Download PDF

While the national security community has consistently faced significant unknowns, disruptions, and wicked problems with no known solutions, today’s leaders must operate in a world unlike anything anyone has ever experienced. Joint force senior leaders must clearly see the right direction to move out courageously, even when shrouded in a dense fog of uncertainty. Meeting America’s enormous global challenges requires Department of Defense (DOD), joint force, and defense industry senior leaders and executives who are bold, visionary, and strategic.

America’s Extraordinary Political-Military Challenges

America is facing a seismic shift in the national security environment. Not since the Korean War has the United States faced simultaneous confrontations from multiple formidable adversaries—China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Furthermore, the character of war has changed. With precision- strike weapons, the joint force is subject to short- to long-range “zero-miss” guided munitions. Moreover, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, transnational criminal organizations, and terrorists have developed heightened expertise in cyberspace that can disrupt America’s economy and infrastructure, joint force command and control, and all informational aspects of military activities.¹

While the joint force remains the strongest globally, a realistic view invites pessimism. The challenges to meeting the needs are substantial—outdated or obsolete hardware and software, inadequate funding, disruptive technology (artificial intelligence, machine learning, digital transformation), and difficulties in recruiting skilled personnel. Both allies and adversaries must perceive America’s joint force as credible. Otherwise, there is a potential increase in misunderstandings, missed signals, emboldened challenges, and, ultimately, armed conflict.

The Heritage Foundation’s 2024 Index of Military Strength reports that the current joint force is at significant risk. The Air Force is rated “very weak,” the Navy and Space Force “weak,” and the Army and the nuclear forces “marginal.” The Marine Corps is rated “strong,” but its strength is “not sufficient to compen- sate for the shortfalls of its larger fellow Services.”² Furthermore, support for war efforts in Israel and Ukraine is depleting the joint force’s military equipment and weapons stockpile.

According to the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) and the 2022 NDS, the joint force is moving on from conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq to focus on China and Russia. Then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated, “Without sustained and predictable investment to restore readiness and modernize our military to make it fit for our time, we will rapidly lose our military advantage, resulting in a joint force that has legacy systems irrelevant to the defense of our people.”³

The clarion call to reform is not new. For example, when General Joseph Dunford, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), delivered the commencement speech at the National Defense University’s 2016 graduation ceremony, he stated, “We’re already be- hind in adapting to the changed character of war today in so many ways.”⁴ In 2017, then Commandant of the Marine Corps General Robert Neller told Congress that the Marine Corps was not “organized, trained, and equipped to face a peer ad- versary in the year 2025.”⁵

Consequently, each of America’s military Services must focus on top-to- bottom transformation. As then Chief of Staff of the Air Force General C.Q. Brown, Jr., stated in August 2020, “We must accelerate change now! The consequences of failure, and success, are profound.”6 Likewise, General Philippe Lavigne of the French air force stated in 2023 that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had to reform.⁷

To meet today’s enormous political- military challenges, America needs DOD and joint force senior leaders who can exercise the bold, visionary, and strategic leadership essential for building a robust capability that contributes significantly to America’s survival and success. Making bold decisions is not “shooting from the hip.” Strong strategic leaders analyze available data and information, under- stand the significant risks and uncertainty in their decisionmaking process, and clearly envision where they want to lead the organization.

Seven Factors Stifling Effective Joint Force Senior Leadership

1. Unpreparedness for Strategic Senior Leadership. Regardless of their success at lower levels, many DOD, joint force, and defense industry leaders state that they were unprepared for senior leadership’s unique roles, responsibilities, and strategic challenges. For example, in 2018, McKinsey reported that 74 percent of U.S. senior leaders believed that they were unprepared for their senior-level roles.⁸ In 2021, DDI reported that only 28 percent of human resources professionals believed their organizations had high-quality leadership.⁹ Several joint force and other senior leaders I have talked with echo these results. Though they thought they were prepared, these leaders admitted they were not. This unpreparedness exists despite the plethora of advice at leaders’ fingertips as well as their participation in numerous development, academic, and executive leadership programs in public policy and government and attendance at professional military education (PME) institutions.

