Intelligence Leadership in the News
Leadership for Intelligence Professionals
| ||
| | |
| ||
|
|
|
|
Learn to Lead |
|
 |
Welcome |
|
|
|
|
Leadership for Intelligence Professionals |
|
|
|
Course Syllabus |
|
|
|
|
Course Topics |
|
|
|
Introduction to Leadership |
|
|
Leadership Traits |
|
|
The Leader's Character |
|
|
Types of Leaders and Styles of Leadership |
|
|
Leadership Competencies |
|
|
Followership, Leadership and the Staff Officer |
|
|
Leadership in Intelligence Coordination: Leading Teams |
|
|
Leadership in Management |
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Materials |
|
|
|
Supplemental Materials |
|
|
|
|
Self-Assessment |
|
|
|
Self-Assessment Guidance |
|
|
Worksheet |
|
|
|
|
Personal Leadership Development Plan |
|
|
|
Plan Guidance |
|
|
Example |
|
|
Two Student Examples |
|
|
Student Example: Calendar Style |
|
|
|
|
Personal Leadership Philosophy |
|
|
|
Philosophy Guidance and Example |
|
|
Student Examples |
|
|
|
|
COMMUNICATIONS |
|
Learn to Lead
learntolead@earthlink.net
|
|
Intelligence Leadership in the News (Past Entries)
Who Said that You Have to Be in a Leadership Position to Be an Influential Leader?
Analysts can certainly Lead an organization and even a nation. For example, George Kennan:
George Kennan’s thought suffused American foreign policy on both sides of the intellectual and ideological dividing lines for nearly half a century. Yet the highest position he ever held was ambassador to
A brilliant analyst of long-term trends and a singularly gifted prose stylist, Kennan, as a relatively junior Foreign Service officer, served in the entourages of Secretaries of State George C. Marshall and Dean Acheson. His fluency in German and Russian, as well as his knowledge of those countries’ histories and literary traditions, combined with a commanding, if contradictory, personality.
…no other Foreign Service officer ever shaped American foreign policy so decisively or did so much to define the broader public debate over
Source: Henry A. Kissinger, “The Age of Kennan” in the New York Times Book Review, November 10,2011
If Joe Paterno were a Leader, What Should He Have Done?
A long time ago: See topic “The Leader’s Character” and use the index to find “Prioritizing Your Chosen Values” and read about the tension a Leader faces when deciding between Honesty and Loyalty. Go here____.
When he learned about his subordinate’s actions: See topic “Leadership, Followership and the Staff Officer” and use the index to find “Speaking Up as a Concerned Professional” and “Speaking Up as a Person of Integrity”. Go Here ____..
Source: Author’s personal comments to high school classmates who are PennState Alumni and upset about the crisis in “
Are You a Leader or Manager?
Senator John McCain recently gave a speech to the Naval Aviation Tailhook gathering. Among other points he made during his presentation was to emphasize the difference between Leadership and management. He said:
Today, we hear a lot about "management" and not enough about leadership. That worries me. One thing of which I am certain, there is a great difference between managers and leaders. Good managers are plentiful---in fact, our nation graduates over 150,000 MBAs every year. But true leaders are rare. And believe me, there is a difference.
· Leaders inspire people, managers, well, the "manage" people and assets.
· Leaders think about protecting and promoting their people; managers think about protecting their own careers.
· Leaders take charge and accept responsibility;managers often pass the buck to higher authority for fear of making a wrong decision.
· Leaders take risks when necessary; managers are taught to avoid risks whenever possible.
Source:
To read more comparisons of Leaders and managers, go here____
"Robert Gates, United States Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011, has signed with Knopf to write two books; the first book will be a memoir and is tentatively scheduled for 2013, while the second book will focus on leadership and is expected to be published the following year.
"The second book will focus on Gates's philosophy about leadership, his views about great leaders he has admired, and his thoughts about effective leadership, even in the face of adversity and difficulty. Gates was named one of
Source: Publishers Clearing House 19 July 2011
A Rare Accolade for the Qualities of a Government Leader
"At his 2006 confirmation hearing to become the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates set the tone for his leadership with two words. 'No sir,' he replied when a senator asked whether U.S. forces were winning in Iraq. with that single crisp answer, Gates blew away three years of windy doublespeak...signaling that the new Pentagon chief would be refreshingly honest and blunt.
