faculty to perform this function . CAL furnishes tailored coaching guides for faculty and has conducted professional development programs in U . S . Army Training and Doctrine Command ( TRADOC ) schools on MSAF coaching . 18 CAL has increased the number of instructional sessions for TRADOC schools for fiscal year 2017 .
McAninch recommended that tools be restructured to support vertical development . This point is at odds with Army doctrine that emphasizes common behaviors across levels and positions . The new OER system does not require different competencies at three different levels of leadership as implied in the article . Instead , the tiered OER presents the same competencies at different levels of detail , which allows higher-ranking raters to use greater discretion in what aspects are emphasized . A central idea of an organization ’ s competency-based framework is to first focus on what is common . This reinforces leaders ’ identifying with a common purpose and working together to achieve shared understanding and synchronized intent . The vertical aspect of development is achieved with assessors of different ranks assessing leaders of different ranks .
McAninch ’ s article implied that the MSAF questions were modeled after Center for Creative Leadership ( CCL ) products and the Army did not “ grow its own .” The Army did develop its own competency model and a unique 360-degree assessment instrument . The Army Research Institute developed and validated the Leadership Requirements Model before it was adopted into Army doctrine . 19 The questions used in the MSAF instruments were developed to tie directly to these Army competencies and were updated when doctrine was updated in 2012 . The MSAF questions tie directly to the behaviors described in Army Doctrine Reference Publication 6-22 , Army Leadership , and Field Manual ( FM ) 6-22 , Leader Development . 20 The Army Leadership Requirements Model uses ten leadership competencies and thirteen attributes , while CCL ’ s Benchmarks has sixteen leadership competencies and five derailment factors . 21 There are only three competencies with similar titles between the Army Leader Behavior Scale ( LBS ) 2.0 and CCL ’ s Benchmarks instrument . The LBS 2.0 has fifty-four items , while Benchmarks has 130 items . Only about ten items from Benchmarks have much commonality to the LBS items . CASAL studies continue to show that the Army leadership competencies are valid predictors of outcomes desired in the Army — leader effectiveness , subordinate productivity , team cohesion , and unit ability to perform missions . 22
A good way to increase the impact of 360-degree assessments lies in the hands of commanders who have the authority to set up and conduct Unit 360 events . Gen . William Wallace , the senior official responsible for leader development at the time of program decision , saw the strength of 360-degree assessments in the context of a crucible training event , where leaders get the full opportunity to exercise leadership and to observe the leadership of others under realistic conditions . The Army ’ s policy writers for MSAF thought that requiring 360-degree assessments in mission rehearsal exercises would be too burdensome for deploying units and instead focused implementation guidance — and eventual compliance reporting for officers — around the individual self-initiated events . Some commanders and other organizational leaders still elect to conduct Unit 360 events . 23 They report great value in the feedback they receive on leadership trends in their units . Compared to self-initiated events , Unit 360-assessed leaders are twice as likely to discuss their feedback with others and to develop an individual development plan , and nine times more likely to get coaching . 24
CAL ’ s MSAF team continually works on designing improvements to MSAF . One example is based on input received from the field . The MSAF individual feedback reports will be enhanced to show leaders how they are assessed compared to the average for their rank group . The report will also provide ways to develop based on the leader ’ s individualized results . The development actions are already available in chapter 7 of FM 6-22 , and the MSAF feedback report will be modified to include the most relevant actions matching a specific leader ’ s results . 25 This will enable leaders to better see what they can do to accelerate their development . The report will also provide more emphasis on how to make immediate use of the feedback , rather than focusing on follow-on actions in an individual leader development plan . For example , if superiors rate the leader more favorably than subordinates , the leader may be too upwardly focused and not attending to what subordinates expect from that leader . This feedback can prompt an immediate change in self-awareness , and it can be acted on without
124 January-February 2017
MILITARY REVIEW