2. Insufficient PME Policies and Guidance. While PME programs are excellent in developing operational and tactical warfighting joint officers, most programs undervalue how leadership at the strategic level differs fundamentally from operational and tactical leadership. Furthermore, Secretary Mattis expressed concern in the 2018 NDS that “PME has stagnated, focused more on the accomplishment of mandatory credit at the expense of lethality and ingenuity.”¹⁰ In 2020, the Joint Staff directed PME to develop joint force officers who were competent in five broad areas, three of which were critical elements of strategic leadership—strategic, systems, and critical thinking; superb communication skills; and the ability to anticipate what is around the corner and ensure the joint force maintains strategic competitive advantage.¹¹ It also identified six Desired Leader Attributes—the knowledge and skill to:

• understand the security environment and contributions of all instruments of national power

• respond to surprise and uncertainty • recognize change and lead transitions

• operate on intent through trust, empowerment, and understanding (mission command)

• make ethical decisions based on shared values of the profession of arms

• think critically and strategically in applying joint warfighting principles and concepts to joint operations.

Regrettably, despite the updated guidance, PME for senior and general officers/flag officers often gives short shrift to the essential thinking, reasoning, and intuitive skills and abilities vital to the art and practice of strategic leadership.

3. Incorrect Strategic Leadership Development Mindset. Some on the Joint Staff and some PME faculty believe that proven leaders at the operational level do not require additional leadership development. This view leads to the belief that by taking courses in geopolitical areas and national security strategies and policies, these operational leaders will gain the essential strategic leadership insights through deduction. Individuals with this belief argue that because of their mandate to convey specialized knowledge and skills, they have insufficient time to convey the critical strategic leadership elements to their students.

4. Bureaucracy. DOD and other agency leaders initiating bold proposals must go through a gauntlet of approvals, of which only one “no” can kill the initiative. Moreover, two contributing factors are political appointees’ focus on achieving the administration’s agenda, not making the organization more efficient and effective, and senior executive service (SES) leaders stagnating in their current agency’s leadership positions.

5. Minimum Time Available to Execute Critical Transformational Change. With 4 or fewer years in tenure, DOD and joint force senior leaders must have a bold organizational vision before assuming their leadership positions. Implementing the myriad bold initiatives will take the first year and the next 3 years to sell the vision, get buy-in, and obtain or reprogram the necessary resources.

6. Arduous Acquisition Policies and Processes. Congress’s onerous funding policies and processes make it difficult for DOD and the joint force to maintain pace with, much less exceed, adversarial weapons innovation and modernization—adversaries do not have such obstacles.

7. Potential Backlash. Regardless of the merit, taking bold actions will increase the magnitude of the opposition and naysayers—especially those touting the status quo. Bold senior leaders getting out in front of others can risk receiving arrows in the back. For example, I recently witnessed excellent military senior leaders who took bold action to improve their respective unit’s capability be destroyed on social media.

Why Is Senior Leadership Different?

Operational leaders (lower level leaders) focus primarily on running the organization and achieving the mission through operational excellence and effectiveness. In contrast, senior strategic leaders must ensure their organization remains relevant and viable 3 to 20 years into the future. The senior leaders and executives I talked with spend 50 percent or more of their time looking outside their organization, attempting to make sense of what is happening and trying to see “what’s around the corner.” Even when looking internally, it is for an external purpose.

Internally, effective strategic leaders glide over their organizations like pelicans over the ocean, periodically diving to catch a fish. Successful senior leaders learn the essential things to watch for, and if they think something needs attention, they can dive down into the required level of detail. Unfortunately, many joint force senior leaders enjoy retreating to a previous lower level of leadership they are more comfortable with rather than doing the work needed at the strategic level.

Joint force, DOD, and defense industry senior leaders indirectly influence organizational members through offering directives and policies, shaping climate and culture, and supporting metrics and incentives. Other than direct reports, most of those they seek to influence are outside their authority—for example, peers, stakeholders, media, key constituents, Congress, partners, and others whose influence or actions (for or against) will determine their ability to accomplish desired outcomes. This requires joint force senior leaders to be skilled in person-to-person influence skills. Such social and emotional intelligence abilities are needed to deal persuasively and collegially with others and to negotiate constructively with near-equals who have both personal power and the ability to commit resources to achieve shared objectives.

