2011 Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL): Main Findings

Abstract

The findings in this report are organized in 3 main sections: the quality of leadership, the effects of climate and situational factors on leadership, and the quality of leader development. The findings are based on responses from over 16,800 uniformed leaders with an overall accuracy within +/-0.7%. Leadership quality continues to be a strength of the Army, and most of the Leadership Requirements Model competencies and attributes are effectively demonstrated. Leading others and getting results are two strong competencies. Attributes dealing with character, values, empathy, fitness, resilience, knowledge, sound judgment, and mental agility are strong as well. Elements recently added to emphasize discipline, trust, and stewardship are also effectively demonstrated by Army leaders. One consistent exception in strong indicators is the Develops Others competency. Many leaders are perceived as not providing useful counseling, nor encouraging individual development, and not showing genuine concern for subordinate development. Three-fourths of leaders are seen as putting the needs of the unit and mission first before their own needs. Leaders with negative leadership behaviors are more likely to be associated with low unit cohesion, unit discipline problems, low subordinate motivation, poor work quality, and lowered commitment to the Army. Ratings of the LD effectiveness of professional military education (PME) courses improved from the last two years. The report concludes with a look at trends and recommendations to improve leadership and leader development in the Army.

Today's Soldier: Assessing the Needs of Soldiers and Their Families

“…The RAND Military Workplace Study survey was administered shortly before this survey, in August and September of 2014 (Morral et al, 2014), so soldiers may not have recognized that they were receiving an invitation to participate in a different survey being conducted by RAND. Additionally, the 2014 Center for Army Leadership Annual Survey of Army Leadership (CASAL) was administered from November 20 to December 15, 2014 (Riley et al, 2015).…”

“…In the 2012 Status of Forces Survey, though, the response rate for the E-1 to E-4 rank group was 13 percent (DMDC, 2012c). In 2013 the CASAL obtained a response rate of 23 percent for the active component, and that survey does not include junior enlisted personnel (only NCOs, warrant officers, and officers) (Riley et al, 2014).…”

Antecedents and Consequences of Toxic Leadership in the U. S. Army: A Two Year Review and Recommended Solutions

“…The positive command climate being suggested is one in which leaders routinely engage with subordinates, reduce the stigma of seeking help, and provide support while forbidding abuse, physical punishment, and ridicule. Recent CASAL data (Riley et al, 2011) indicate that only 59% of active component leaders believe that seeking help for stress-related problems is acceptable. Toxic leadership may be even more damaging in a military setting than in civilian corporations because the impact that toxic leaders have on their subordinates" performance is greater for those who identify a strong sense of value and meaning in their jobs (Harris, Kacmar, Zivunska, & Shaw, 2007).…”

“…This model that includes creating a positive environment should be extended to full implementation and practice." Riley et al (2009) went on to recommend expanding the company commander climate survey requirement to the battalion level, arguing that (p. XII), "Nested climate surveys from battalion, brigade, and division would allow consistent checks on climate and give an opportunity for command initiative on climate." While following equal employment opportunity and discrimination laws is important, they do not guarantee a positive command climate.…”

“…The appeal of these recommendations is that: 1) they stem from relevant data, 2) are based on established Army leadership doctrine, 3) can be readily implemented as part of a change that is already being examined, 4) focus on subordinate assessment and needs being met, and 5) allow for greater integration of Army systems. A further benefit of these recommendations is that at the same time that the Army addresses toxic leadership it could finally address the lowest rated leader competency of Developing Others, and getting away from focusing on the strongest competency of Gets Results (Riley et al, 2011). Riley et al (2009) recommended establishing more accountability and including results of unit level assessment and action plans in the Quarterly Training Brief (QTB).…”