Leadership and Our Army Profession
Gen. Gary M. Brito, U.S. Army
Lt. Col. Danny R. Priester Jr., U.S. Army
Download the PDF 
Troops are strongly influenced by the example and conduct of their leaders. A leader must have superior knowledge, will power, self-confidence, initiative, and disregard of self.
—Field Manual 100-5, Operations
We don’t have to look far to find many writings on leadership. Books, academic journals, doctrinal manuals, and more provide material on leadership styles, philosophies, and templates. I would argue that leading in the U.S. Army, although it shares much of what is written in the above material, has its own aimpoint: to be ready for combat.
In May 2025, the Army released Field Manual (FM) 1, The Army: A Primer to Our Profession of Arms. This article builds on and complements chapter 3 of FM 1, “A Leader.” I want to underscore the importance of leadership and its impact on unit performance, unit cohesion, and most importantly, our Army Profession.
A mentor once told me leadership is a little bit of both nature and nurture, and I believe this to be true. In other words, one may have innate leadership qualities such as charisma or empathy, while other qualities are learned and modeled over time. The “learned” qualities come from a variety of sources including formal education, mentoring, training, and more. We have a responsibility to our profession to nurture and develop leadership qualities in all our leaders, regardless of rank.
Supporting and investing in leader development has and will always be paramount to the Army’s success on the battlefield. Positive and effective leadership provides the foundation for combat-focused training—building cohesive teams, caring for soldiers and families, upholding standards, and making decisions. Effective leadership remains a central driver of change, not an afterthought, as the U.S. Army remains fully engaged with continuous transformation in response to a more volatile and interconnected global operational environment and adversaries that have shown the capacity to acquire technology quickly and cheaply.
Our people—soldiers, leaders, and civilian professionals—deserve the best leadership possible, and our rich Army history is full of different leadership examples to draw on. Authentic, present, and technically proficient leaders with strength of character who exercised empathy at the right moments have served our Army well through every generational pivot from the post-Vietnam transition to modularity, to multidomain operations today. Why? They are critical to a formation’s lethality and combat readiness. Lethality and combat readiness are not negotiable in our profession.
Changing Character of War
Today’s strategic landscape is defined by simultaneous competition, rapid technological disruption, drone warfare, machine learning, and the blurring of political and military actions. Near-peer competitors such as China and Russia have studied American operations for decades. They seek to exploit perceived gaps in our decision-making speed, joint integration, and cohesion. Preparing leaders for this environment is a shared responsibility of both the institutional and operational forces. It requires a combination of specialty and baseline technical training, soldier skills, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and ethical reasoning. Reinforcement at home station matters. You can’t go wrong with more reps and sets of good, hard training!
Our Army expects soldiers to be warriors and professionals. This is a high calling that demands a clear vision, unwavering commitment, and dedicated training. Foundational to this is leadership.1 A person’s natural leadership qualities are not enough to prepare them to lead their formation on a modern battlefield. We need competent and technically knowledgeable leaders who understand the soldiers they lead because they have rigorously trained them; can rapidly make sound decisions; and can bring all available capabilities to bear on, to close with, and to destroy the enemy on an increasingly transparent and evolving battlefield.2
Over the past decade or so, varying forms of institutional reforms have occurred to address leader development, from Army Talent Management initiatives to changes in professional military education. The institutional army adapts to meet the demands of continuous transformation. Within the operational force, combat training center rotations, Warfighter exercises, and other venues build the proficiency our soldiers and formations need to be lethal on the battlefield. Leaders reinforce formal programs at every level, and the training they execute with their formations further hone their lethality.
People as the Enduring Advantage
The U.S. Army is no stranger to change. From its inception, the Army has continuously adapted to the evolving nature of conflict. The American Revolution saw militia-style warfare with disciplined formations. Industrial mobilization met mass maneuver in World War II. The Cold War introduced nuclear deterrence and global posture. Counterinsurgency, nation-building, and decentralized operations dominated in the post-9/11 era. And now, in the twenty-first century, we enter an era of convergence where warfare touches multiple domains and blurs the lines between conventional and unconventional, kinetic and cognitive, physical and digital.
Today, the Army invests in artificial intelligence, autonomous platforms, long-range precision fires, and next-generation combat systems. Units gather lessons from ongoing conflicts and use them to improve training, doctrine, and more. In all this, our operational army and institutional army must invest in combat-focused training, ensuring our soldiers are fit and proficient in their skills, or to quote Command Sgt. Maj. Ray Harris, “able to shoot, move, communicate, and medicate.”3 The one constant—leadership. No materiel system or automated process is effective without the impact of good, strong leaders.
In my thirty-eight-plus years of service, from leading a light infantry rifle platoon to commanding one of the Army’s commands, I have witnessed and benefited from the value of great leadership under conditions in war and peace; and at times, have seen and learned from ineffective leaders as well. Certainly, my experiences are not unique. Transformation, no matter how well-resourced or visionary, must include investing equally in developing the leaders required to make it real and lead through changing environments. Regardless of how capabilities change or evolve, our Army’s lethality and adversarial overmatch depends on well-trained soldiers led by professional and competent leaders who are prepared to adjust as the battlefield requires.
Trust, Authenticity, and Presence
As members of our profession, we all share a few basic commonalities; the oath we take, our Army values, and a U.S. flag on our combat uniforms. These commonalities in themselves do not make us an effective, lethal team. We must also build the confidence of our soldiers that we are a force that will fight and win when called upon. We build that confidence through good, hard training and building trust with them that their leaders will expertly guide them on the battlefield.