"Whether he'd also be competent and effective was less clear. But four-and-a-half years later, Gates...has turned out to be one of the most successful and widely admired Cabinet members of the modern era, one of those rare senior leaders who make us wonder why we more can't be this good.
"Why did Gates excel? For one thing, his primary motivation appeared to be public service, not self-promotion or empire building....
"Gates, 67, isn't without flaws or blind spots....
"But he has been right far more often than not, open-minded enough to recognize that some criticism is valid, and decisive enough to force change.
"But the secret to Gates' success isn't just that he is low-key and self-effacing. It's that Gates is the consummate public servant, mostly free of partisan agendas, clouded judgment and blinding ego that too often come with high office. The nation could use more like him."
Source: USAToday "Editorial", June, 29, 2011.
The Leader highlighting the "collaboration" of the Intelligence "Community"
Statement from Director of National Intelligence
James R. Clapper on the Death of Osama bin Laden
In my nearly 50 years in intelligence, never have I seen a more remarkable example of focused integration, seamless collaboration, and sheer professional magnificence as was demonstrated by the Intelligence Communityi n the ultimate demise of Osama bin Laden.
The carefull, diligent work of CIA, NGA,and NSA was simply incredible. It is with great pride and admiration that I offer thanks to all of the dedicated men and women of our community who worked so tirelessly in this achievement.
I want to thank the President for his cool, decisive leadership. The Intelligence Community will never waver in our continued commitment to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
God bless you all, and God bless the
Listen, Learn...then Lead
To see a great leadership presentation, go here____
Getting Bin Laden: Symbols are important for Leadership
Charismatic Leaders use symbols as an element of the charisma by which they gain and keep the support of their followers. Consider MacArthur’s slouch hat and corncob pipe, Patton’s pearl-handled revolvers and cavalry boots, and even Gandhi’s robes and sandals. Other successful Leaders also use symbols to emphasize their Leadership status. Ike’s jacket bested Monty’s. On the other hand, more than symbols are required to be a successful Leader. Jimmy Carter’s wearing of a cardigan sweater in the oval office didn’t solve the energy crisis.
Osama bin Laden became more a symbol of Al Qaeda than an operational Leader. While the loss of that symbol will not reduce Al Qaeda’s operational abilities it will limit the organization’s ability to attract and keep followers. But, more importantly, getting bin Laden has been an important symbol for Barak Obama’s Leadership.
The military operation that killed Osama bin Laden has boosted Americans’ confidence that the United States can succeed in the war against terrorism and faith in President Obama as commander in chief….The boost for Obama as a trusted commandeer in chief could endure, ‘The long patient planning; the risk-taking to get it done the way he thought it needed to be done---all that portrays a president who is a very competent decision-maker.’
In addition, it is comforting to know that “…overwhelming majorities give credit to the
Source: Susan Page "Belief in War on Terrorism Boosted" in USAToday of May 4, 2011. Included is a quote from "Richard Eichenberg, a political scientist at Tufts University who studies polling".
The gift was given some days after Christmas and paid for six months later, but it all started at Christmas.
In May 2010, the President
…offered Blair a face-saving exit. Take your time, weeks, even months, Obama said. Come up with a personal reason or any explanation. He would support any story Blair wanted, the president said….
Blair was deeply offended. He wasn’t ill. His family was fine. And he had told people he would stay as DNI for four years because part of the problem with the office had been the constant turnover at the top.
“You want me to lie?” Blair asked.
No, Obama said, I didn’t mean that at all.
Fire me, Blair basically said.
That’s exactly what Obama did.
Women Leaders of the Intelligence Community
On 9 December the President nominated Stephanie O’Sullivan for the position of Principal Director of National Intelligence. Ms. O’Sullivan is the second woman now at the top level of the national Intelligence Committee. She joins Letitia Long who recently became the Director of the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency, the first woman to Lead a national intelligence agency. Both these women began their intelligence careers in the Office of Naval Intelligence. In that regard, they follow in the footsteps of Joan Dempsey, the only previous woman to rise to the top level of national intelligence. Ms. Dempsey also began her career in naval intelligence. She later served as the first Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management from 1998 to 2003 and then became the Executive Director of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Making the Leadership Team Work
The organizational leadership team will only succeed in Leading the organization if its members have the courage to speak up and highlight problems and suggest improvements. They will only do so if the senior Leader encourages and accepts that mode of operation. When such an environment exists, the chances of organizational success improve. The recent survival and success of the Ford Motor Company without government assistance is an example.
