Which is more important, Strategic Leadership or Tactical Leadership?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 23:42:22 -0400

Neither. You need both for a successful operation.

First, before I get a comment referencing my lack of experience due to my rank I would like to add that I have over 14 years of service in the Army with 10 of those years as enlisted. So I have seen this from both sides.

Too often we lose the sight of the big picture. So recently I have discussed the role of the Officer in the Army only to find pretty much distaste of the junior officer and of the Officers in general. I understand that many think NCOs run the Army. Which is really half of the truth. Officers lead the Army also. If you put it together Officers lead the Army while NCOs run the Army. Trust me, if the Army was only left in the hands of the Officer Corps you would have an Army that would function much like a Middle Eastern Army. We all know how that is working out in Iraq. Thank God for the NCOs that strive for excellence and make the Army successful. I have seen what a group of officers alone can do, OCS was a great eye opener. But when it comes to it we all have our roles. The Officers are more strategic while the NCOs are more tactical. To say that they Army solely depends on Officers would be foolish at best but in all reality it really is downright idiotic. But to say the Army solely depends on NCOs would not be accurate either. We have commanders that deliver their intent at Company, Battalion, Brigade, and on up. But so often it just seems we really only focus on the Tactical Leadership in our ranks and ignore our Strategic Leadership. Why is that? Am I wrong? Am I still going to get a one liner about being a cherry LT? I guess will see if anyone is still reading or if they stopped at the first line and felt like they know it all.

Response by 1SG Patrick Burke made Aug 3 at 2016 12:25 AM

1SG Patrick Burke — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:25:16 -0400

I would agree to a certain extent. There is a balance between the two starting at the lowest level with a larger tint of tactical than strategic and as you move up the balance shifts in the other direction. I have mentored my fair share of Section and platoon leadership on some of the tenets of the chart you posted. Most leaders are only concerned about their piece of the pie and fail to recognize that their operation impacts others as well as others affect theirs. As a leader plans their operation and it is in execution mode, the planning continues to set the unit for future success. What enables a leader to do that is an understanding above the tactical level and to see how their limited objectives tie into the campaign plan.
Let's take Iraq as an example - what pained me the most is the loss of life because of failed leadership. Take Company A. They are tasked with a Cordon and Search. Platoon 1 (Outer Cordon) SPs for their blocking positions. While enroute they see a guy or two with AK-47s down a lateral route and react. Low and behold, a baited ambush and now the Platoon is non-effective because they are securing a catastrophic hit on a vehicle. The leadership was focused on the tactical and failed to see that taking their orientation off the objective failed the strategic vision of the Cordon and Search. So not only did they lose Soldiers, they also failed to capture/kill an IED maker..

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2016 12:29 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:29:35 -0400

Not sure what your OCS analogy refers to in terms of what officers alone can do. If you are referring to what you and your classmates did during the course, isn't that indicative of what a group of NCOs alone would do?

But the distinction between strategic and tactical leadership isn't an officer/NCO divide. Real strategic leadership doesn't occur IMO, until you are at a HQ that is dealing with the operational level of war or greater. Battalion commanders aren't strategic level leaders. Looking ahead to build a quarterly training plan isn't strategic level thinking.

Maybe I'm reading your question wrong. To me, the distinction between officer and NCO leadership isn't strategy v tactics. A platoon leader or company commander is a tactical leader. But I have seen platoons, for example with various combinations of leaders. No platoon leader at all; a strong PLT SGT and weak LT: a strong LT and weak PSG; and platoons with both a strong PLT sgts and PLT LDR. Without exception the best platoons were the ones with both a strong LT and PSG. They bring different perspectives to the unit, as well as a different focus. Both are needed for the best result. But I wouldn't call that difference strategy v tactics.

Response by Col Dona Marie Iversen made Aug 3 at 2016 12:29 AM

Col Dona Marie Iversen — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:29:53 -0400

LT,
My response to the question will include mentoring and education as well.

Don't be so sensitive and defensive. The sarcasm is disrespectful and inappropriate "I guess will see if anyone is still reading or if they stopped at the first line and felt like they know it all."

I can guarantee there is not one person on RP that claims or feels they know it all.

RP is a Joint open environment with intelligent view points from junior and senior comrades that have sacrificed and served for decades.

Disheartening to read such a blanket commnet "only to find pretty much distaste of the junior officer and of the Officers in general" & broad assertion "Thank God for the NCOs that strive for excellence and make the Army successful. I have seen what a group of officers alone can do, OCS was a great eye opener. "

Suggest as a JO and throughout your career, you consistently enhance your observational skills (look and LISTEN not just hear ), be a sponge and absorb all you can from all ranks across the spectrum and services. The real world outside of OCS will teach you how to be an effective and respected officer. The E's need the O's and the O's need the E's, the premise of having the two, we are interdependent.

One must have the strategy to do the tactic; strategic is doing the right things and tactical is doing things right .

Eager to read responses from others ...

Never stop learning & Aim High!

