Case Study Analysis US Army

Case

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this case study, students will better understand the tenets of adaptive leadership. In order

to do this, they will:

• become better at identifying technical challenges;

• gain a better understanding of adaptive challenges;

• gain a deeper understanding of leader behaviors that promote effective adaptive leadership.

Introduction

On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress authorized the formation of the Continental Army to

coordinate the military efforts of the thirteen colonies in their fight for independence from Great

Britain. George Washington became the first Commander in Chief of the Continental Army that summer

and led an untrained, undisciplined, ill-equipped, yet totally committed group of volunteers to defeat

the British and secure independence (The American Revolution: First Phase, 2001). Today, the mission of

the United States Army is to “...provide combatant commanders with versatile land forces ready to fight

and win the Nation’s wars” (FM 1, 2005, p.1-1). Since 1775, the United States Army has fought and won

several wars and has served the American people as directed by their elected officials. Over the past 240

years the United States Army has not only faced significant challenges fighting wars, but has had to

continually change due to a multitude of factors, including industrialization, advances in technology,

changing social policies, and an ever evolving enemy in the form of both political and extremist threats.

What follows is a review of how the aforementioned factors have forced the United States Army to

adapt in order to meet the looming threats to our Nation’s freedoms over the past 240 years. By

examining historic situations through the lens of adaptive leadership, it becomes clear that United

States Army' leaders have engaged in adaptive leadership practices to develop solutions and overcome

the challenges they faced.

Adaptive Leadership

Adaptive leadership is a process that requires leaders to determine if they are facing technical or

adaptive challenges, and then apply the appropriate leader behaviors to address the challenges.

Technical challenges are clearly defined and have known solutions that leaders can apply to effectively

deal with the issues. When encountering technical challenges, others look to the leader for solutions. In

contrast, adaptive challenges have no known solutions. These challenges require new and innovative

approaches to solve them, and often require changes to people’s beliefs, perspectives, and behaviors.

As such, adaptive challenges often require experimentation that allows leaders to learn before they

apply improved solutions. In addition, when facing adaptive challenges, leaders must involve others and

create a sense of responsibility and accountability within them for developing a solution to the adaptive

challenge. In these situations, leaders cannot act alone to develop answers, but must rather involve

others to develop viable solutions.

Often, the situations leaders face are bundled with both technical and adaptive challenges, requiring

leaders to separate the two and apply the correct solution or process to the situation (Heifetz, Grashow,

& Linsky, 2009). When technical and adaptive challenges are intertwined, the responsibility to develop

solutions falls on both leaders and those they are leading. Leaders may provide solutions to technical

issues, while solutions to the adaptive challenges fall on everyone associated with the adaptive

challenges. The United States Army has faced many adaptive, technical, and combined challenges in its

240-year history that have forced leaders to develop solutions.

Adaptive Leader Behaviors

When faced with difficult challenges, leaders in organizations such as the United States Army have

engaged in the adaptive leadership process to provide solutions. To better frame a leader’s adaptive

behavior, Heifetz (1994) and Heifetz and Laurie (1997) defined six adaptive leader behaviors. These

leader behaviors provide a framework to guide leaders while they are engaged in the adaptive

leadership process.

1. Get on the balcony

Leaders must rise above the day-to-day activities (e.g., go to the balcony from the dance floor) and take

time to assess the bigger picture related to the present situation/challenge. If leaders cannot see the

overall perspective, they may miss potential opportunities and threats related to the challenge or their

organization. Leaders should not disengage completely from the issue/challenge, but step back

periodically to reflect and evaluate with the bigger picture in mind.

2. Identify the adaptive challenge

Leaders must be able to distinguish the adaptive challenges from the technical challenges. Technical

challenges have known solutions that leaders can apply. Adaptive challenges have no known solutions

and require leaders to shift responsibility for developing solutions to those involved with the challenge.

