Revitalizing Enlisted Education: A Strategic Imperative for Future Warfare

By Sgt. Maj. Randall Austin

Sergeants Major Academy

January 16, 2025

Download the PDF

Winning Tomorrow’s Wars Begins in the Classroom

Major transformations often begin with small, intentional shifts (Gladwell, 2000). If you’ve been in the U.S. Army for a day, you’ve seen how a small event can cause large, immediate change. I’ve seen commanders implement change through emails and formations alike.

Small changes must begin now.

The Army needs to revitalize enlisted education so the force is ready to meet the challenges of the next fight or battle in service to the country. The U.S. Army must recognize that the next great leap in readiness won’t come from better weapons or faster technology; it’ll come from Soldiers’ and leaders’ intellectual preparation.

The Army will have to win future wars not just on physical terrain, but in nonphysical domains with decisive adaptability, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning. Senior enlisted leaders take pride in readiness; however, tactical excellence alone no longer guarantees victory. In this era of multi-domain operations (MDO), enlisted leaders must navigate ambiguity, not just execute orders (TRADOC, 2018).

From Tactical to Strategic: A Gap in the Ranks

When serving as a sergeant first class at Special Operations Command–Central (SOCCENT), I submitted several operational recommendations that unexpectedly reached the strategic level. What stood out in those recommendations was not that my superior elevated my recommendations, but that those recommendations were implemented. I was also caught off guard by my lack of preparation for the strategic conversations that followed with two- and four-star generals. I had experience and intuition, but I lacked the language, context, and doctrinal fluency to articulate my thoughts in a strategic manner.

As the Department of the Army (2022) states in FM 3-0, Operations, future leaders must be “adaptable, proactive, and operationally informed” to lead effectively in complex, contested environments.

The current professional military education (PME) structure, however, too often teaches senior NCOs to execute doctrine rather than to challenge, adapt, or contextualize it. Senior NCOs often train to meet training schedules and timelines rather than to anticipate second- and third-order effects. The result is senior NCOs who excel in executing procedures, but struggle with strategic synthesis.

Why the Current Approach Falls Short

PME must reflect adult learning principles and outcome-based models that emphasize performance, relevance, and application (Pierson, 2017). Conversely, much of today’s PME is fixated on rote memorization and surface-level comprehension. Written exams and oral boards, as currently structured, test recall rather than reasoning.

Appleget (2022) notes that institutions such as Marine Corps University and the Air War College have adopted scenario-driven simulations, war gaming, and red teaming to better align learning with operational demands.

These updated approaches develop critical thinking, decision-making under pressure, and strategic foresight, characteristics that often go unassessed in written tests. PME must evolve from simply checking boxes to cultivating leaders who can lead ethically, think independently, and operate confidently. This is especially true in joint, interagency, and multinational contexts (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2020).

A New Path Forward: Train Like We Fight

Scenario-based assessments are the most authentic way to evaluate leaders’ readiness for complex challenges (Appleget, 2022). Instead of asking students to define mission command, PME should present a failing coalition mission or an information-saturated environment and ask, “What would you do next?”

This model supports deeper engagement, better retention, and long-term adaptability, because adult learners thrive when education reflects real-world relevance and allows for problem-solving based on prior experience (Pierson, 2017).

These conditions allow senior NCOs to practice solving dense problems, exercise judgment, and refine their ethical reasoning without real-world consequences. It also ensures learners are in psychologically safe, secure-base environments where failure is part of the growth process, helping develop greater resilience and initiative (Navas- Jiménez et al., 2024).

The Army must let leaders fail in the classroom, so they don’t fail in combat.

Leadership That Wins: Lessons from the Field

Trust-based leadership environments foster ethical behavior, creativity, and resilience (Navas-Jiménez et al., 2024).

One of the greatest lessons I ever received came from a Special Forces battalion commander whose leadership philosophy was, “You won’t win every battle, but if you approach each day with a winning mindset, you’ll achieve great things.”

That mindset of winning the day guides how I view PME. We may not fix everything overnight, but if we strive each day to build better strategic thinkers, we’ll win the long game.

Stewardship, Servant Leadership, and the Future Fight

Department of the Army (2019), Army Leadership and the Profession (ADP 6-22), defines stewardship as a core responsibility of Army professionals that obligates personnel to leave the organization in better condition than they found it.

Reforming PME is not about criticizing past methods; it is about serving future generations of leaders.

Faithful stewardship is a form of servant leadership that prioritizes developing others over personal comfort. The Army deserves senior NCOs who serve not just by doing their daily jobs, but by preparing others to lead in an uncertain world.

From Readiness to Relevance

If the Army is serious about winning future conflicts, it must evolve its passive education through active transformation. PME must develop leaders who are not only competent, but cognitively agile, ethically grounded, and strategically minded. This requires updating teaching methods, creating relevant assessment strategies, and committing to the NCO Corps’ professional growth.

The Army owes its Soldiers more than how-to information. The Army owes its Soldiers intellectual empowerment.

---

References

Appleget, J. (2022). Wargaming: A structured conversation. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, 22(2), 79–82. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15485129221134530

Department of the Army. (2019). Army leadership and the profession (ADP 6-22). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN42975-ADP_6-22-002-WEB-8.pdf

Department of the Army. (2022). Operations (FM 3-0). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN43326-FM_3-0-000-WEB-1.pdf

Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Little, Brown and Company.

Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2020). Joint planning (JP 5-0). https://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/Joint-Doctrine-Pubs/5-0-Planning-Series/

Navas-Jiménez, M., Laguía, A., Recio, P., García-Guiu, C., Pastor, A., Edú-Valsania, S., Molero, F., Mikulincer, M., & Moriano, J. (2024). Secure base leadership in military training: Enhancing organizational identification and resilience through work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1401574. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1401574

Pierson, D. (2017). Reengineering Army education for adult learners. Journal of Military Learning, 1(2), 31–43. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Journal-of-Military-Learning/Journal-of-Military-Learning-Archives/October-2017-Edition/Pierson-Reengineering-Army-Education/

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. (2018). The U.S. Army in multi-domain operations 2028 (TRADOC Pam 525-3-1). https://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/pamphlets/TP525-3-1.pdf

Scenario-driven approaches develop critical thinking, decision-making under pressure, and strategic foresight—characteristics that often go unassessed in written tests. PME must evolve from simply checking boxes to cultivating leaders who can lead ethically, think independently, and operate confidently. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. 1st Class Terry Ann Lewis)

 

Back to Top