Selective Leadership Expectations in a Multinational Force Context Examined through NATO Training

Introduction

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has 30 member countries and another 20 partner countries. Both on national and multinational levels of joint operations, the training of forces is undertaken to prepare them for any assigned mission or task. It is to be expected that ranks with leadership roles will require some additional specialist training to be more effective in the NATO context, given its multinational environment. Namely the command of forces that are not necessarily from their own country. In order to describe and evaluate such leadership expectations, it is the purpose of this article to examine some selective NATO training courses that prepare for leadership in a multinational environment.

By examining the courses, the goal is to demonstrate whether the leadership philosophy as demonstrated by leadership expectations in these courses is coherent and/or to understand NATO’s leadership expectations better as applied to different hierarchical levels and specialties. The methodology is to pull from them what is implicit or explicit in their regimen of courses.

Applicable conceptually to appreciating any military leadership training in a multinational context is a comment by the Duke of Wellington, who was commander in chief of the British and allied armies at Waterloo against Napoleon when he visited Eton College near Windsor Castle in 1856, of which he was a graduate. He reputedly said, “It is here that the battle of Waterloo was won!” [1]

In the context of the allied force composition of the time, he might well have meant that the games and sports at British colleges developed those qualities in men that made them good military leaders. To be sure, many sports merely mimic warfare. Indeed, leadership through instruction and by example on the sports field starting at a young age, in team-building and functioning, is conceptually no different from that on the battlefield. Trust is a two-way street and an integral element of leading and following, seen most frequently in discipline and cohesion with every team sportsperson and soldier at every rank when they are geared towards the same goal.

Building upon the rationale of Wellington’s “same goal” notion in the context of NATO’s multinational environment, this article will examine five NATO training courses. This is in the context of the definitions of leadership from the Oxford English Dictionary. In doing so, insight is provided on selective NATO leadership expectations at different ranks indicative of this training. The content of the training is intended to add value to other trainings that might be provided by other NATO and national courses. It adds value to leadership expectations both in the multinational force context and the specific content areas of each course.

The NATO School located at Oberammergau, Germany (NSO), offers the five courses examined here. There are many more courses and schools that provide training in each member state and in NATO.[2] NSO and these courses have been selected because, after a comprehensive evaluation, the author of this article found them to represent a common thread. It is fair to say that the content reflects the values, morals, and ideology that NATO and its member states wish to adhere to and, if necessary, fight for. This justifies their use as the methodological means to examine the selective NATO leadership expectations as defined by rank and the associated training for that rank.

A caveat is that national promotion systems vary; therefore, measuring the military member’s time-in-grade, time-in-service, age and maturity, and the mission objectives when being sent for NATO training is to ensure equity and efficiency gained from any training. There are 30 NATO member states, and in each of these soldiers may have different roles and leadership expectations. For example, NATO NSO defines NCO ranks as OR-1 to OR-9 that in the American Army would be E-1 to E-9, or in the British Army, that would be from Lance-Corporal to Warrant Officer Class 1. For example, the ranks OR-1 through OR-3 are the basic entry ranks into the military structure. Personnel is expected to uphold national standards of conduct and follow supervisors’ orders and regulations. In the American and British Army, these are known as Private to Lance-Corporal.[3]

Three of the courses that this article uses are offered to NATO/partner military personnel at the non-commissioned officer (NCO) rank level OR-4 to OR-9, that in the American and British Armies would be from Corporal to Warrant Officer First or Second Class / Sergeant Major / Command Sergeant Major / and various grades of these.[4] The three courses are NCO Orientation Course, M1-82 (NCO Intermediate Leadership Course), and M1-95 (Advanced Leadership Course).

Most of the trainees on these would be of a young age and/or new soldiers in their country’s armed forces. Within Wellington’s rationale, such training might be more significant than for higher ranks since what is gained through learning, experience, and delegation at a young age can be built upon in later years and in different settings. Indeed, when leadership, following, and esprit-de-corps are established at the youngest of ages, for example, through such courses, then there is a greater potential for more experience and exposure over a longer period and a better potential for victory.