Strategic decisions are often based on incomplete information, the ramifications of which may not be realized for many years. Consequently, both unknown factors and the factor of time are weighted more heavily in decisionmaking at the senior level. For example, the Secretary of the Navy decides to build an aircraft carrier that takes 8 to 10 years to build and costs billions of dollars. By the time it is built, the joint force must live with the decisions made a decade earlier.

Thus, while logical and analytical reasoning skills often work well in the structured, routine decisionmaking at the lower levels, joint force senior leaders’ judgments are usually made by informed intuition or gut instincts. As former CJCS General Richard Myers told me, “That’s why, when it comes down to it, most decisions at the senior level are made by informed intuition.”¹² In addition to critical warfighting knowledge and skills, effective joint force senior leaders require the following two competencies.

1. Skill in the Art and Practice of Strategic Leadership, Emphasizing Strategic and Systems Thinking. Recent CJCS direction and guidance underscore the importance of strategic leadership and its critical components of strategic and systems thinking. Joint force leaders and PME curriculum developers need help developing joint force strategic leaders. A key factor is that strategic thinking has become a buzzword. To assist decision- makers and curriculum developers, I offer the following eight-step strategic thinking framework to assist in understanding the involved factors.¹³

Step 1: Have an Open Mindset. This step is a prerequisite. Being open-minded means being willing to receive and consider new information and ideas. Joint force leaders will not maximize the other seven steps if they do not have an open mindset. Without an open mind, leaders will fall prey to the status quo. Being open-minded allows leaders to change their views based on new information and facts.

Step 2: Get Information. Scan and evaluate external and internal environments. In today’s volatile environment, the ability to anticipate the future and have that sixth sense that enables leaders to see around corners or have peripheral vision is crucial for the Nation, national security organizations, and suppliers to be viable. Gaining a cue from the external environment can alert leaders that something is amiss or surprising or is something to further explore.

Step 3: Connect the Dots. This step involves identifying patterns and sense-making. Yet, as demonstrated by the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the dramatic fall of the Afghan government to the Taliban, and the Hamas attack on Israel, a key challenge is to find the dots in the first place.

Step 4: Create Ideas. Creativity opens the thought process to new ideas. It is not simply looking for solutions to a challenge, opportunity, or problem—it is divergent thinking.

Step 5: Engage Intuition. Intuition is using mental models and frames of reference without thinking about them when seeking a solution or making a decision. In some cases, it provides immediate understanding without conscious rational processes. In other cases, it may be a slower process that can emerge as “aha!” revelations. Intuition usually occurs without any conscious analysis or supporting evidence. It is essential to joint force leader thinking and decisionmaking processes. Therefore, reflecting and taking steps to learn and grow will enhance the intuitive decisionmaking capacity by making it more informed.

Step 6: See the Whole. Systems thinking is essential. Joint force leaders must see the interconnected and interrelated whole, not just the parts. Such thinking enables leaders to synthesize seemingly disparate elements into a unified whole. Seeing the system’s interrelationships, linkages, patterns, and interactions enhances joint force leaders’ ability to solve vexing issues and problems. It allows them to identify potential unintended consequences and leverage points to influence the system in the desired direction.

Step 7: Perform Analysis—Critical Thinking and Developing Foresight. Through critical thinking, leaders bring the scanning and sense-making process to closure—it is convergent thinking. Using critical thinking, joint force leaders systematically analyze all the relevant information from their scanning, sense-making, and intuitive insights and reframe challenges and opportunities. Translating their sense-making judgment into fore- sight, joint force leaders can envision the problem, develop a range of options, prioritize, strategize, and make decisions.

Step 8: Make Decisions. After re- viewing the facts and conclusions of the strategic thinking process, leaders must challenge their assumptions and decide (or make a series of decisions). They ask questions such as, “How do the decisions we make today set us up for long-term success? Is this the correct approach to get where we need to go? Are we missing something?”