Soon after Alan Mullally arrived as Ford’s chief executive in September 2006 he organized a meeting of his senior managers and asked them how things were going. Fine, fine, fine, came the answers from around the table. “We are forecasting a loss of $17 billion and no one has any problems!” an incredulous Mr. Mullally exclaimed. When he asked the same question the next week, Mark Fields, head of Ford’s operations in the
Four years on, Ford is making record profits. Its revival began with this new willingness to recognize its faults….When Mr. Fields stuck his hand up at that meeting and won Mr. Mullally’s approval, colleagues began chipping in with helpful suggestions….As far as Mr. Mullally is concerned, demolishing those management divisions has been the most important factor in turning Ford around…..
...“The data sets you free…you can’t manage secrets,” he encourages openness and teamwork. So he will be expecting a lot more honesting from his executives…on which Ford’s future may ultimately depend.
Source: "Epiphany in Dearborn" in The Economist, December 11, 2010
To learn more about the need to speak up, scoll fown to see the previous article in this series, "Advice for Members of the DNI's Staff". To read about Leadership Teams, go here____. To read about the need for Staff Officers to speak up, go here____.
The Coming Challenge for Intelligence Community Leaders
As military combat in
This will not be the first time intelligence has been reduced in concert with the conclusion of military combat. It happened in the Eisenhower administration following the Korean War, in the Carter administration following the Vietnam War, in the Clinton Administration following the Gulf War, and is set to happen again. But, as, respectively, Sputnik, the fall of the Shah of Iran and the attacks of 9/11 and other surprises to American decision-makers have shown, neglecting intelligence has not always been wise.
Nevertheless, seasoned bureaucrats recognize that it is going to happen again. In August, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "It is important that we not repeat the mistakes of the past, where tough economic times or the winding down of a military campaign leads to steep and unwise reductions in defense." Thus, he announced that now
…the Pentagon will cut thousands of jobs, including a substantial chunk of its private contractors and a major military command….as part of an ongoing effort to streamline its operations and to stave off political pressure to slash defense spending in the years ahead.
…defense officials characterized these moves as a political preemptive strike to fend off growing sentiment elsewhere in Washington to tackle the federal government's soaring deficits by making deep cuts in military spending….shrinking bureaucracy so that more money can be spent on troops and weapons.
The cuts will involve
…the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which employs about 2,800 military and civilian personnel as well as 3,300 contractors…[and] a 10 percent cut in intelligence advisory contracts….
While Gates initiatives may preserve military forces and equipment from expected budget cuts, the people who provide the intelligence to support them will fare less well in the coming period of austerity. A recent Washington Post poll indicated that
More than half of Americans say they think that federal workers are overpaid for the work they do, and more than a third think they are less qualified than those working in the private sector….
Half also say the men and women who keep the government running do not work as hard as employees at private companies.
This has led to what has become a bitter debate on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail over the size and value of the federal bureaucracy.
President Obama…said the workforce will be ‘part of the overall conversation’ when his administration takes up the federal budget next year. He said that he will not rule out furloughs and that agencies might need to shrink by keeping vacancies open. He has asked agencies to develop plans for cutting budgets by 5 percent.
More recently,
The fast growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives…. Already some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session…to challenge the President’s plan to give a 1.4% across-the- board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who will head the panel overseeing federal pay, says he wants a pay freeze and prefers a 10% pay cut.
But, that may be just the beginning
On November 10th, the President’s Deficit Commission released its first draft deficit reduction proposals. Among a number of other items, this included a $100 billion reduction in the defense budget.
If that occurs, it would likely be above that already planned to be cut by Secretary Gates and fall more heavily on the supporting elements of defense.
Certainly, as before, the future will bring significant cuts to military supporting infrastructure, including intelligence. Efforts at deficit reduction will bring cuts to civilian personnel levels, numbers of positions, pay levels and resources available for training and work tools. Given those restrictions, the ability of the Intelligence Community to produce high quality actionable intelligence in time to make a difference for decision-makers will depend on the morale, commitment and motivation of intelligence professionals. Those necessary ingredients to intelligence production can only be created by Leadership. Providing that Leadership is the coming challenge for Intelligence Community Leaders.