Progressively higher ranks and/or older soldiers would be trained in more specialized aspects of soldiering and issues such as rules of engagement and the laws of war. Therefore, this article will examine one course offered to higher officer ranks of OF-4 to OF-9 (Lieutenant-Colonel to General) or civilian equivalent.[5] That course is M8-103 (Defence Leadership in Building Integrity). Further, it will examine how lessons learned from all four courses can be applied in specialist leadership, for example, from the training offered in M2-00 (Intelligence Support to Irregular Warfare Course).

While all these trainings could be undertaken within each member state, the rationale and justification for NATO NSO training is to prepare trainees for leadership in a joint and combined military environment that would transpire in any NATO deployment. Further, through NATO NSO training, there is a potential value added from the human networking and bonding of the trainees from different countries, to be applied when serving together for many years and evolving to emerge in deployment and mission success. To place such training in the context of leadership expectations, this article proceeds in the next section by providing “Definitions and rationale,” followed by a section on the pedagogy of leadership training in NATO.

Definitions and Rationale

In broad terms, the NSO provides education and training in support of current and foreseen NATO operations, strategy, policy, doctrine, and procedures. That is to meet the organization’s overriding mission, values, and ideology and its member states. Courses are offered for different duration for different ranks, some residential and some online. Some of these are to personnel at the NCO rank level. The definition of the rank of NCO by the Oxford English Dictionary is a member of the armed forces who has achieved the rank of officer by rising from the lower ranks rather than by receiving a commission. It is an enlisted soldier generally appointed to supervise other enlisted soldiers and to aid the commissioned officer corps.[6]

Such selection and appointment could be based upon observations and evaluations of individuals’ leadership qualities and characteristics within their units and daily interactions with other soldiers. Within the context of this definition falls a justifiable rationale for NATO to train those selected and appointed to leadership positions in their own countries. Such training could also teach specialist content beyond that of nationally oriented combat soldiering, enabling them to make valid leadership decisions, issue orders, and lead by example in a multinational environment such as NATO. NATO refers to them as its backbone because they also maintain discipline, enforce standards, and communicate where leadership expectations of NCOs also include duties such as training, recruiting, technical, or military policing. NCOs are responsible to commissioned officers, i.e., their command or management level. Commissioned officers give NCOs and lower ranks their missions, assignments, and orders.[7]

In theory and practice, the NCOs are followed by others of lower rank and so, by definition, lead them. This falls within the context of the definition of leadership given by the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines leadership as a process of social influence that maximizes the efforts of others towards the achievement of a goal; the quality or ability that makes a person a leader, or the position of being a leader; the person or people who are in charge or who take charge in the absence of anyone else; it can exist in both formal and informal groups and settings, is evident when others follow, and encompasses the ability of an individual, group, or organization to lead.[8]

It is fair to say then that an integral part of any military leadership training, and so too in NATO, is to identify and define for trainees what leadership means in theory and practice, where the aforementioned conceptual definitions and rationale can be a framework for any training course syllabus. The goal of the training would be for the trainee to be able to apply the lessons learned when they are deployed—be it in combat or a non-combatant environment—for example, in peace-oriented or humanitarian missions and civil emergencies. These have increasingly become NATO’s missions since the end of the Cold War in 1990. The NATO training is thereby aimed to empower the trainee to be more able and capable in leadership roles and positions.[9]

To place such definitions and rationale in context, this article examines selective NATO leadership expectations as defined by rank and associated training for that rank in the section “The pedagogy of leadership training in NATO” below. Thereafter, there are separate sections on the five NSO courses entitled: The NSO M5-33 (NCO Orientation Course), The NSO M1-82 (NCO Intermediate Leadership Course), The NSO M1-95 (Advanced Leadership Course), The NSO M8-103 (Defence Leadership in Building Integrity Course), and Empowering leadership through specialist training.

