The final area requiring the highest level of army organizational leadership deals with the organizational structure and how the army provides oversight on leader development and talent management. Today, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) lead leader development efforts for the army and the Assistant Secretary of the Army leads talent management for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (Wenzel, 2015). These two separate offices work closely to ensure synchronization and implementation of efforts; however, this might explain why there are some seams or gaps between leader development and talent management. Most private sector organizations combine these two functions under the human resources department to ease management.
The data from the Leader Development Task Force Report (2013) shows that leaders in the army value leader development, but other priorities take precedence over conducting it most of the time. The study also shows that half of the 12,000 officers surveyed do not understand how professional growth counseling should occur, which indicates that it is not happening at all. Leaders are not setting clear priorities for the development of others due to …show more content…
Officers are currently managed as interchangeable parts without consideration that each possesses unique talents suiting them to a particular position at a particular time. Wardynski, Lyle & Colarusso (2010), state that the army must advance from their industrial era personnel practices to information-age talent management practices. Unfortunately, the situation today is surprisingly unchanged. The critical decisions for selection, development, and assignments of army officers continue to be made with very little individualized information despite the advancements in technology and information management .It is far too common for army leaders to hoard talent at the expense of subordinate leader developmental
The data from the Leader Development Task Force Report (2013) shows that leaders in the army value leader development, but other priorities take precedence over conducting it most of the time. The study also shows that half of the 12,000 officers surveyed do not understand how professional growth counseling should occur, which indicates that it is not happening at all. Leaders are not setting clear priorities for the development of others due to …show more content…
Officers are currently managed as interchangeable parts without consideration that each possesses unique talents suiting them to a particular position at a particular time. Wardynski, Lyle & Colarusso (2010), state that the army must advance from their industrial era personnel practices to information-age talent management practices. Unfortunately, the situation today is surprisingly unchanged. The critical decisions for selection, development, and assignments of army officers continue to be made with very little individualized information despite the advancements in technology and information management .It is far too common for army leaders to hoard talent at the expense of subordinate leader developmental