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 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.