While the first step—having an open mindset—is critical, leaders will likely use the other seven steps in the strategic thinking process at various times. Acknowledging the critical necessity for joint force senior leaders to be adept at strategic and systems thinking is insufficient. New CJCS policy and guidance require PME students to know the mate- rial and demonstrate proficiency in using the knowledge and skills. Considering this guidance, curriculum developers and faculty should cover the above eight steps in depth with exercises, gaming, or simulations, enabling students to learn and employ these crucial thinking and practical action skills.

2. Essential Competencies for Joint Force Senior Leader. The list of leadership styles, behaviors, skills, and attributes associated with outstanding visionary leadership is extensive. The following seven competencies are vital for a leader’s quest to be bold, visionary, and strategic—especially when leading across boundaries.

• Leveraging Power and Politics: A senior leader’s competency in power and politics either enhances or detracts from his or her ability to influence others and perform the work required at the senior level. While the connotation of “playing politics” is usually pejorative, political skill can be essential to forging consensus or resolving competing values and propositions within strategy or decisionmaking processes. One DOD executive remarked, “If you do not understand power and are not politically savvy, you are dead as a senior leader. I see both power and politics as essential assets.”

• Building Coalitions, Selling Ideas, and Reducing Naysayer Influence: Critical elements of these skills are the ability to negotiate and communicate strategically. Most senior-level decisions result from some form of negotiation. Furthermore, buy-in and support for the leader’s decisions require consistent and effective strategic communications.

• Building and Nurturing Strategic Networks: Joint Force senior leaders must interface with and influence many constituents and stakeholders. Building and nurturing such networks will help inform leaders about what is happening in the external and internal environments. Leaders will hear various viewpoints and action plans that may be useful in developing strategies and objectives, identifying potential resources, and sorting out the political and power relationships and interests involved. A robust and effective strategic network is essential.

• Projecting Executive Presence: Through executive presence, joint force leaders exude self-confidence, communicate persuasively, and project a certain gravitas that instills confidence in others that they are reliable, capable leaders who can deliver.

• Having In-Depth Self-Awareness: Arguably the most essential ability and skill needed is in-depth self-awareness. It is the core of authenticity and enables joint force senior leaders to be comfortable with their strengths and not be crippled by their shortcomings. Self-awareness allows them to learn from mistakes and successes, facilitating continued learning and growth. Furthermore, leaders must have clarity about how their behaviors affect others.

• Being Tech-Savvy: Joint forces leaders do not have to be experts in the field. However, they must have sufficient knowledge and the ability to ask the right, in-depth questions to make excellent technological decisions.

• Nurturing Mind, Body, and Spirit: Dead joint force senior leaders are not in great demand. Senior-level leadership is very demanding, requiring great physical and emotional stamina. Former Army Chief of Staff General George Casey stated, “One of the toughest challenges for senior leaders is to sustain their physical, mental, and emotional fitness at levels that allow them to deal with the hugely complex challenges confronting them.” Moreover, managing personal time and energy and reflecting are the key to senior leaders’ resilience and mental toughness.

Making It Happen

The following recommendations have the power to help develop a bold, visionary, and strategic joint force senior leader. Current strategic leaders must:

• Create an organizational culture supporting and nurturing strategic and systems thinking processes. They should evaluate and improve processes for gathering information and connecting the dots to obtain reliable information.

• Make developing subordinate joint force senior leaders and aspiring senior leaders a top priority. Provide ongoing oversight to ensure PME efforts to develop joint force officers meet expected outcomes (that is, students are strategic and know what to do).

• Beware of biases and limitations, solicit other perspectives in thinking and decisionmaking, and expand exposure to other perspectives.

• Ensure that aspiring strategic leaders are afforded an educational system and dedicated strategic leadership curriculum and are incentivized to self-develop.

• Mandate that Federal Government SES members rotate positions every 3 to 4 years—preferably to different agencies as was envisioned when the SES program was initiated. Doing so expands SES members’ mindsets, encourages learning and growth, and prevents stagnation (being stuck in their comfort zones).

• Encourage high-potential joint force leaders’ self-development. Encourage attending a nonmilitary master’s program (in business administration, executive business administration, or government affairs) and a war college. Attending a nonmilitary institution opens the participants’ minds to different perspectives and enhances learning and growth.