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2016 12:49 AM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:49:27 -0400

Between the question itself and the responses this post has already been one of the most educational experiences I've had since joining RP. Which is more of a credit to this post and those contributing than a knock on prior posts

Response by SSG Jeremy Sharp made Aug 3 at 2016 4:28 AM

SSG Jeremy Sharp — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 04:28:01 -0400

I agree that both are important. Unfortunately, at the small unit level, a mission is often assigned without any guidance concerning the overall strategic plan being orchestrated. At that point, the focus is on mission accomplishment and we only have the operational plan that we were given to execute. For example, in support of an armored division, an armored cavalry regiment is given the mission to conduct a passage of lines for the purpose of acting as a covering force to facilitate a brigade withdraw to a tactical assembly area for repair and refit. As art of this operation, a combat team from the division military police company is assigned a traffic control point at an intersection at a specific grid coordinate. The TCP team is there to conduct a specific tactical mission, they are rarely, if ever, read into the division strategic operation plan let alone the corps or higher plan. It is doubtful that the MP company commander is aware of the strategic plan let alone platoon, squad or team leaders, so that leadership is focused primarily on tactical leadership.

Response by 1SG Mike Case made Aug 3 at 2016 2:18 PM

1SG Mike Case — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:18:18 -0400

You are correct that both are needed, but I think that comes with a caveat. I don't really want my young CPL or SPC focusing on strategic leadership. Leave that portion to the Officers and NCO's that will help develop the long range training and the planning that comes with that. I want my young team and squad leaders focusing on the day-to-day (tatical) leadership of the Soldiers. I can help develop the strategic portion for the younger Soldiers as they grow in the military. I included them in the long range training aspect to show them how we forecast events and such but I want them to focus on those 50 and 100 meter targets.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2016 7:00 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 19:00:48 -0400

There has to be a balance of both, from NCOs and Officers. From a Soldiers standpoint (lower enlisted), speaking for myself I have no problem with tactical leadership, short term goals, FTX, SHARP training, Gunnery, Layouts etc. I keeps me going knowing that ok, this 1 task is almost over. But I enjoy knowing the strategic side, and knowing that my NCO or Officer KNOW what that strategic side is, instead of saying well the Commander wants it this way. No. I like knowing ok, this month is FTX, next month Gunnery, the following month layouts for NTC/JRTC, and the big picture is because we're deploying in a year.

Response by MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy made Aug 11 at 2016 4:53 PM

MSgt Ken "Airsoldier" Collins-Hardy — Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:53:39 -0400

I agree that neither is more important than the other; however, I would argue that they constitute an 'ordered ecosystem' in which Strategic Leadership leads Tactical Leadership to help optimize goals and prioritize an intelligence cycle that supports a clearly defined and achievable endstate. This typical leadership 'order of battle' is what enforces the symbiotic relationship between strategy to influence tactics and tactics to support strategy.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2016 9:53 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Aug 2016 21:53:38 -0400

For a career you need both. As you move up your focus will change from the tactic to more of a Strategic. If you are going to get out after your obligation you can get by with tactic if you stay at the unit command level. Once you start looking at staff positions you will need to widen your aperture to view the battalion or larger as a whole.

This is why not every officer can fill every position but there is a position for every officer. You just have to be willing to learn and grow into it.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 20 at 2023 3:44 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:44:58 -0400

I will speak only about officers. Platoon Leaders better focus on the tactical leadership because that is their bread and butter. LTs will get their feet wet pertaining to the various entities on post they need to coordinate with.

CPTs need to focus on the tactical but will have a much better understanding about the various entities on post to include some semblance of understanding of Brigade and Division operations and organizations.

Army MAJs are sent to the Combined General Staff College to study theories of warfare and various paradigms to include military history. Many of the MAJs will become staff officers in Brigades, Divisions, and Corps. I worked in National Disaster Planning thus I had to know who the national friendly forces were and their responsibilities. I also worked in Corps budget in Iraq. I had to understand the host country, Division and Corps operations, logistics, the enemy, and political implications impacting the Corps in Iraq.

I will say the studies in military history was instrumental in understanding warfare from a strategic perspective, paradigms, and lessons learned. For example, when the Battle of Bakhmut started I thought about the Battle of Stalingrad. The Germans had around 1 million men fighting for Stalingrad, but they could not completely encircle and secure the city. The city was shelled well, but there were many vertical structures still standing which made great fighting positions. I knew Bakhmut was going to be a tough fight.

Military history taught me the Germans conducted an immense After Action Review pertaining to WWI. They looked at what was planned- Offensive maneuvers were often ineffective because the weapons ranges were much further than the ability to maneuver the infantry through no man's land. What was the solution? The Germans invented Blitzkrieg which comprised of Tanks, Mechanized Infantry, and Aviation to defeat WWI tactics. That is why Germany was the most prepared to fight WWII in the beginning of the war. What does that tell me about Ukraine? Ukraine needs the tanks and armor to roll up and Russian infantry trenches.

What else did military history teach me? Mao said that in revolutions there is a leader who is an elite in society with ideological reasons for the revolutions. The leader will build a cadre to help him with operations and recruit people. The people who are followers would become the foot soldiers. This is exactly the Trump situation with the 2020 presidential election.

I will bet a lot of money that generals are using Carl Von Clausweitz Trinity of war that is comprised of the Government, Military, and People to understand this war:

- Is Putin a rational leader of the government? I don't think so. He has to be telling the generals his war objectives, but politicians usually make poor generals.

- Is the Russian military a well oiled machine? Not at all. They have not shown me the capability to win this war outright.

- Will the people accept Putin's war, die on his behalf, or will they overthrow Putin? I don't know but I know our strategic planners wish it would happen.