Trust is the bedrock of mission command and the foundation of unit cohesion, which ensures the lethality of a unit, not just the individual. Authenticity is the foundation of trust in leadership, enabling comradery and cohesion across a formation. When leaders are authentic to themselves, their soldiers trust their guidance and decisions, ultimately enhancing unit and individual performance and leading to mission accomplishment. Soldiers trust genuine and authentic leaders, not a replica of someone else. Gaining trust takes time: time training, time communicating, time counseling, time learning from mistakes, and more. I had the honor of speaking at a Ranger School graduation a few months ago. It was awesome to see unit leadership of all ranks there to celebrate the accomplishment of their respective soldiers. Leader presence matters. Talk about cohesion!
Grassroots leadership—the day-to-day, boots-on-the-ground leadership by junior officers, noncommissioned officers, and warrant officers—is where our profession lives and breathes. The adage of “trust is a two-way street” applies. While policy may be set at the Pentagon and concepts and doctrine developed in the institutional force, it is in platoon bays, maintenance shops, morning PT, and field training exercises where the Army’s culture is truly forged. These daily interactions are critical to building trust and cohesion between a leader and their soldiers, but they are not automatic. These interactions require present leaders who don’t just go through the motions.
In a squad, a soldier’s first experience of the Army is shaped not by strategy or doctrine but by their team leader’s presence. Their team leader reinforces and builds on the training soldiers receive during their initial military training—not just with formal training, but by leading by example and demonstrating what right looks like. At a combat training center rotation, when a unit trusts their leader, that leader’s presence on (or near) the objective enables command and control and exudes confidence within the formation.
Empathetic Leadership
As a relatively new rifle platoon leader (a long time ago), I recall vividly a lesson learned that I have never forgotten. While loading rucksacks and more on an old “deuce and a half,” I noticed a soldier dragging his feet, not motivated and a bit out of it.4 I was ready to get moving and told the young specialist to hurry his butt up and get on the truck. By pure coincidence, the battalion chaplain was nearby and knew why the soldier was “unmotivated.” The chaplain stared at me and, in a grandfatherly tone, shared that the soldier just learned his grandmother, whom he grew up with, had passed. At that moment, I felt two inches tall. My lesson that day—take a moment to understand causal factors, have some empathy (and sympathy) before acting out. I was wrong and learned from it. The entire event was no more than five minutes, but it had a long-lasting and positive impact—be human!
Please don’t misunderstand me. Empathy must be balanced with a mission focus. It is not about coddling; it is about understanding context, adjusting the approach and not the expectation, to get the most out of your soldiers. Empathetic leaders do not lower the standard; they elevate the person and consider other factors. This lesson has become more important, not less, as I’ve progressed in my career. Taking a moment to understand context helps to guide the next step.
Friction Happens
Leadership is easiest when the mission is clear, the plan is working, and morale is high. Wake-up call: this is not always the case! Communications break down, weather delays happen, and oh yeah, the enemy gets a vote. Leading under pressure and working through friction is developed through hard training under varying conditions while managing risks. To ensure our Army remains lethal, it’s best to do it in peacetime training rather than for the first time in combat.
I recall a unit live-fire situation in which an entire movement was disrupted due to an unexpected and life-threatening training accident. The commander had two options: end training or adapt the plan. He chose the latter. From previous training and interaction, his soldiers knew their commander. His authentic, calm demeanor and deliberate tone reassured the unit and conveyed his trust in them. “We train for this,” he said. “Let’s assess, adjust, and drive on.” Not only did the mission resume successfully, but the team also emerged more confident in their ability to execute even when “friction” happens. A few months later, the same unit was deployed in Iraq when similar events unfolded. The mission succeeded with no casualties.5 The takeaway: leaders must ensure units train hard, train often, and train as they will fight! Learn and build trust in the team through shared hardships. Do not keep lessons on the shelf; they must be incorporated.
Conclusion: Enduring Leadership Is a Combat Multiplier
New equipment will be developed, smart technology will evolve, and the character of war will change. In times of transformation, we often ask what the future force will look like. We all have a stake in making sure part of the answer includes competent leaders. Continue to invest in our leaders as we transform to beat (not meet) any adversary. Leaders of strong character who are well trained and competent have a healthy balance of emotional and intelligence skills. And let us remember that while the instruments of war change, and rightly so, the essence of “damn good” leadership endures. We owe it to our soldiers, their families, and the Nation.
“This We’ll Defend.”6
Notes 
- Epigraph. Field Manual (FM) 100-5, Operations (Government Printing Office, 1941), 19.
- FM 1, The Army: A Primer to Our Profession of Arms (U.S. Government Publishing Office, 19 May 2025), 23.
- Gary M. Brito, “Data Literacy: How We Prepare for the Future,” Military Review Online Exclusive, 7 January 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2025-OLE/Data-Literacy/.
- Command Sgt. Maj. Raymond S. Harris is the command sergeant major at U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.
- A “deuce and a half” is a two-and-one-half ton Army truck equipped for moving passengers and equipment.
- Attributed to the author’s actual training and combat experiences with the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 2005–2006.
- Henry Howe, “This We’ll Defend: The Army’s Defining Motto,” U.S. Army, 20 March 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/283916/this_well_defend_the_armys_defining_motto.
Gen. Gary M. Brito, U.S. Army, is the commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. He previously served as the deputy chief of staff, G-1, for the U.S. Army in Washington, D.C.; and as commanding general of the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia. He holds master’s degrees in human resource management from Troy State University and in joint strategy and campaign planning from the Joint Advanced Warfighting School. He has deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lt. Col. Danny R. Priester, U.S. Army, is the aide-de-camp to the commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. He previously served as the battalion executive officer and operations officer for 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He completed a master’s degree in business administration at the Raymond A. Mason School of Business, William and Mary. He has multiple deployments to Iraq.
Back to Top