Heifetz et al. (2009) identify four basic patterns of adaptive change: gap between espoused values and

behavior (when people or organizations state what they value but act indifferently towards those

values); competing commitments (vying for the same resources or competing priorities); speaking the

unspeakable (the ability to discuss the white elephant in the room); and work avoidance (staying within

one’s comfort zone or using diversionary tactics to avoid difficult situations). These four patterns

illustrate common adaptive challenges.

3. Regulate distress

Change creates uncertainty and stress for most people, and both aspects are unavoidable during the

change process. Leaders must have a sense of the stress and uncertainty people are experiencing and

take action to mitigate excessive stress and uncertainty.

4. Maintain disciplined attention

Leaders must keep people focused on the important and demanding tasks at hand. Adaptive leadership

requires creativity and a consistent effort from others. Leaders must maintain a consistent focus on

creativity to develop viable solutions from a collaborative effort.

5. Give the work back to the people

Leaders cannot develop solutions to adaptive challenges by themselves and must place responsibility for

solutions on everyone involved with the adaptive challenge.

6. Protect leadership voices from below

Everyone’s contributions to the adaptive leadership process are valuable and must have an opportunity

to be heard. Leaders must include out-group members while balancing the social equilibrium of the

group (Northouse, 2016).

The United States Army and Adaptive Leadership

The following synopsis of several wars the United States Army has engaged in provides a context to

better understand the technical and adaptive challenges faced by leaders at various levels within the

organization. Although these challenges may appear appropriate for only very senior-level leaders,

leaders at all levels created solutions for these challenges. The United States Army is a very hierarchal

organization and its structure is appropriate for its mission, but the organizational culture requires all

soldiers to think creatively and allows (for the most part) a free-flow of information between all levels of

the organization, which allows adaptive leadership to occur.

The Revolutionary War

The Revolutionary War was a contrast between the haves (the British) and the have nots (the

Continental Army) that caused the Continental Army to engage in adaptive leadership to contend with

stronger forces. The British were a well-trained, professional army that had extensive experience in

fighting wars in Europe and other places around the world. The Continental Army was new, had very

limited experience, and initially was not professional in any sense. Given the newness of the United

States government, the Continental Army was not well funded and had to find their own resources.

However, what the Continental Army lacked in experience and professionalism, they compensated for

with passion and an extreme desire to gain independence – as well as an extremely strong sense of

shared values.

The British fought in block formations in a very orderly and disciplined manner, as battles were fought in

Europe. They were also very well resourced and never lacked supplies or weapons. The smaller

Continental Army could not match the British using their tactics, and was also hampered by their limited

supplies and weapons. Consequently, leaders within the Continental Army had to develop different

tactics and strategies to engage the British. Thus, during the Revolutionary War Continental Army

soldiers fought with muskets and used guerrilla-like tactics that were different than those used by the

British. For example, the Continental Army fought from behind trees and used unconventional tactics

that confused and frustrated the British regulars (Higginbotham, 1983). Leaders at the lower levels

within the Continental Army were responsible for developing the new guerrilla tactics and fighting while

outnumbered. Senior leaders in the Continental Army supported these drastically different tactics as

they worked.

Leaders at all levels in the Continental Army had to procure needed supplies, weapons, and maintain a

sense of discipline and welfare using limited or no means. The winter at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania,

1777–1778, illustrated the dire condition of the Continental Army and the leadership challenges as over

2500 soldiers died from starvation, disease, and exposure (Valley Forge, n.d.). Leaders at all levels

obtained supplies and weapons needed to survive, and they had found ways to maintain the intrinsic

motivation needed to minimize desertion and keep soldiers in the army.