• Institute effective screening and senior-level competency assessment processes at each war college to ensure that faculty and students live up to the words “proven elite leaders and faculties.” Attending a war college, the Foreign Service Institute, an executive MBA pro- gram, or a similar educational program significantly broadens a leader’s mindset and enhances cognitive and social capacity. What is needed is dedicated learning focused on the following:

• Leading at the senior level, which differs fundamentally from leading at the operational level.

• Being adept at strategic leadership and strengthening students’ capacity to think strategically and systematically.

• Building the climate and culture that support and nurture the scanning and sense-making processes.

• Developing strategies to avoid settling for the status quo—continually transforming the organization to be viable and effective and sustain competitive advantage in war and peace both today and in the future.

• Gaining in-depth self-awareness. Programs should include implementing an actionable personal leadership development plan for each participant. Faculty should periodically meet with each student to evaluate progress and provide necessary coaching.

• Integrating virtual reality and artificial intelligence–enhanced simulations and gaming into leadership development programs. Doing so allows participants to touch, taste, and feel experiences in a safe environment and practice different behaviors and approaches to decisionmaking.

• Becoming tech-savvy. PME faculty should help students dig deep into the latest and potential high-tech technologies that students must soon become advocates for.

• Asking guest senior leaders and executives to discuss candidly their views on strategic leadership, with particular emphasis on:

» the challenges of being strategic leaders » the extraordinary issues they face

» what they wish they had learned earlier in their career to prepare them for their current assignment » recommendations to help aspiring senior leaders prepare for the job.

• Creating incentives for current and aspiring senior leaders to continue self-development.

Promulgating policy statements such as “We must consistently prioritize continuous learning and professional development” becomes another cliché if not backed up with guidance and resources to make it happen.

Summarizing the need for dedicated focus and resources, Mike Harris, retired U.S. Army colonel and former National War College faculty member, states:

We need to accept that developing bold, strategic leaders requires a deliberate investment strategy of time, education, experience, and mentorship to influence, shape, and prepare leaders to succeed at the upper levels. Nominated senior leaders want to succeed. The people they lead want a competent leader. But I’m not seeing current government, business, and joint force executives matching their rhetoric for senior leader development to their policies, dedicated resources, and the assignment of top-notch faculty required to prepare aspiring and help current senior leaders succeed.

The AWC Approach

During my March 2024 presentations with Air War College (AWC) faculty and later to the AWC class of 2024, I became intrigued by and impressed with the AWC’s revamping of its strategic leadership curriculum. While the curriculum had introduced the importance of strategic thinking earlier in the academic year, students built on their experiences and expertise during the remaining 60 days. In addition to my presentation and readings on vision and leading change, some of the program elements included assessing and shaping organizational culture; advice, dissent, and the profession of arms; ethical leadership; senior leader responsibility and accountability; mission command; strategic communication; influence and negotiations; and crisis leadership.

What I found intriguing was the students’ required tasks. Because strategic leadership is emphasized at the end of the year, most already know their next assignment after graduation. With almost all military organizations undergoing reorganization and modernization, AWC tasked students to identify and analyze two significant challenges they believe their new organizations will face during their tenure and use strategic leadership course concepts to frame their analyses. The students must reach out to their future organizations and actively collaborate with their predecessors, future bosses, and other relevant personnel to identify their new organizations’ significant challenges. Less than 2 weeks later, they used their learned approaches for solving highly complex problems (including associated risks) to create a plan, strategy, and approach that enables their new organization to overcome the identified significant challenges. They provide their solutions orally and in writing, with their target audience being their new boss’s boss.

I suggest that AWC’s approach takes the concepts beyond the theoretical to the practical—that is, students can touch, taste, and feel what they learn. Students can see how warfighting and organizational leadership come together strategically. Such an educational practicum helps to set these students up for success in their postgraduation assignments. They can hit the ground running in their new leadership positions. Joint Staff J7 and AWC’s sister colleges should consider benchmarking the revamped curriculum and approach to maximizing the art and science of the student’s strategic leadership capacity.

