Assessing Secretary Gates's Strengths And Weaknesses

“Competency models describe the behaviors and skills managers need to exhibit if an organization is to be successful” (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, p. 252). In many organizations, competency models can differ between the different hierarchies of managers. As a person’s leadership role evolves so do the behaviors and skills he or she must possess to be an effective leader. This statement holds firm as with the case of Andra Rush.

In the changing business environment, leaders of all organisations may face unprecedented uncertainty, especially the technology advancement and changes among the employees. To survive and succeed, leaders should have some necessary attributes. Meanwhile, some changes for leadership skills have to be made to confront the challenges.

Pick the current or a past president of the United States and evaluate his performance against the leadership characteristics discussed in the text. On the basis of this comparison, do you think that the president was/is a good strategic leader? Why?

Gates began his intelligence career in 1966, with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), at the very entry-level part of it. He was the first member of that agency to rise to the top of the CIA. He has worked in other various senior intelligence positions in the IC. He served on the National Security Council (NSC); served as the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (DDC/I); Assistant to the President; Deputy National Security Advisor; and Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). His strategic leadership role in the IC supersedes him. Gates was as a leader who did not just drift through his tenure simply managing events. He was a leader who acted boldly, and expected the same from his subordinates. The leadership challenges and leadership approach that I will discuss will be examined

Secretary of Defense Gates’s greatest strategic leadership competency was communication. Secretary Gates gathered military, political and public support by communicating clearly and professionally.

To be a successful president is to effectively carry out a compelling vision for the future and possess competent decision-making abilities in times of crisis. Vision, is the capacity a president has to inspire, to demonstrate what he or she may get done while setting goals. Together with concise decisions, a sort of strategic leadership is formulated while allowing presidents to seek domestic and international interests. However, challenges are almost inevitable in a president’s role especially when faced with juggling the possible consequences from his decisions. Nonetheless, a successful president is a result of our judgements reflected on a state’s performance in the global arena. And leadership is essential not only in politics, but to

Leading change involves an individual's ability to bring about strategic change within and outside an organization to meet the goals of that particular organization. This executive core qualification should establish an organization's vision and implement it in a continuously changing environment (OPM, 2006). Some of the competencies involved here include creativity and innovation, external awareness, flexibility, resilience, strategic thinking, and vision. Creativity and innovation helps an individual to develop new insights into situations, question conventional approaches, and design and implement new or cutting edge programs (OPM, 2006). A flexible individual will always be open to change and new information and rapidly adapt to new information. Resilience helps one to deal effectively with pressure and remain optimistic and persistent. Strategic thinking competency is critical in formulating objectives and priorities and implements an organization's long term interests.

The two featured articles had opposing positions on Secretary Gates. Finel's article shows him failing as a strategic leader; while Boot's showcases a more positive image of his accomplishments in the position. As I look to identify his strengths and weaknesses, using the strategic leadership competencies in the SLP, I feel that his greatest strength was problem management and his greatest weakness was negotiation.

As being part of an academic institution for preparing strategic leaders, my first goal is aimed at achieving success in developing an advanced strategic mindset through pursuing the following three objectives: (1) improving my personal dimensions, (2) understanding the general ethical theories and (3) mastering the systems thinking process. Using the analogy of the Browning Model, the personal dimensions serve as a tool for analyzing and evaluating the strategic environment and represent the capacities, competencies, experience and wisdom of the strategic leader. The growth in each of the five dimensions defined in the Browning

The authors of the essay, Zelleke and Talbot, are scholars at Harvard Business School in Boston (Massachusetts). The document presents a critic position on the way how the leaders of the United States’ (US) government are making decisions. The core argument of the document is rooted in the absence of prospective planning and strategic thinking at the supreme political level. According to the authors, it is required to designate a person responsible for foreseeing the future of the US and its strategic role in the world’s geopolitical arena. Therefore, the creation of a Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) position is proposed to overcome such failure. Even tough, some of the arguments presented in the essay may sound logical in the eyes of public opinion, most of them are not convincing and compelling if analyzed from a National Security perspective.

From some additional research on the subject of leadership I uncovered an interesting article that was written by Kevin Kruse (built and lead several multi-million dollar tech companies) that outlines “The 3 Levels of Leadership Used by the U.S. Army”. Kevin Kruse elaborated within the article “strategic leaders are focused, understanding the context of the current environment, evaluating the long-term impact of choices and setting the strategic direction

According Quong & Walker, (2010) strategic leadership is based on seven perspectives. The principles include orientation to different futures, Evidence basis and research orientation, Tendency to get things done, openness to new horizons, value and commitment to partnership, focus on making the next thing right and possession of leadership skills such as stress management and physical ability. HBR (2013) adds that the basic skills of a strategic leader are anticipation for the future through an analysis of a problem, the ability to challenge the existing and encourage different views, interpret everything that happens, learn from their experience and that of others and align themselves to those with similar

It appears that I have something in common with great strategic leaders like General Schwarzkopf and General Powell; they were not born with inherent competencies as Strategic Planners or Strategic Theorists and neither was I. As I embark on my USAWC experience, I have already identified numerous areas for growth and this writing assignment will serve as the first. I have selected two of Galvin's “Mission Specific” outcomes, which I believe will require the most thought and exercise on my part in order to realize a noticeable change. My focus in this paper is to understand my new environment, explore the outcomes of becoming a strategic planner, strategic theorist, and provide a personal reflection of how I can make the most of my transformation

The Leadership Archetype Questionnaire (Kets de Vries, 2006b), identifies eight individual leadership archetypes. Among the eight archetypes is the strategist, who sees leadership, per Northouse, as a game of chess (2016). Envisioning an organizational future and responding to change is what makes enlisting the vision of the strategist the first step in aligning the two approaches. The strategist is not only one of the model archetypes defined by the Leadership Archetype Questionnaire; it is also one of the characteristics of a psychodynamic approach to leadership. In aligning the psychodynamic approach and the situational approach to leadership, it is important to remember, as suggested by O’Reilly, et. al. in a study published in the Leadership Quarterly, “it is clear, that leaders at all levels influence strategic initiatives and their implementation” (2010). Exactly “how aggregate leadership influences organizational performance” cannot be readily defined (O’Reilly, et. al., 2010). To clarify step one, step one is to clarify the vision.

One of the first values established in my leadership framework is “Planning for the future”. Planning for the future allows me to lead myself by ensuring that I am prepared for any future situations or deviations from the original strategy. “Planning for the future” also helps me lead others in the same way. It allows me to foresee and plan for any future situations which could compromise our goal. Attached to the value “planning for the future” is the statement, “sound judgement”. Sound judgement is necessary for planning because it makes the necessary differentiation between “thinking about the future” and “planning for the future”. Sound judgement allows a leader to plan for future situations and create a plan to deal with those situations.