After the better part of a decade researching in the field of adult learning with a focus on military self-development, I have read dozens of definitions of the concept of self-development. I have studied in detail the historical Army definitions and foundational civilian concepts such as self-directed learning or autonomous learning. I could tell you all the contradictions in the current definitions of Army self-development between the FM 6-22 and the DA Pam 350-58. I even spent more than three years on a DoD-supported research study attempting to create a definition that reconciles the gap between the civilian theory of self-directed learning and Army self-development. For all my research, the shortest definition I stumbled upon during my study might be one of the best.
Before we can discuss the concept and best definitions of Army self-development, we need to put this theory into context on how it relates to other Army learning experiences. The Army asserts that there are three domains of learning for leader development. I will spare you the formal definitions and simplify the concepts for the sake of this short essay. The learning domain most critical to learning and where most learning will occur is the operational domain. Think of this as “on the job” learning. The next learning domain is the institutional domain, or all the learning activities the Army directly tells you to do. This includes things like conducting training and attending educational courses (both military and civilian). The final domain of learning is self-development. We will go into detailed definitions further in this paper, but to make it as simple as possible, self-development is all the learning activities you are engaging in outside the specified training required by the Army and operational experience. All three of these domains are graphically displayed in the Army Leader Development Model (ALDM). Unfortunately, the Army made this graphic far too complex and used the wrong format to display the interactions of these three domains of learning. (Note to staff officers, if you are asked to make a Venn diagram with three categories, you probably shouldn’t have the same terms appearing four times).
I suggested a “tripod” model to better show the interaction between these three domains (Annis, 2018). The bottom line is Army leaders need a balanced approach to all these learning domains if we want to maximize our potential.
Self-Directed Learning: “a process in which an individual takes the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes” (Knowles, 1975, p. 18)
Self-directed Learning (autonomous learning)
Malcolm Knowles, often referred to as the “Father of Adult Education,” produced several significant educational theories. The Army has adapted a significant portion of his theory of andragogy (adult learning) but for some unknown reason excluded his theory of self-directed learning. To this day, this definition remains the most accepted definition for the civilian equivalent to self-development. I regret that the Army decided to select a different term (jargon) in defining this activity. By doing so, Army leaders are often
In the research on self-directed learning conducted by Ponton, Derrick, & Carr, they summarized the very heart of self-development into five words: “[C]hoose learning over nonlearning activities.” (2005, p. 126). This could be as simple as replacing listening to music on your daily commute with an audiobook or watching a documentary instead of a sitcom after work. If we used this five-word sentence to provide direction to our soldiers on self-development, we might see a great improvement in the abilities of our units and individual soldiers. Small simple changes in our daily lives could have dramatic impacts on our learning abilities.
Self-development initiatives focus on maximizing leader strengths, reducing weaknesses, and achieving individual leader development goals. Self-development is a continuous process that takes place during institutional training and education, and during operational assignments; it should stretch and broaden the individual beyond the job or training. Another aspect of self-development that helps Army leaders prepare for future responsibilities and grow professional expertise is civilian education or training at universities or colleges. (HQ DA, 2007, p. 5)
A definition without support
Army Regulation 600-100 (2007) provided a definition that stated the end results of the practice of self-development and lacked any guidance about how to actually engage in self-development. While Knowles had written books in the 1970s supporting his theories through practical recommendations, it wouldn’t be until decades later that the Army would publish the first Leader Development Improvement Guide. (Please click here to download the current edition. It is a wonderful tool for development should be used when counseling Soldiers to help them identify potential self-development practices to improve their performance).
A step closer yet a step farther away
Self-development is “A planned, dimension-based, progressive and sequential process the individual leader uses to improve performance and achieve development goals. Self-development is a continuous process that takes place during institutional training and education and operational assignments. It is a joint effort that involves the leaders and the commander or supervisor. Self-development actions are structured to meet specific individual needs and goals. It starts with an assessment of leadership skills, knowledge, and potential. A counseling and feedback session follow each assessment. During the counseling sessions, commanders or supervisors assist the individual to identify strengths, weaknesses, and developmental needs. Additionally, they discuss causes for strengths and weaknesses, and course of action to improve performance.” (DA PAM 350-58, 2013)
In my opinion, the Army produced its finest definition of the concept of self-development with the 2013 revision of the DA PAM 350-58. The language places self-development in the appropriate context in comparison with the other learning domains and describes the process of assessing and establishing self-development goals. There is only one problem: it isn’t entirely “self” development. In this definition, leadership involvement is required. In this way, it might be said this a definition of “leader development” and not strictly self-development. Probably the most critical aspect to the concept of self-development or self-directed learning is that it needs to be “driven” by the individual. While Soldiers can come to other leaders to help in assessments and establishing goals, these leaders are not required to engage in the activity. When they are utilized, they are used as resources and not primary motivators. This removal of a strong concept of “self” in self-development would come back to haunt the Army.
