Intellectual Capital: A Case for Cultural Change

Abstract

Abstract: Statistical analysis indicates recent US promotion and command boards may actually penalize officers for their conceptual ability, which raises concerns over our transition to the of the future. If leaders emphasize the need for intellectual human capital (IHC), understand the intellectual capital system, and stress critical thinking while continuing to value the other domains of officership, the can capture the human capital it requires for Force 2025 and Beyond. ********** Selecting officers for early promotion and determining which ones will have opportunities for battalion command are among the most important decisions made by the US Army. Yet, statistical analysis indicates recent US promotion and command boards may actually penalize otherwise equivalent officers for conceptual ability, which should warrant concern with regard to how we transition to the of the future. If leaders at all levels emphasize the need for intellectual human capital (IHC), understand the intellectual capital system, and actively emphasize and role-model critical thinking while continuing to value the other major domains of officership, the can reverse this trend and capture the human capital it requires to meet the needs of Force 2025 and Beyond. The primary intellectual engines of the US Army--such as Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the US War College--have rightly predicted our future combined and joint operating environments will be more complex than ever before in history. (1) As such, the 2014 Operating Concept implores the total to broaden its approach to learning. (2) Considering this context within the aforementioned promotion board trends, such an approach may require a fundamental shift in how our selects and develops our future leaders. The future force will require leaders who possess the enhanced conceptual tools necessary to win in a complex world. The authors recommend the critically examine and potentially change the manner in which it accesses, develops, selects, and sets the culture for future leaders. Doing so is especially important in order to foster officers' conceptual abilities. We offer our recommendations with humility, as grateful beneficiaries of the Army's current officer-talent management system. We acknowledge any criticism of the current system may also be a corresponding criticism of ourselves. Although all Army team members--commissioned officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, junior enlisted Soldiers, and Department of the civilians---are critical to the success of the nation, we will focus our recommendations on active-duty commissioned officers, though we encourage follow-on analyses of each of the aforementioned populations. Also, by no means does this paper wish to minimize the importance of the many characteristics needed in leaders, such as job motivation, diligence, emotional intelligence, character, grit, and physicality. All of these factors, and others, contribute significantly to officership and must be developed. (3) However, we believe the will also need to raise the profile of its intellectual human capital and the culture that empowers it in order to address the complexity inherent in Force 2025 and beyond. (4) Why is Intellectual Human Capital Important? The US military wants and needs the best leaders possible. Human optimization requires the military to define what its leaders must accomplish in varied environments. Foremost, the military needs leaders of character who can honorably navigate complex moral-ethical situations. They must successfully lead diverse groups and solve important problems. Such activities require divergent thinking and creative problem solving; much like mission command requires agile and adaptive officers. However, recent force modernization studies routinely point to technological advances. …