The Pedagogy of Leadership Training in NATO

As NATO has 30 member states with varying civil-military relations between governments, parliaments, society, citizens, and soldiers, it is expected that there will be different decision-making and implementation procedures and differences in leadership expectations for different ranks. Further, given different languages and national procedures, there is a need to ensure NATO interoperability. This is entrusted to NATO training in addition to that of the member states.

While there are differences, there are also commonalities. It would be fair to say that leadership is a daily function in all NATO member states and their military. Decisions are taken, and people follow others. As in each member state’s civil-military relations, NATO also has both a military and a civilian organizational structure. These are both pyramid structures with one person at the apex who has the authority, and the associated legitimacy is the leadership. This is delegated, so there are also leaders and followers at every level below the apex. At all these levels, even at the lowest one, where all may hold the same basic initial rank, there is still a person who others may follow, be it by virtue of his/her setting an example or through experience.[10]

There are other commonalities. NATO training is expected to go beyond just interoperability in deployment and suggest specific leadership content applicable to each rank. Integral to empowerment through training is the planning and preparation that goes into the course syllabus to ensure critical analysis and questioning are at the forefront. Thus, the pedagogy of any training would need to be more than reading material and being lectured.

The first step of any leadership training is the training of the trainers. In NSO, this is an ongoing iterative process. First, there is internal training of trainers where the NSO delivers a “Professional Development” session every week to all staff members. The lectures vary from how to develop online courses and produce visual media to the inclusion of social media in the teaching process and which tools are most appropriate.[11]

Based on their own training and the content of the course, the trainers determine what leadership means in the context of the course topic. In each of the five courses examined in this article, they determine what leadership means within the context of the course topic. The pedagogy of residential courses has a mixed approach that could include background reading, frontal lectures with questions-and-answers time and PowerPoint presentations, interactive lectures, behavior modeling, problem-based learning (small group – syndicate work), role play, simulation (practical exercises/gaming), informal interaction such as games and sports and individual and group work based upon given scenarios. In addition, the NSO also prepares and offers courses online. Some of these are required e-modules before attending the residential classes. The syllabus and the pedagogy also evolve within the changing military environment and with feedback from trainees.[12]

There are also informal workshop-type environments where the trainee can, in a bottom-up approach, discuss their own experiences and compare them with others, for example, in the wars of today and tomorrow. Trainees are encouraged to lead discussions reflecting upon how their experiences, which in many instances are the front line of deployment and battlefield, can assist higher levels of leadership on reforms and innovation in the defense and security sector. And indeed, how this can be relayed to the higher hierarchy in the military command and political elites. Trainees could be expected to appraise and even reject syllabus content based upon their own applicable experiences of best practice if they can justify so doing.

The NSO M5-33 (NCO Orientation Course) [13]

To assist and further interoperability, NATO has defined equity in the NCO rank hierarchy across its member states. For example, OR-4 is the first level of leadership that in the American and British Armies would be a Corporal. Following this is OR-5, which is the level of leadership with the greatest impact on subordinate ranks. That in the American and British Armies would be a Sergeant.

The relevant course for OR-4 and OR-5 but also open to others up to OR-9 is the NSO M5-33 (NCO Orientation Course). It provides a foundation of knowledge of NATO. The course content covers NATO structure, policies, operations, and current issues affecting the alliance. It is a two-week residential course, and upon their return to their home countries or when deployed in a NATO unit, the graduates of this course are expected to lead by example on how to interoperate within NATO.

Graduates of this course at the OR-4 rank are expected to take the responsibility in leadership for the good order and discipline of lower ranks. Other tasks could include training, personal appearance, and the general welfare of their subordinate personnel. Graduates of this course at the OR-5 rank would be expected to practice leadership by example, demonstrating personal compliance with standards while enforcing those standards to ensure the good order and discipline, training, personal appearance, and general welfare of subordinate personnel. NCOs at OR-4 and OR-5 would be expected to be unquestionably competent to execute tasks correctly, exercise leadership, care for assigned personnel, and support mission accomplishment.