The Continental Army managed to retain their motivation and drew on different tactics as the

Revolutionary War waged on. On December 26, 1776, General Washington crossed the Delaware River

and attacked the Hessian outpost at Trenton, New Jersey, at a time of year when civilized armies were

not supposed to fight. The Continental Army had suffered several defeats prior to the victory at

Trenton, which motivated Washington to conduct the daring attack in order to catch the British off

guard. The final decisive battle of the Revolutionary War also saw the Continental Army using unusual

tactics. In this battle, the Continental Army joined forces with the French Army and Navy to blockade

Chesapeake Bay and cut reinforcements from the British. Washington and his French counterparts

systematically attacked and defeated the British at Yorktown who surrendered on October 19, 1781

(Higginbotham, 1983). During the Battle of Yorktown the Continental Army laid siege works that foretold

tactics to be used in the American Civil War and World War I. In this war, senior-level leaders in the

Continental Army were responsible for developing the larger-scale strategy that ultimately led to

victory, but leaders at all levels had to engage in adaptive leadership to overcome both technical and

adaptive challenges to bring about the Continental Army victory over the British.

American Civil War

The American Civil War was a fight between the Union and Confederate Armies that necessitated a

great deal of adaptive leadership. This war saw brothers fighting brothers due to state loyalties,

differences in values, and other social dynamics. Leaders on both the north and south sides had to

recruit, train, and develop soldier for their armies. The social and interpersonal dynamics created both

ease and difficulty in raising armies to fight in the war. Early in the war it was easy to enlist soldiers on

both sides because many were eager to defend what they believed. Toward the end of the war, much of

the civilian population had grown tired of the war and was less supportive, which created challenges to

maintaining both armies. After the war, reunification was very difficult to achieve as two separate

nations had to continue as one. Throughout the war President Lincoln never waived or faltered in

striving to achieve his vision of one United States of America.

Several technological advances impacted the way armies fought. Soldiers used rifled muskets and,

toward the end of the war, Spencer repeater rifles. The accuracy of the rifled weapons increased the

range of weapons, and the ability to fire multiply rounds forced changes in tactics and strategies.

Technological advances and developed infrastructure of the United States impacted warfare as railroads

could move large forces quickly over great distances. The advent of the telegraph and semaphore flags

greatly increased communication between commanders providing greater situational awareness

(Garrison, 1994; Miller, 1911). Leaders understood the advantages of these technical improvements but

had to properly employ them on a battlefield to fully utilize their potential.

Although the majority of battles during the American Civil War were conducted by moving large armies

via foot and using horse cavalry to map the other army’s movements, tactics and strategies evolved as

leaders began to employ trench warfare. Trench warfare was evident at the battles of Petersburg and

Vicksburg towards the end of the war and foretold the extensive use of trench warfare during World

War I. Trench warfare forced leaders to change their tactics and strategies as armies had to endure long

periods of limited activity, find ways to survive artillery barrages, live in stagnant unhealthy conditions,

and find ways to win battles without large or fast troop movements (Miller, 1911).

After the American Civil War ended, leaders faced a new and very difficult challenge: how to heal the

nation and bring about reunification. The United States was a very diverse nation and both sides of the

American Civil War were very bitter at the end due to the tremendous human loss, destruction of towns

and cities, and the emotional drain of having to defend one’s beliefs over an extended period of time.

Leaders had to develop programs and re-establish state and local governments that supported one

federal government; a federal government that only one side supported. The reunification process was

not experienced before in the United States on a national scale and leaders had to ensure that one

nation was forged from two separate entities but retained the diversity of the United States.

World War I

In the early part of the twentieth century, the world experienced one of the most horrific wars in history

and leaders were called upon to face both technical and adaptive challenges like never before. From

1914 to 1918 over 9 million combatants and 12 million civilians died in the Great War (later known as

World War I) in Europe. The Allies consisting of Great Britain, France, and Russia fought the Central

Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. In this war, leaders struggled to find civil ways to discuss

issues between nations and also had to contend with many new technologies that affected warfare

(Herwig, 2014). Consequently, leaders were faced with many adaptive challenges while having to

confront technical problems during this very brutal and prolonged war.

World War I began where the American Civil War ended, with both armies utilizing trench warfare

throughout the war. Major battles were fought for limited terrain despite new technology and advanced

knowledge of the battlefields. World War I saw the first massive use of chemical warfare, the advent of

mobile armored weapons (tanks), newer and more lethal crew-served weapons (machine guns), and the

use of airplanes (Black, 2011). The impact of these new weapons was significant, but only further

exasperated the gruesome aspects of trench warfare. Commanders had to find ways to protect soldiers

from the lethality of all these new weapons while still trying to overcome the old tactics of trench

warfare.

At the end of World War I, nations knew they needed a forum to discuss issues and avoid future

conflicts. World leaders created the League of Nations to serve as a forum to discuss issues and, in a

sense, utilize adaptive leadership to solve world issues to prevent further conflict (Russell & Muther,

1958). The League of Nations existed until the end of World War II and was replaced by the United

Nations. World War I ended with leaders attempting to find ways to effectively employ new technology

to prevent another world war.

Although leaders attempted to create new tactics and strategies to meet the challenges of World War I,

they did not realize that these tactics would not be effective for future wars. For example, leaders

created the Maginot Line, which consisted of a line of extensive fortifications designed to prevent

aggression from enemy forces from the east. Unfortunately, their adaptive solution did not work, and

Hitler used the advanced mobility of armored weapons (tanks) to quickly maneuver around the Maginot

Line to begin his conquest of Europe (Hughes, 1971).

World War II

Leaders faced a host of technical and adaptive challenges as the Allies struggled to overcome the Axis

powers in World War II. The advances in technology seen during World War I were improved and

incorporated with new technology to shape the battlefields of World War II into tremendous killing

fields. Leaders employing adaptive leadership transformed trench warfare from stagnant battlefields

fought in close proximity to fluid battlefields fought from a distance using tanks, airplanes, and other

modern weapons, including rockets and flamethrowers. Improvements in artillery, communications,

logistics, and other strategies created battlefields that were dynamic and battles that lasted hours, not

days or weeks as was experienced during the previous wars. These changes affected the strategic goals

of the United States Army (Campbell, 1985), which joined the Allied forces in 1941 after the Japanese

attacked United States ground.

Shifts in air power and weapons, which allowed the massive devastation of cities in both Europe and

Asia, culminated in the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. This was the first use of

nuclear weapons and it began a nuclear arms escalation among nations that created yet another

significant shift in warfare tactics and strategies (Schneider & Schneider, 2003). Leaders at strategic

levels were now faced with extremely dangerous and complex situations involving nuclear weapons,

which necessitated the use of adaptive leader behaviors while engaging in the adaptive leadership

process.

In addition to these warfare changes, culture also impacted World War II in a way not seen before in the

history of the United States Army. Internally, the United States Army was confronting social challenges

within its ranks. African-American and Japanese descent soldiers were fighting in segregated units as

racism was still being confronted within the American culture. Leaders in the United States Army largely

ignored the racism occurring in segregated units and did not employ adaptive leadership to confront this

difficult issue. After World War II the Army did integrate African-American and other minority soldiers

into it ranks, but largely ignored issues created by integration. It was not until after the United States as

a nation engaged in Civil Rights campaigns during the 1960s that minority soldiers began to truly

integrate into the United States Army (Schneider & Schneider, 2003).

Externally, the United States Army also faced cultural challenges. The Japanese culture was very

different from the majority of European cultures typically found in the United States and fighting the

Japanese in the island-hopping campaigns during the war in the Pacific created new challenges not seen

previously by commanders. Japanese soldiers were very values-based when fighting in World War II and

would rather commit suicide than be captured. The Japanese also had little regard for prisoners and

treated prisoners with much greater disdain than enemies faced in most other areas of the world.

Leaders had to adapt their European-based strategies and tactics to accommodate this unique enemy in

order to win against this different culture in its unique environment (Schneider & Schneider, 2003). As

was seen in the other wars, United States soldiers in World War II were very adept at adapting to and

overcoming obstacles. Their ability to quickly develop new solutions to challenges created by technology

or different cultures illustrated the adaptive leadership ability of the United States Army.

Although the League of Nations failed to prevent another war, it successfully provided a framework for

the United Nations, which was established after World War II. The United Nations was established to

face the adaptive challenges of international politics and prevent another world war.

The Vietnam War

Following the devastation of World War II, the United States Army faced new challenges as they dealt

with escalating fears in a tense international, political climate. The Vietnam War was born out of this

climate, as United States leaders feared the spread of communism would threaten the freedoms within

the United States and they joined forces to fight communism in Vietnam from 1955 until 1975. The war

pitted South Vietnam and the United States, along with other anti-communist allies, against the

communists of North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union (Willbanks, 2009). During the Vietnam War

leaders had to adapt their tactics and strategies to fight an enemy that, for the first time, was difficult to

identify. They struggled to identify North Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnamese communities. They

also struggled to adapt to the guerrilla tactics used by the North Vietnamese. The enemy forces took

advantage of the tropical environment and created new challenges for the United States Army that had

massive air superiority, but was unable to use it to advance, given that their bombing raids devastated

villages and rural areas but did limited damage to their enemy (Willbanks, 2013). Compounding these

issues was the fact that the United States Army was not trained to fight in the Vietnamese environment

(tropical, rugged, and rural). Most of the United States Army’s tactics were developed for a more

conventional war and European environment (post-World War II). Leaders at all levels had to engage in

adaptive leadership to overcome the adaptive challenges presented by the Vietnam War. Most effective

suggestions to overcome the challenges facing the United States Army came from those soldiers fighting

the enemy who had first-hand experience. Senior leaders had to listen to the lower-level leaders and

combine their ideas with the information gathered by other intelligence means to develop possible

solutions, which ultimately allowed them to identify and determine more effective ways to engage their

enemy.

Cultural tensions on the battlefield and beyond also created challenges during the Vietnam War.

Although the United States Army was integrated, racial tensions were still evident in the Vietnam

conflict. In addition, larger social forces created tension and problems for the United States Army and

larger American society. A vocal segment of the American population disapproved of the military actions

in Southeast Asia and wanted the United States to cease supporting combat actions in that region. This

tension created animosity toward soldiers, who when they returned home, often faced protests,

disrespect, and a lack of support. These veterans were seen as social outcasts in some segments of

society through no fault of their own, which created challenges for veterans trying to reintegrate into

American society (Olson, 1993). The cultural challenges also made conscription and motivation of

soldiers more difficult. National leaders in the United States largely ignored this social dynamic and did

little to overcome these adaptive challenges other than to contain the events and situations that

occurred.

The Global War on Terrorism

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (9/11), the United States Army has been engaged in a

Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) that has brought about significant changes in the United States Army.

These changes have evolved as the United States Army has faced challenges from enemies that are

significantly different from previous threats to United States national security. Ultimately, the United

States military has had to modify its structure, doctrine, training, and equipment to fight an enemy

located both within its borders and throughout various global geographic locations (Kretchik, 2011). A

major force restructuring of the United States Army began in 2003. At the beginning of the GWOT, the

United States Army consisted of division-sized units that were developed and trained to fight a linear

battlefield expected during Cold War conflicts with the Soviet Union. Since the collapse of the Soviet

Union in 1991, the United States Army was reduced in size as a peace dividend and also restructured to

meet a new threat. The new threat in the 1990s was still being defined, but with the 9/11 terrorist

attacks, the United States Army had a new enemy in Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations like Al

Qaeda. The terrorist attacks required the United States Army to restructure itself from a division-based

organization (of approximately 15,000 soldiers) to a modular brigade-based organization (of

approximately 2,000 soldiers) (Johnson, Peters, Kitchens, Martin, & Fischbach, 2012). The need for the

brigade-sized units was due to the sustained combat operations occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan and

the need to efficiently rotate units between these combat theaters and their home locations to reduce

the impact of long deployments on soldiers and their families.

