, an

appreciation for diversity while exercising what

is common in the human condition; (2) principles

of rights, what he referred to as the “rock bottom

moral argument”; and (3) fairness. In summary,

Dr. Rosenthal emphasized the importance and

moral obligation we have to continuously discuss

and study ethics, which he suggests should be seen

as “the rudder and keel—the things that keep one

moving forward and in the right direction.”

Panel 2: Leadership, National Security, and 

Whole of Government Reforms.

	 The second panel, chaired by the Interim

Director of the Scowcroft Institute of International

Affairs, Dr. Jeffrey A. Engel, explored the role of

leadership and “whole of government” reform in

national security. Surely there has been no lack of

attention to government reform since 9/11, and

indeed since the end of the Cold War that preceded

it. The current Obama administration made national

security reform, both in tone and in practice, one of

the signatures of its electoral campaign. As several

speakers noted, however, such an emphasis on

reform was intended more for public consumption

thanforbureaucratic reorganization,whichishardly

a new phenomenon in American electoral politics.

The panelists charged with addressing this vital

topic of national security reform included academics, practitioners, historians, and contemporary

policy analysts.

	 The panel began with Mr. Geoffrey French,

Analytic Director of Security Risk for CENTRA

Technology, Inc., a leading contractor in the area

of homeland security and risk analysis for the U.S.

Government, in particular for the Departments of

HomelandSecurity,Defense,andtheFederalBureau

of Investigation. Mr. French opened the discussion

of leadership, national security, and government

reform by focusing on homeland security and

intelligence. In particular, he emphasized the need

to consolidate current forums and functions and

avoid duplicating mechanisms for information

sharing. He suggested focusing on fusion centers as

the forum for information exchange and the need

for common terminology to connect homeland

security and intelligence agencies. In concluding his

arguments, Mr. French emphasized the notion that

if homeland security intelligence exists, then the

nation should also improve its homeland security

counterintelligence.

	 The next speaker, Dr. James Goldgeier of the

George Washington University’s Elliot School of

International Affairs and the Council on Foreign

Relations, addressed the role of ideology and

worldview in shaping American foreign policy since

the end of the Cold War. He also discussed the way

that worldview in turn framed the range of possible

avenues of reform for the Clinton, George W. Bush,
4

and now Obama administrations. Dr. Goldgeier’s

comments on international security were supported

by his recent research focus on the transition from

the end of the Cold War into the post-Cold War

periods. In particular, he mentioned contending

ideas on America’s post-Cold War role. Examples

included the debate between the 1992 draft Defense

Planning Guidance of Cheney andWolfowitz versus

the January 1993 State Department document by

Secretary Eagleburger about the significance of the

global economy and the need to develop a National

Economic Council to complement the work of

the National Security Council. Dr. Goldgeier

also addressed the need for training public and

international affairs professionals in the new forces

at work in economics, energy, and cyber policy

areas.

	 Dr. Richard Immerman of Temple University,

and more recently of the Directorate of National

Intelligence, spoke concerning the myriad ways

academic and intellectually-informed ideas about

how reform within the intelligence community (in

particular following 9/11 and the Iraq War) did or

did not succeed in practice. His lesson: given that

reformishard,evenforthemostwell-intentioned,we

should be giving more attention to current history to

critically examine the details of intelligence reform.

He provided a narrative on what he evaluates as an

important reform effort undertaken by the Director

of National Intelligence. Immerman focused on

institutional initiatives. In particular, he shared the

significance of the initiatives by Tom Fingars of the

Directorate of National Intelligence who challenged

the intelligence analytical community to reform,

embrace change, and lead the development of a

community of intelligence analysts.

	 Dr. Andrew Preston of Cambridge University

concluded the panel. As a leading historian of

the McGeorge Bundy era at the National Security

Council andthusofreforms inthe transitionbetween

the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, Dr.

Preston is uniquely positioned to comment on the

similarity ofreformist impulses now and in the past.

His conclusion: a more recent perspective on reform,

specifically, that orchestrated by Brent Scowcroft

during his second term as National Security

Adviser (under George H. W. Bush), provides the

real model from which other reformers might best

learn. While not commenting on the relative policy

effectiveness of recent administrations, Dr. Preston

emphasized how in a functional and organizational

sense the current national security councils have

for the most part been strikingly similar to that

of Bundy’s National Security Council during the

Kennedy administration, which he believes “got it

right.” He identified the key Bundy innovation as

being the significance of the presidential advisory

role (in addition to managing the national security

policy process). Dr. Preston also recognized the

Bundy approach of the National Security Council

operating like a small State Department, a practice

perfected by Scowcroft, who Dr. Preston assesses

as “unquestionably” the most effective national

security advisor in U.S. history.

	 Taken as a whole, these panels demonstrate

the need for government reform in the area of

national security, but simultaneously the need

to include further emphasis on leadership and

leader development—especially in areas such as

economics, information sharing, and ethics—for

any reform to have true meaning. While the weight

and size of national security programs naturally

compel critiques, no thoughtful observer disputes

the necessity for reform of the national security

apparatus. Yet by and large America’s post 9/11

security agencies and institutions retain their Cold

War design. The National Security Act of 1947

remains, even after the Cold War, the defining

charter of the nation’s security system. A new

era of reform is needed for this new age, and the

panelists, in their detailed remarks and forthcoming

papers, offered a litany of concrete and theoretical

suggestions for melding the nation’s security needs

to its 21st century threats, while simultaneously

developing the kind of effective and ethical leaders

necessary to create a 21st century national security

system.

*****

	 The views expressed in this brief are those of the authors

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 colloquium brief is cleared for

public release; distribution is unlimited.

*****

	 More information on the Strategic Studies Institute’s

programs may be found on the Institute’s homepage at

www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil.