Since the second semester of school has started here in Charlottesville, the Graduate Course has included formal mentorship sessions with some of the senior faculty members.  The goal has been to talk about leadership and to help us all develop an understanding of what our role will be in our next jobs (since most of us have been recently promoted) and improve our own leadership skills.

Today's session was talking about formal vs. informal leadership -- the strengths, techniques, and roles of each type of leadership.  One of the guys in my small group -- MAJ Jeff Dietz -- mentioned that our responsibilities in our next jobs will be, in large part, to take a greater role as informal leaders, with greater obligations to the office, the unit, the installation and the JAG Corps.  That got me thinking about some of the things I've been doing -- writing this blog, running in the mornings with the new Judge Advocates going through the Officer Basic Course, volunteering as a Field Screening Officer.  And it also got me thinking about starting to put some of these things in context with my recent (as of the last 2-3 years) serious thoughts about leadership, officership, and responsibilities.  I still working on putting it all together.  But one thing that became clear is that I feel an obligation to the Army, generally, and to the JAG Corps, in particular.  And I think this is a responsibility that every Judge Advocate should share (though I recognize that not everyone will see this responsibility the same way).

I think we've got a responsibility to take care of our Corps.  Part of our jobs -- above and beyond the day-to-day work in accordance with out particular 'job description' -- should be to 'keep the JAG Corps healthy.'  I see this in a couple different senses.  First, we've got an obligation to take care of each other.  We should make an effort to talk to each other, and take the initiative to talk to junior members of the JAG Corps -- offering our experience and any practical expertise to make the corporate body stronger.  I've complained (in private) about a sense that the JAG Corps hasn't lived up to my hopes for mentorship from senior Judge Advocates.  I'm beginning to believe I was wrong, that I just wasn't seizing mentorship opportunities.  And I'm hoping -- by interacting with new Judge Advocates at the OBC -- to make it explicit to new JAs that senior officers are available to them, to answer questions and to generally help them along, in any way possible.  We've got an obligation to keep the JAG Corps strong.  This is not only making sure that everyone is trained (in both legal and military skills) but making sure that new JAs are the best possible candidates.  In this regard, I take my work as a Field Screening Officer very seriously.  I try to be honest and fair, and I try not to shy away from making a recommendation that someone not be offered a position any more than I am anxious to advocate for someone I think needs to be in the JAG Corps.  (Incidentally, honesty in furtherance of keeping the JAG Corps strong also means speaking up when things need to change.  I think this is really important, too, and may address this separately later.)  Finally, I think we all have an obligation to 'be the face of the JAG Corps.'  We should all be ambassadors to the public and to the rest of the Army.  We do that in obvious ways (like this blog), but we also do this through the academic work we publish (like many of the papers written during the Grad Course) and through our day-to-day interaction with other agencies and unit commanders and their staffs in the pursuit of our work.

Another great point was made by MAJ Chris Beese who said that a critical part of generating commitment in subordinates (vs. just creating compliance) is sincerity.  People want to see and feel real sincerity in their leaders -- formal or informal -- in virtually every interaction.  This is especially true for Judge Advocates when our folks are nearing the end of their first tour of duty and are debating whether to stay in the Army or to transition back to civilian life.  When those conversations happen, young Judge Advocates on the fence about continuing their service can see through insincerity in a second.  They need to know that you have their interests at heart when giving advice, even if their path is leading them away from the Army.  In these conversations, the 'party line' just isn't enough.

All in all, it was a useful, thought-provoking morning.  And now, I'm off to discuss more law of war topics (my 'Advanced Topics in the Law of War' elective) -- Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I.  Good stuff!

One of the things I really appreciate about writing this blog is the ability to converse; so, please, feel free to comment.