While restructuring, the United States Army has also had to develop new tactics and employ advanced

technology to fight an enemy that remains extremely difficult to identify. Due to the research and

development capabilities within the United States, the United States Army has largely been able to

provide deployed soldiers with the technical and logistical support needed to overcome the adaptive

and technical challenges of the GWOT.

The United States Army’s leadership philosophy has also changed during the GWOT. The hierarchal

philosophy before 9/11 was not possible when fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the number of

isolated outposts needed throughout the region. Young soldiers were also responsible for maintaining

order over large groups of civilians, often groups of several thousands. These challenges required United

States Army leaders to engage in the adaptive leadership process to innovate and adapt quickly while

fighting, despite not knowing the correct solutions.

Summary

The United States Army has been a vanguard of freedom for the United States for over 240 years. During

its history, the United States Army has had to adapt to meet new and emerging threats and has had to

accommodate changes in technology, infrastructure, and industrialization, while also adapting to new

social and cultural forces that affect national security. The United States Army has met the majority of

these challenges and will have to continue to adapt and change in the future in order to fulfill its mission

to provide commanders with “…versatile land forces ready to fight and win the Nation’s wars” (FM 1,

2005, p.1-1). Challenges will emerge and require leaders to engage in adaptive leadership as new

enemies are identified that require the United States Army to change to meet new threats (Kretchik,

2011).

Questions for Discussion

1. Define and discuss the technical, technical and adaptive, and adaptive leadership challenges that

occurred in:

a. The Revolutionary War;

b. The American Civil War;

c. World War I;

d. World War II;

e. The Vietnam War;

f. The Global War on Terrorism.

2. Define and discuss the adaptive leader behaviors that occurred during:

a. The Revolutionary War;

b. The American Civil War;

c. World War I;

d. World War II;

e. The Vietnam War;

f. The Global War on Terrorism.

References

Black, J. (2011). The Great War and the making of the modern world. New York, NY: Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Campbell, C. (1985). The World War II fact book. London, UK: Macdonald & Company.

FM 1 (2005). The army. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.

Garrison, W. (1994). Civil war curiosities: Strange stories, oddities, events, and coincidences. Nashville,

TN: Rutledge Hill Press

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership:

Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1),

124–134.

Herwig, H. H. (2014). The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914–1918. New York, NY:

Bloomsbury Publishing.

Higginbotham, D. (1983). The war of American independence: military attitudes, policies and

practices 1763 to 1789. Boston, MA: Northwest University Press.

Hughes, J. M. (1971). The Maginot Line: The politics of French military preparation in the 1920s.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Johnson, S. E., Peters, J. E., Kitchens, K. E., Martin, A. & Fischbach, J. R. (2012). A review of

the army’s modular force structure. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Kretchik, W. E. (2011). U.S. Army doctrine: From the American revolution to the war on terror.

Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Miller, F. T. (Ed.) (1911). The photographic history of the Civil War, Volume 8. Springfield, MA:

Patriot Publishing.

Olson, J. S. (1993). The Vietnam War: Handbook of the literature and research. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Russell, R. B. & Muther, J. E. (1958). A history of the United Nations charter: The role of the

United States, 1940–1945. Menasha, WI: The George Banta Company.

Schneider, C. & Schneider, D. (2003). World War II (Eyewitness History). New York, NY: Facts on File.

The American Revolution: First Phase. (2001). American military history. Retrieved from http://

history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-03.htm

Valley Forge (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_Forge

Willbanks, J. H. (2009). The Vietnam War almanac. New York, NY: Facts on File.

Willbanks, J. H. (Ed.) (2013). Vietnam War: The essential reference guide. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-

CLIO.