To learn more about how Leaders can motivate organizations and individuals, go here____.
Sources
-Gates initiatives: Craig Whitlock in the Washington Post, Tuesday, August 10, 2010.
Washington Post poll: Lisa Rein and Ed O'Keefe in the Washington Post, Monday, October 18, 2010; 12:57 AM
-Republican views on federal workers pay: Dennis Cauchon in USAToday Nov 10, 2010.
Advice for Members of the DNI's Staff
When speaking to students taking this course several years ago, Lieutenant General Jim Clapper USAF (Ret.), then the former Director of DIA and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and now the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) gave intelligence professionals “Some Rules of Good Staff Officership” for guidance at staff meetings:
· "Don’t make the boss have to ask the ‘perfect’ question.
· Tell the boss ‘the emperor has no clothes’.
· Admit screw-ups/ignorance.
· Be anticipatory; follow up.
· Remember bad news doesn’t get better with age.”
Certainly, he will expect the same from his new staff.
For more information on staff work, go here_____.
James R. Clapper: A Higher Level of Commitment, Ethics and Leadership
When senior military officers reach the point of retirement, they have spent a career of thirty or more years committed to serving their country. The high level of their commitment has been demonstrated by their willingness to put up with frequent family moves, endure long deployments away from the family, suffer considerable hardships during training and face great dangers during operations. The strength of that commitment has been demonstrated as it persisted for their entire career, despite the opportunities available to them to make more money if they had left the military for the business world. But, during the course of that career they also had challenging assignments, rewarding experiences and the enjoyed the feelings of accomplishment and success. Upon retirement they receive a guaranteed life-long generous retirement and medical care.
Because of their continued commitment to the defense of their country, many retired senior officers accept positions as consultants to industry to insure that companies understand the needs of the military services and design products that meet those needs. That is a necessary and worthy endeavor and should be compensated. Recently, some of those senior retired military officers have been asked to become “mentors” to officers now serving in positions similar to those that they held during their long careers. For that effort they have been offered and accepted additional compensation beyond their military retirement and business consulting fees. That has raised the issue of “conflicts of interest” between their business interests and their advisory role as mentors. The Defense Department is now investigating how serious that conflict may be and how to resolve it.
But, beyond the issue of possible conflicts of interest, the real issue is one of ethics and leadership. Why should or would officers already receiving retirement from any organization receive additional compensation for giving back to that organization and the people of that organization the knowledge that the organization once gave them through training, education and opportunities to develop experience? Why should they be paid for mentoring their former subordinates now, when they should have been doing so as a leadership responsibility all during their career? To accept payment in such circumstances suggests a failure of personal character; in terms of virtue ethics by placing excess above moderation or in terms of duty ethics by placing personal gain above responsibility. To review ethical values, go here____. Furthermore, throughout their careers, when in leadership positions, these officers espoused for themselves and urged their subordinates to adhere to the military core value of “selfless service”, “service above self”, “selflessness”. To see the military core values, go here.____. If those officers who are asked to continue their commitment to service as mentors would agree to do so at a level of compensation that covers no more than the amount required to cover out-of-pocket expenses, they would set an example of ethical Leadership for those whom they are mentoring and for the members of their military service at large,
Fortunately a number of other senior military officers have chosen to continue their commitment to service in different ways, some by teaching, others by taking government positions. Consider Lieutenant General James Clapper USAF (Ret.). Immediately after retirement from a long career in military intelligence, General Clapper, even while serving in defense industry, was teaching as a part-time adjunct professor at the Joint Military Intelligence College mentoring new intelligence professionals and doing so at a minimal level of compensation. Soon, he was back in government, relinquishing a portion of his military retirement and working for a salary less than he would have been able to earn as a private defense consultant. At the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) he is still remembered by students who have taken the course “Leadership for Intelligence Professionals” as an effective manager who brought together and revitalized the agency and a caring Leader who rejuvenated and mentored the workforce. Not long after completing that service he returned to government service at even a more responsible level as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. During all of that time he has gained more knowledge of and more diverse experience in the Intelligence Community. Now at the request of the President he has agreed to continue his commitment to service in the most difficult and, one might add, thankless job in government.
In considering James Clapper to be the next Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the members of the Senate should recognize him as an example of sustained high level of commitment to service and ethical Leadership in addition to his extensive knowledge and wide experience in the Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community deserves such a Leader.