All Military Services Must Transform

Beginning with the change in the 2018 NDS, each U.S. military Service recognized that major reorganization and weapons modernizations were required to sustain joint force competitive advantage. In February 2024, when announcing its Aviation Investment Rebalance, the Army stated that it “remains committed to its most ambitious modernization effort in more than 40 years.”¹⁴

On February 12, 2024, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall III announced sweeping changes for “reshaping, refocusing, and reoptimizing the Air Force and Space Force.” Secretary Kendall announced 24 key changes that feature both near- and longer term initiatives that focus on four core groupings—Develop People, Generate Readiness, Project Power, and Develop Capabilities.¹⁵ Included are the creation of a new Air Force Integrated Capabilities Command and a new Space Force Space Futures Command. Despite these strategic objectives, Congress has intervened, stating that “the Department of the Air Force has not provided thorough justification for this reorganization.” In response, retired Lieutenant General David Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, stated, “Congress is effectively meddling, which is likely to slow down needed changes and could add costs.”¹⁶ In 2021, the Navy Aviation 2030–2035 Vision stated, “Leadership must take bold action and make difficult choices to generate the change required to win across the spectrum of conflict. This will require a renewed focus on the capabilities, capacity, readiness, and training the Navy needs to improve and sustain our warfighting advantage.”¹⁷

What Does Bold, Visionary, and Strategic Leadership Look Like?

General David Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps from 2019 to 2023, is a shining example. For years there was talk that the Corps needed to change, but action was negligible. Because of 20 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, Berger recognized the Corps had migrated to being like the Army and would become irrelevant if it stayed the same. Berger decided to do something about it.

He had to hit the ground running because he had only 4 years to sell his vision and execute massive transformational change. He articulated his bold vision and planning guidance in Force Design 2030, which was released in March 2020.18 In the document he argued, “We cannot accept or accede to recommendations for incremental change or better versions of legacy capabilities but must pursue transformational capabilities that will provide naval fleets and Joint Force commanders with a competitive advantage in the gray zone and during contingency.”

Berger knew that DOD did not have the billions needed to begin the transformation and modernization process. He knew that if he did not start immediately upon becoming commandant that the Corps would not have the required military capability by 2030. Consequently, he boldly decided to “divest to invest”—that is, eliminate or reduce current structures and systems to fund future ones (3 to 7 years into the future). His bold plan received approval from DOD and many congressional members to divest $15 billion of current assets toward modernizing the Corps. Examples included:

• eliminating all Corps tank battalions and transferring the Corps’ 500 tanks to the Army

• reducing aircraft per squadron from 18 to 10 (obtaining newer F-35s complemented by unmanned aircraft)

• reducing the number of cannon artillery batteries from 21 to 5

• reducing forces by 12,000 personnel by 2030.

Berger made his decisions based on his experience in the Pacific region, participation in war games and exercises, and experimentation. He sought advice from Corps senior leaders, which was bolstered by data, analytics, and seasoned judgment.

Serious pushback and debate raged from highly respected retired Marine Corps generals. They argued that the plan posed a significant risk to national security and that the Corps would become a hollow shell of its former self. Two retired generals, former Commandant General Charles Krulak and General Anthony Zinni, went public with their Vision 2035, which they argued would ensure the Marine Corps remained the Nation’s “911 force” today while modernizing and transforming it to meet the Nation’s needs in the future.¹⁹

General Berger kept to his vision and strategic objectives until his retirement in 2023. Upon confirmation as the 39th commandant on September 21, 2023, General Eric Smith made it clear he would continue Berger’s transformation initiatives and attempt to accelerate them. Doing so will require appropriate budgeting and acquisition funding support by DOD and Congress. General Berger and General Smith (supported by DOD and the combatant commanders) believe the risks of doing nothing outweighed the risks associated with the sweeping changes.