The NSO M1-82 Intermediate Leadership Course [14]

The NATO designated NCO rank OR-6 is the first of the NATO intermediate to senior NCO ranks. That in the American and British Armies would be a Sergeant or Staff Sergeant. The OR-6 is usually assigned in positions requiring increased responsibilities above that of the lower OR-5, for example, greater experience and leadership to shape his/her sphere of influence under all circumstances. It is important to note that some NATO member nations recognize the next rank OR-7 as their first senior NCO rank. That in the American and British Armies would be a Staff/Colour Sergeant or First/Master Sergeant.

The relevant leadership course for OR-6 and OR-7 but also open to others up to OR-9 is the two-week residential NSO M1-82 (NCO Intermediate Leadership Course). In an e-mail communication with the NSO on September 6, 2021, the author received information that from January 2015 to September 2021, 435 trainees from the different NATO member states took this course. These could then be leading over 8000 others.

The content covers, for example, two of many issues that NCOs of this rank may encounter – they need to lead their subordinates and provide advice to their seniors within the decision-making and the defense planning process in NATO. These are first “rules of engagement” (ROE) and secondly, “combating trafficking in human beings” (THB). For the former, trainees are taught the NATO organization and internal processes and given the relevant operational products. For the latter, they are taught NATO policy of combating THB, including child trafficking, and the impact of THB on NATO-led operations.

The leadership expectation takeaways from the course are for the NCO to recognize who is most at risk of becoming a victim of human trafficking and what can be done to identify victims and differentiate between traffickers and perpetrators. In addition, leadership expectations are to understand and implement principles and standards of behavior, including the impact on mission security for NATO-led forces within the broader issue of tackling organized crime that requires fundamental principles of investigation and good practices.

After the course, NCOs of the OR-6 and OR-7 ranks are expected to have the knowledge and leadership skills for key roles within the command structure on these issues. They could be expected to focus their increased knowledge and leadership on collective mission accomplishment and be responsible for managing large numbers of personnel and equipment effectively. In addition, at this level, they must be able to provide sound advice to their superiors.

The NSO M1-95 Advanced Leadership Course [15]

The highest designated NATO rank levels of NCOs are OR-8 and OR-9. That in the American and British Armies would be a Warrant Officer First or Second Class / Sergeant Major / Command Sergeant Major and various grades of these. The relevant leadership course for OR-8 and OR-9 is the two-week resident NSO M1-95 “Advanced Leadership Course.” In an e-mail communication with the NSO on September 6, 2021, the author was informed that from January 2015 to September 2021, 472 trainees from the different NATO member states participated in this course. These could then be leading over 23000 others.

The leadership expectation to graduates of the course—considered to be the senior NATO NCOs within the staff elements—is to be responsible for providing required professional development to other NCOs, to ensure proficiency and professionalism with clear and concise inputs on work processes and standardization, and to be the link between staff elements to ensure smooth information flows.

The course provides advanced leadership skills, management abilities, and knowledge of NATO, intending to enable the NCO to apply these skills effectively in an international setting. One of the covered topics requiring the trainee to comprehend, apply, and lead therein is the “international ethics and law of armed conflict” (LOAC). One pedagogy approach to teaching this is to give trainee sources and then require the trainee to explain the myriad of leadership challenges and ethical dilemmas in NATO as they relate to multiracial, multicultural, and multi-gender forces. The OR-8 and OR-9 ranks would be expected to use the enhanced leadership skills gained in training to advise unit/element and higher commanders and mentor subordinates, coordinate and supervise training, monitor unit effectiveness, and uphold standards in LOAC.

Moreover, an example of leadership expectations of rank level OR-9, that is considered the most experienced senior NCO within the NATO structure, is to use LOAC knowledge gained from the course to serve as a role model for all NCOs, to ensure compliance with policies, and to provide oversight at the tactical, operational and strategic-level, supporting the force commander’s intent prior to and during NATO deployments.

