The findings in this report are organized in 3 main sections: the quality of leadership, the effects of climate and situational factors on leadership, and the quality of leader development. The findings are based on responses from over 16,800 uniformed leaders with an overall accuracy within +/-0.7%. Leadership quality continues to be a strength of the Army, and most of the Leadership Requirements Model competencies and attributes are effectively demonstrated. Leading others and getting results are two strong competencies. Attributes dealing with character, values, empathy, fitness, resilience, knowledge, sound judgment, and mental agility are strong as well. Elements recently added to emphasize discipline, trust, and stewardship are also effectively demonstrated by Army leaders. One consistent exception in strong indicators is the Develops Others competency. Many leaders are perceived as not providing useful counseling, nor encouraging individual development, and not showing genuine concern for subordinate development. Three-fourths of leaders are seen as putting the needs of the unit and mission first before their own needs. Leaders with negative leadership behaviors are more likely to be associated with low unit cohesion, unit discipline problems, low subordinate motivation, poor work quality, and lowered commitment to the Army. Ratings of the LD effectiveness of professional military education (PME) courses improved from the last two years. The report concludes with a look at trends and recommendations to improve leadership and leader development in the Army.

The military unit is a critical center of gravity in the military's efforts to enhance resilience and the health of the force. The purpose of this article is to augment the military's Total Force Fitness (TFF) guidance with a framework of TFF in units. The framework is based on a Military Demand-Resource model that highlights the dynamic interactions across demands, resources, and outcomes. A joint team of subject-matter experts identified key variables representing unit fitness demands, resources, and outcomes. The resulting framework informs and supports leaders, support agencies, and enterprise efforts to strengthen TFF in units by (1) identifying TFF unit variables aligned with current evidence and operational practices, (2) standardizing communication about TFF in units across the Department of Defense enterprise in a variety of military organizational contexts, (3) improving current resources including evidence-based actions for leaders, (4) identifying and addressing of gaps, and (5) directing future research for enhancing TFF in units. These goals are intended to inform and enhance Service efforts to develop Service-specific TFF models, as well as provide the conceptual foundation for a follow-on article about TFF metrics for units.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average lliour per response, Including the time for reviewing instaictlons, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regardng this burden estimate or any other aspect of this coUection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington HeaAguartens Services, Diractorata for Information Operafions and Reports (0704-0188), 121S Jefferson Davis Highway, Sutte 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware thai notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be sutiject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of Infomiatlon if it doss not dsplay a currently valid 0MB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) July 2004 REPORT TYPE SPONSOR/MONPTOR'S ACRONYM(S)ARl SPONSOR/MONrrOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)Technical Report 1148 DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research was to develop leadership requirements for the future Amiy. A competency framework that is used consistently throughout the force and that focuses on the functions of leadership will help align training, development, and perfomnance management processes and better convey what leaders need to do. Numerous considerations were combined to generate the framework including: Identification of the future of technological, geopolitical, and demographic factors; review of leadership theory; review of the evolution of Army leadership doctrine; identification of literature sources of leadership requirements; specification of the relationships leaders have with others; and comparisons of competency frameworks from the other military servk;es. Through an iterative process, analysts developed competencies, components, and sample actions that were then reviewed by subject matter experts. A core leadership competency framework was developed that includes eight competencies and 55 components. The proposed core leadership competency framework serves to provide an analytically based description of leader requirements for the future. The incorporation of the framework into leader development processes is discussed as well as how the framework can be presented in doctrine. IS. SUBJECT TERMS 913-684-9796Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

No abstract

No abstract