Conclusion

Today’s dangerous world demands joint force, DOD, and industrial-based leaders capable of shaping events rather than reacting to them. An effective visionary strategic joint force leader and thinker requires continuous learning, growth, and enhanced cognitive and social horsepower. Being driven, demonstrating grit, and working hard are not enough. Developing and executing robust PME curricula and learning programs incorporating these recommendations will prepare joint force leaders to lead effectively at the senior level and have the courage and confidence to make the bold decisions that America needs. These leaders will demonstrate personal confidence, courage, and the firm belief that their bold decisions are appropriate and will move forward with determination. JFQ

Notes

¹ Joint Concept for Operating in the Information Environment (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, July 25, 2018), viii, https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/concepts/joint_concepts_jcoie.pdf.
² Dakota L. Wood, ed., 2024 Index of U.S. Military Strength (Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2024), 24, https://www.heritage.org/
sites/default/files/2024-01/2024_IndexOfUSMilitaryStrength_0.pdf.
³ Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC: Department of Defense,
2018), 1, https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf.
⁴ Jim Garamone, “Dunford to NDU Grads: Embrace Change and Innovation,” DOD News, June 9, 2016, https://www.jcs.mil/Media/News/News-Display/Article/796366/dunford-to-ndu-grads-embrace-change-and-innovation/.
⁵ Jeff Schogol, “The Next Fight: The Commandant Is Pushing the Corps to Be Ready for a ‘Violent, Violent Fight,’” Marine Corps Times, September 18, 2017, https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2017/09/18/the-next-fight-the-commandant-is-pushing-the-corps-to-be-
ready-for-a-violent-violent-fight/.
⁶ Charles Q. Brown, Jr., Accelerate Change or Lose, CSAF Action Orders (Washington, DC: Headquarters Department of the Air Force, August 2020), https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/ documents/2020SAF/ACOL_booklet_FINAL_13_Nov_1006_WEB.pdf.
⁷ Philippe Lavigne, “Embracing Change: A Sense of Urgency,” Joint Force Quarterly (4th Quarter 2023), 25–31, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3569539/embracing-change-a-sense-of-urgency/.
⁸ Scott Keller and Mary Meaney, “Successfully Transitioning to New Leadership Roles,” McKinsey, May 2018, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/successfully-transitioning-to-new-leadership-roles.
⁹ Global Leadership Forecast 2021(Bridgeville, PA: Development Dimensions International, Inc., 2021), 8, 10, https://www.ddiworld.com/glf.
¹⁰ Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy.
¹¹ CJCSI 1800.01, Officer Professional Military Education Policy (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, May 15, 2020), A-2, https://web.archive.org/web/20240928015811/ https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/education/cjcsi_1800_01f.pdf.
¹² Unless otherwise cited in the notes, all senior leader quotations are from personal interviews and discussions with the leader named.
¹³ James W. Browning, Embracing Senior Leadership: Three Critical Factors Needed to Reach the C-Suite and Thrive (Irvine, CA: Universal Publishers, 2022), 18–28.
¹⁴ U.S. Army Public Affairs, “Army Announces Aviation Investment Rebalance,” February 8, 2024, https://www.army.mil/
article/273594/army_announces_aviation_investment_rebalance.
¹⁵ Air Force Public Affairs, “Air Force, Space Force Announce Sweeping Changes to Maintain Superiority Amid Great Power Competition,” Spaceforce.mil, February 12, 2024, https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3674633/air-force-space-force-announce-sweeping-changes-to-maintain-superiority-amid-gr/.
¹⁶ Greg Hadley and Chris Gordon, “Congress to USAF: Not So Fast on Your Reorg Plans,” Air & Space Forces Magazine, March 23, 2024, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/congress-more-info-air-force-reoptimization/.
¹⁷ Navy Aviation 2030–35 Vision, October 27, 2021, https://media.defense.gov/2021/oct/27/2002881262/-1/-1/0/navy%20
aviation%20vision%202030-2035_fnl.pdf.
¹⁸ David H. Berger, “Force Design,” U.S. Marine Corps, 2020, https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/portals/142/docs/cmc38%20
force%20design%202030%20report%20phase%20i%20and%20ii.pdf.
¹⁹ Charles Krulak and Anthony Zinni, “Vision 2035: Global Response in the Age of Precision Munitions,” The National Interest, December 16, 2022, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/vision-2035-global-response-age-precision-munitions-205995.