The Director of National Intelligence: The Power to Lead
Recently, Joseph S. Nye the former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at
To support his leadership course, Professor Nye has written a book; The Powers to Lead (Harvard University Press: 2008). He reiterates the long understood array of powers available to any Leader:
· Coercive power which is “based on fear and relates primarily to the ability of the leader to punish the subordinates for non-conformity.”
· Reward power: which “relates to the ability of the leader to provide positive rewards, such as income or other benefits, to people who cooperate.”
· Legitimate power: which “relates to the position of the leader in the organizational hierarchy.”
· Expert power based on “unique expertise or skills in particular areas that are regarded as important to subordinates.”
· Referent power: “essentially the power of personality and relates to the leader’s ability to be admired because of one or more personal traits.”
But, he goes further by calling the first three powers “hard power” and the second two “soft power”. Many authorities on leadership believe that the power position of the Leader with regard to subordinates is a critical factor in determining leader effectiveness. Thus, while acknowledging that, today, especially in the governmental bureaucracy, it is preferable to use soft power, Nye recognizes that to Lead effectively, Leaders often need to use a combination of both hard and soft power. He calls this “smart power”.
Unfortunately, the establishment of the Director of National Intelligence created what many have called an “impossible job” by depriving the incumbent most of the authorities of hard power, making it impossible to Lead by using smart power.
The requirement to use only soft power creates the need for constant meetings and inflated staffs to continually negotiate and oversee the cooperation and coordination desired of the Intelligence Community. The lack of the ability to use, or threaten to use, hard power permits resistance and sabotage of the negotiated improvements to create the desired cooperation and coordination. Without giving the Director of National Intelligence, a full array of the powers to Lead, progress in improving the capabilities of the Intelligence Community will be painful and exhausting for the Director and slow in coming. Without those powers the Director and staff become just another layer of bureaucracy wasting the time of all concerned.
Given that Congress placed such limitations on the power of the Director of National Intelligence, the continual harsh criticisms aimed at the recent Directors are both unwarranted and hypocritical.
Source: Joseph S. Nye The Powers to Lead
For more information on Influence and Leadership, go here____ and use the index.
Inter-Agency Teams and Culture: Today's Leadership Challenges.
The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) is intended to be the solution for insuring Intelligence Community cross-Agency collaboration to “connect the dots” and identify the diverse and complex terrorist threats.
The 9/11 Commission recommended the establishment of a
In February 2010, a report by the independent Project on National Security Reform provided a critique of the NCTC’s Directorate of Strategic Operational Planning (DSOP).
Interagency mechanisms or teams such as DSOP are the way forward for managing complex, high-priority national missions….
An important component of the broader study of DSOP was to assess DSOP’s human capital issues, including: assessing the challenges and opportunities associated with managing an interagency workforce comprised of different backgrounds, expertise, lexicon, and cultures….
The report concludes that:
Overrall, DSOP has made progress in fulfilling its mission to provide the “connective tissue” between national counterterrorism policy and strategy…. It is conducting a broad range of interagency planning, assessment, and resource oversight to help ensure a holistic and whole-of-government approach to counterterrorism.
Notwithstanding this progress, numerous obstacles persist and prevent DSOP from becoming a more efficient and effective interagency entity.
Among those obstacles are the difficulties of leading people who are temporarily assigned from different agencies to function together as a top-performing team despite the differing organizational cultures from which they come. For example, the report found:
-DSOP faces traditional issues associated with attracting detailees from other agencies….individuals have relatively few incentives to join interagency teams, and departments and agencies have not been provided sufficient incentives to share personnel
-While some agencies such as the Department of Defense have generally been strong supporters, other agencies’ support—in terms of providing sufficient numbers and quality of detailees to DSOP— has been uneven. In addition to the lack of availability of DSOP mission critical competencies in other agencies, DSOP also faces the traditional challenges of attracting employees of other agencies on detail assignments. These challenges include but are not limited to:
· Inconsistent legal requirements governing detailees.
· Reluctance of contributing agency to provide resources for its limited supply.
· Lack of contributing agency buy-in regarding value of DSOP and value of detail.
-…not only does DSOP face considerable challenges in obtaining employees with the needed competencies, but the Directorate also faces high leadership turnover and an overall employee turnover rate approximately three times greater than other federal departments and agencies.