Waring concepts of self-development
In 2010, the NCO corps broke with the officer corps on its approach to self-development with the introduction of the “Structured Self-Development” courses within the Non-Commissioned Officer Education System (NCOES). This was an egregious error as it confused two of the learning domains in the Army Leader Development Model. Remember that the Institutional Domain contains all the specified learning courses for the Army? The term “Structured Self-Development” became a massive misnomer. This error did significant damage to the concept of self-development in the NCO corps. I am glad the officer corps rejected this error and did not rename its distributed learning courses. I have talked to more than one Soldier who now views courses offered in an online format as “self-development.” Instead of having a strong NCO corps constantly searching for new learning experiences, we crippled them by making the majority of NCOs believe they had engaged in self-development when they actually just completed institutional requirements. I am happy to report that the NCO corps has abandoned the use of this misnomer in its educational courses. Unfortunately, this error remains in the current edition of the FM 6-22 and will likely continue to confuse and retard the development of the current generation of Army leaders.
Don’t build a bridge, learn how to learn
In some Army manuals you might see it asserted that self-development is the “bridge” used to fill the missing gaps between the operational and institutional domains. This idea is false, or at least not guaranteed. You might stumble upon a WWI era book that gives you an idea on how to shoot down modern drones before you deploy, but it is more likely that most of your self-development practices won’t provide this level of inspiration. However, engaging in self-development will help improve your learning skills, and it will present you with a host of information on how past leaders addressed their problems. While it is unlikely to give you a direct answer, self-development is likely to give you new ways of thinking about your problems. If you find yourself in a new environment facing a new challenge, if you are practiced in the art of self-development, you will know how to identify the knowledge gap, learning resources, and how to engage in the learning materials to quickly learn whatever skills or knowledge you are lacking. With this in mind, try not to limit your self-development to just military topics but explore all of the human experience. You never know what learning experience might give you the edge on the battlefield.
Conclusion
In the end, I think that when we use fancy terms and concepts in the Army, we expect them to be complicated. But self-development really isn’t. We simply need to remember that the “self” in self-development rightfully places responsibility at a personal level. And the “development” can be as easy as “choose learning over nonlearning activities.”(Ponton et al, 2005, p. 126). Self-development truly boils down to taking personal responsibility to engage in learning outside what has been directed. Now that you have a better idea of the concept of self-development, pay close attention to the rest of the articles in this series. You will be given multiples suggestions on how to engage in the practice of self-development. Trying these techniques and discover how you learn best. You might stumble upon ideas to drive innovation or you just might “sharpen” your learning skills so you can quickly adapt to a new challenge. While I cannot guarantee you that all your self-development attempts will pay off, I can promise you that failing to engage in learning activities will put you at a distinct disadvantage on the modern battlefield.
References:
Annis, F. C. (2018). A better model for leader development. Experientia et progressus. Retrieved from https://medium.com/experientia-et-progressus/annis-leader-development-3e6fca77ebfc
Annis, F.C. (2016) Clarifying the Definition, Techniques and Integration of Self-Development to Enhance Army Officer Leader Development. Self-Published: Amazon.
Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQ DA). (2013). Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) 350-58, Training: Army leader development program. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQ DA). (2015). Field Manual (FM) 6-22, Leader development. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQ DA). (2007). Army Regulation (AR) 600-100, Army Leadership. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Ponton, M. K., Derrick, M. G., & Carr, P. B. (2005). The relationship between resourcefulness and persistence in adult autonomous learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(2), 116-128.
Franklin C. Annis currently serves as the Ready Medical Force Management Officer for the National Guard Bureau. He holds a Doctor of Education (EdD) degree from Northcentral University. He runs “The Evolving Warfighter” YouTube channel to share his research on Self-development. Follow him on twitter @EvolvingWar