What’s the Use of Branches (for a Junior Officer)?

Editor’s note: The Branching of Year Group 2020 sparked a conversation within CJO about the utility of branches and branch identity for junior officers. Listen in as two of our team members talk about what branches can offer for junior officer development.

Ray: More than anything, branches offer a junior officer the opportunity to shape their initial identity. A JO starting out has no idea what the Army needs from them, so embracing the basic competencies of their branch is a great way for JOs to get a running start. This is also why branch identity is so important: it gives others interacting with that junior officer an initial set of realistic expectations for what to expect (and just as importantly, not to expect). That’s part of why I wish the Army hadn’t gone away from branch insignia on combat uniforms: it was an easy way to find the specific competencies you needed when walking into a unit for the first time.

Chad: I believe the key for junior officers is to focus on those core leadership behaviors.  Junior officers could very likely end up in a unit that is outside their branch.  That leader needs to learn how to thrive and lead in that organization.  Leadership is leadership… the application is just a little different.  I firmly believe that officers need to garner the knowledge required for their job, many times that may be branch specific.  I also agree that branches can shape a junior officer’s initial identity; however, I’m not convinced that this is always a good thing.  We judge people based on their branch before we even get to know them.  This is a strong bias that can shape how we view every piece of information that comes after.  Just because someone is of a certain branch does not mean they are competent.  Likewise, a signal officer could be incredibly tactically proficient.  We should base credibility on more solid factors than someone’s branch. 

Ray: Certainly, we shouldn’t solely judge people based on their branch affiliation. But it’s also not realistic to expect officers to be proficient in all tasks that a unit performs. Remember, the other half of “jack of all trades” is “master of none.” There is only so much time in a day, and only so many things that an officer can build a substantial level of competence in. Focusing on branch competencies gives a junior officer the ability to hone in on the essentials that they need to know for success right away. As they master those competencies, they can then gradually add new skills. And building those competencies gives them credibility as leaders and the opportunity to truly realize their own leadership style as they grow as officers.

Chad:  Mastering a skillset is valuable.  Many times that may be within your branch’s traditional path, but I don’t know if we should limit that.  How many organizations have the S4 role filled by a non-logistics branch officer?  Many S3 shops are filled with a random assortment of branches/MOSs.  While I am not discrediting the need to master a skillset.  I think building leadership capacity is more important than building technical branch skill as an officer.  Google recently studied what the best leaders/managers do that others do not.  Their research showed that the best leaders engage in 10 key behaviors.  You can find the study here. Only 1 of those 10 deals with technical knowledge and it was one of the least important on the list.  The other are nine are irrespective of job function.  Of course, leaders need to adapt based on their task, the people, and the situation, but that is true regardless of whether the mission is branch specific or not.

Ray: Your comment about S3 shops being filled with a “random assortment of branches/MOSs” is the perfect illustration of why a branch-centric focus on competency is the best approach for junior officers. Far from being random, there’s a method to the madness of trying to get a diverse range of competencies in an operations section to make it as adaptable as possible. A leadership competency approach would work great if we had organizations that remained relatively stable over a sustained period of time (as they do in the organizations that Google studied). But we all know that turnover is endemic in our organizations, and that within a three year period, the entire organization will have turned over. So a branch-based competency stands the best chance, over the long run, of consistently meeting the needs of the organization.

Chad:  I completely agree that having a diverse team, when led properly, will produce better results and make better decisions.  In one study, a group of 3,000 citizens predicted events better than CIA analysts.  One key when leading diverse teams is to not pigeonhole people based on a difference.  In my own career, I served with a transportation battalion.  I was their Battalion S3, even though I was a military police (MP) officer.  Many in the Battalion assumed I was a logistics officer because I learned and became proficient in transportation doctrine.  They based their assessment on my demonstrated knowledge.  However, if branch played such an important role, I would not have been chosen to lead the S3 shop.  If I had been labeled as an MP early on, it is unlikely people would have listened to what I had to say as closely or gone to me with questions as when they thought I was a logistics officer.  Branches are vital constructs that help make our Army efficient.  I just think we must be careful on using them as an automatic grouping function or basis to automatically assess someone’s knowledge and credibility.  It is easy to say we won’t do this, but biases are powerful and often shape our thinking without us ever knowing. 

What do you think?

 ———

Ray Kimball has served as a helicopter pilot, a history instructor, a strategic advisor, and a White House staffer. He is the author of The Army Officer’s Guide to Mentoring, the first comprehensive look at mentoring best practices used by US Army officers. 

Image courtesy of DVIDS