….a turnover rate in fiscal year 2008 of approximately thirty percent. This diverges from federal department turnover rates during the same period of between five percent (Justice) and eleven percent (Treasury) with a USG-wide average of eight percent.
-The majority of federal departments and agencies within the USG do not have parallel planning and assessment capabilities from which DSOP can draw….The significant exception is the military, which over many years, has built a highly skilled planning workforce. This is evident in the workforce composition within DSOP, which is largely made up of current military on assignment or former military who have joined the cadre ranks.
-...as a result of conflicting mandates, authorities, and cultures, the study found selective but critical situations where departments and agencies have stronger incentive to not cooperate with DSOP than to cooperate.
There are a host of consequences to this reality. Most significantly, this dynamic affects the quantity and quality of department and agency participation at senior-level meetings and within DSOP-led functional working groups. It also impacts the quality and number of detailees and assignees that departments and agencies are willing to send to DSOP….
As a result, there is evidence that DSOP has been forced to develop national plans without the expertise of some of the most important players. In one classified example, a plan was criticized because it did not incorporate CIA actions. In reality, the CIA had not participated in the planning process, so it was no surprise that its perspectives were not fully considered. In another classified example, DSOP lacked the regional expertise to develop a region-specific plan tasked to DSOP by the NSC because of a lack of State Department participation.
The lack of full interagency participation in the strategic operational planning process has other consequences as well. When national plans lack full interagency buy-in, and when departments and agencies don’t feel invested in the plan, implementation of those plans suffers.
While some improvements to this situation which is crippling
Source: Project for National Security Reform, Toward Integrating Complex National Security Missions: Lessons Learned from the
For more information on Leading Teams, go here____.
For more information on the Leader's role in creating an organizational culture, go here____.
Leaders Focus on People, Managers Focus on Systems
“President Obama has said that the failures revealed by the Christmas Day plot are both human and systemic. He’s right, but the 9/11 Commission said the same thing. The question is what is he going to do about it. USAToday editorial January 5, 2010.
Leaders focus on people: Admiral Denis Blair, Director of National Intelligence:
The president was direct in his assessment that intelligence failures were a contributing factor in the escalation of this threat. This is a tough message for us to receive. But we have received it, and now we must move forward and respond as a team.
In coming days, we will review what information was available to whom, determine what mistakes were made in assessing or sharing that information, commend those who did their jobs well, and hold accountable those who did not. I have no doubt in our ability to close the gaps that these attacks have exposed….
We are an adaptive learning organization. We can an must outthink, outwork and defeat the enemy’s new ideas. Our intelligence community is now more collaborative than ever before, know how to operate as a team and can adjust to conditions on the ground. In the immediate term we have a challenging job of self-examination, and we will do it as a community….we will work together to understand, anticipate and act against our enemies….
I could not be more proud of this community, of all we have accomplished together and of your willingness to sacrifice for the country. We have more to do, and we will do it as a mutually supporting team, with our eye on the goal of keeping Americans safe.
….These actions are necessary given inherent systemic weaknesses and human errors revealed by the review of events leading up to December 25th . They are also required to ensure that the standards, practices and business processes…are appropriately robust….”
Department of State:
· Review visa issuance and revocation criteria and processes….
Department of Homeland Security:
· Aggressively pursue enhanced screening technology, protocols and procedures….
Director of National Intelligence:
· Immediately reaffirm and clarify roles and responsibilities of counterterrorism analytic components of the intelligence community….
· Accelerate information technology enhancements….
· Take further steps to enhance the rigor and raise the standards of tradecraft of intelligence analysis….
· Ensure resources are properly aligned….
Central Intelligence Agency:
Issue guidance aimed at ensuring timely distribution of intelligence reports.
Source: Presidential Memorandum of January 7, 2010 “Attempted Terrorist Attack on December 25, 2009; Intelligence, Screening and Watchlisting System Corrective Actions
When Leaders Fight over Management Rather Than Lead, Nobody Wins
"For those who believe the only thing the CIA leadership has to do is provide all-source intelligence analyses to President Obama and his top policymakers, think again....
"Early last week, several long-festering bureaucratic issues that had arisen between Director of National Intelligence Denis C. Blair and CIA Director Norman Panetta had to be settled by national security advisor James L. Jones, through some Solomon-like decisions.
