I think this is exactly right – and the ‘right’ answer we look for from leaders in the Army.  However, when I reflect on it from my own experience I know I’ve failed many times at jobs I thought I was executing ‘successfully’ to really institute things that lived beyond my tenure.  I know that’s something I’ve seen repeatedly in units I’ve served – where changes in leadership regimes end up with vastly different performance in various areas – good and bad.

I wonder if there are things the Army can do – in culture, training, or practical mechanisms – to see unit function more of a continuum than a discrete tour.  I feel like the right way to lead an organization is to try to build towards something in every area – yet still have priorities.  Then, the next leader can come along and improve upon your accomplishments – yet not backslide.  All the while you’re building a next generation of leaders to (hopefully) be even better than you.  But, in practice it seems like even good leaders want to put their mark on any organization when they take over, strong/weak areas are rarely recognized until after the fact, and priorities are rarely seen through the lens of what will be lost as well as gained.  I feel like it’s a problem that’s more than RIP/TOA and gets to the heart of the way we organize and approach the mission command warfighting function.