"Blair's four-year-old organization has been trying to establish its role as supervisor of all 16 intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, former top dog.
"Three issues arose within the last year....
- "...a May Intelligence Community Directive from Blair that dealt with appointing DNI representatives to foregin partners and international organizations....
- "...a DNI role in oversight of covert action....
- "...Blair's determination to name the intelligence community representative at National Security Council Meetings....
Jones...decided all three issues....
- "CIA station chiefs would continue to serve concurrently as DNI representatives---a well-publicized CIA win.
- Blair will name the intelligence community representative to NSC meetings...a not well-publicized DNI win.
- On covert actions and their oversight, the CIA would continue to deal directly with the White House but must report oversight findings to the DNI. This was a more complicated split decision, but one that CIA claims as a victory....
Source: Extracted from "Settling an intelligence turf war" by Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, November 17, 2009.
For more on Leadership in Management, go here____
Leading from a Staff Position
“Gen. David H. Petraeus plans to open an in-house intelligence organization at U.S. Central Command this week that will train military officers, covert agents and analysts who agree to focus on
“The organization, to be called the Center for Afghanistan Pakistan Excellence, will be led by Derek Harvey, a retired colonel in the Defense Intelligence Agency who became one of the Gen. Petraeus’ most trusted analysts during the 2007-08 counterinsurgency campaign in
“Mr. Harvey distinguished himself in
“….In 2005, Mr. Harvey wrote a paper on how to reform the intelligence community based on his experience in
“‘I put together a paper to outline the way ahead to address the shortcomings of the intelligence community's posture for addressing the threat in
“But when he presented the report to Gen. Petraeus, the general told Mr. Harvey not to go public with his critique. ‘His counsel was let me help you, there is a better way to bring change. Sometimes you don't go public.’”
Gen. Petraeus, then used his leadership position and exercised his leadership authority to start the reform effort based on Colonel Harvey’s recommendations and has given Colonel Harvey the opportunity to implement them. That is exactly the leadership role of the staff officer. More than any other follower, Staff Officers should consider themselves as partners with the Commander in the leadership process. That is because staff officers are the direct extension of the Leader. They assist and support their Commanders in carrying out their responsibilities:
-to participate fully and actively in Community and organizational policy, planning and decisionmaking activities.
-to create a vision and goals for their organization in support of Community and higher level organizational visions and goals.
-to develop policies and plans for the implementation of the higher level direction and guidance as well as for the realization of the organizational vision and goals.
Indeed, as General Perry Smith emphasized to Pentagon staff officers, their role was to “lead the generals”.
Source: Extracts from "Petraeus to open Intell Training Center" by Eli Lake in the Washington Times, August 24, 2009 and Perry Smith, Assignment Pentagon: How to Excel in a Bureaucracy (Brassey's 2002).
For More on Leadership as a Staff Officer, go here_____.
Running the CIA in itself was a full-time job. The DNI would oversee the entire intelligence community while the CIA director concentrated on running the spy agency. But there’s a problem with this setup. Although the DNI was given more input into budgets and personnel than the DCI had, the DNI's powers are limited and somewhat vague. The intelligence chief has a say in lots of things, but there's no real muscle behind his decisions. It's not like the defense secretary, who has absolute authority over all department components.
Outgoing CIA Director Mike Hayden recently told reporters there is natural tension between the CIA and DNI, but it’s ‘not a bad structure.’ And how did departing DNI Mike McConnell respond to Hayden's quip? ‘Anytime you have organizations that have similar interests, you're going to have disputes,’ he said. ‘And particularly if the two leaders aren't working together and having a partnership and so on, the warfare at the trench level gets to be pretty much a raging battle.’
CIA nominee Leon Panetta got into the middle of the dispute during his confirmation hearing. Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, wanted to know Panetta's understanding of the relationship between the CIA and the DNI. Would he be under the supervision of the DNI?A bit baffled by Panetta's response, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, asked him point blank, ‘Is the DNI your boss or not?’ Panetta’s answer, ‘The DNI is my boss.’
It makes you wonder how Panetta and the other new guy - DNI Dennis Blair - will play in the sand box.”
Source: Extracts from "CIA vs DNI, Clash of Titans" from the Association of Foreign Intelligence Officers Weekly Intelligence Notes dated 17 Feb. 09 based on "Benson/CNN/12 Feb 2009.
|