At this rank, NCOs might also hold very senior advisory and leadership positions in their home military. So, the knowledge gained from the training could assist in relating NATO’s values, ethics, and ideologies that have remained consistent since the Alliance’s formation in 1949. For example, in the American military, there is a senior enlisted advisor to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (SEAC), who is the most senior NCO overall in the United States Armed Forces. The SEAC is appointed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to serve as a spokesperson to address the issues of enlisted personnel to the highest positions in the Department of Defense. That would make a graduate of this course one of the most influential LOAC advisors pre-deployment and during deployment of any national or NATO force, including peace and humanitarian missions.

The NSO M8-103 Defence Leadership in Building Integrity Course [16]

NSO residential courses and e-modules are not only for the NCO level. They are also offered for higher ranks. There are written guidelines for all military ranks and civilian employees. An example of written policies to empower leadership is the “NATO Bi-SC Strategy & Guidelines.” [17] Sound knowledge of these is a prerequisite for the one-week residential NSO M8-103 “Defence Leadership in Building Integrity Course.” This is a course for senior NATO/partner military personnel at the OF-4 to OF-9 level or civilian equivalent. In the American and British Army, that is equivalent to Lieutenant-Colonel to General. In an e-mail communication with NSO, the author was informed that from January 2015 to September 2021, 446 officers and civilians participated in this course. These could then be leading the entire armed forces of their respective countries, totaling millions.

One of the covered topics requires the trainee to comprehend, apply and lead integrity-building and anti-corruption activities within national ministries and military organizations. Accordingly, the course pedagogy is designed to create an awareness of building integrity as a key element of defense and related security institution building, including the role of leadership and the principles of integrity, transparency, and accountability in the management of defense resources.[18]

An example of this pedagogical approach is to give trainees scenarios to facilitate discussion. Given such scenarios, trainees need to demonstrate an understanding of different definitions and principles of the rule of law, its link with anti-corruption during facilitated discussion and exercises, to demonstrate an understanding of the roles and functions of major organizations (domestic and international) involved in anti-corruption activities and measures, to discuss personal conduct and conduct of officials and how this can be reinforced through clear ethical guidance. Trainees are expected to apply the knowledge gained to describe ways in which corruption might realistically be tackled in a home country and to contribute to practical change in their own institution.

Graduates of the course shall be aware and lead others in assessing the impact of corruption as a security risk, the importance of addressing this topic in all NATO plans and operations, and all phases of planning and implementation.

Empowering Leadership through Specialist Training

It is beyond the scope of this article to describe all training courses offered by NATO. Yet, a comprehensive evaluation of these, including the NSO courses examined in this article, points to significant content on the role of leadership in the syllabus and pedagogy. Therefore, it is fair to say that the rationale is that knowledge gained from the training empowers and enables leadership.

To examine such an assumption, this article also considers an example of specialist training – the one-week resident NSO M2-00 course on “Intelligence Support to Irregular Warfare” open to the NCO ranks OR-4 to OR-9 and Officer ranks OF-1 to OF-5.[19] From January 2015 to September 2021, 202 completed this course. These could then be leading over 7000 military personnel.

One covered topic requires the trainee to comprehend, apply and lead the collection of intelligence and analysis. The graduate is expected to lead subordinates and support more senior strategic and operational decision-makers regarding asymmetric warfare threats and environments. It might be tautological to state, but support to more senior decision makers infers that the latter will be following the lower ranked who are providing the support. In turn, the lower ranked would follow the decision makers’ lead. Nevertheless, the takeaway is that the NSO training has empowered leadership without regard to hierarchical rank determination, but more so in the knowledge of topics of significance.

Other specialist training courses with practical leadership expectations are, for example, on the topics of nuclear deterrence, cyber, hybrid (robot, drone, AI-based, IT-based warfare), NATO enlargement, reform towards a more effective, efficient, and flexible alliance, and women, peace and security. Some of the pedagogical approaches in these courses are interactive plenary lectures, case studies, best practices, practical exercises, and discussions that amplify the course lectures.

Conclusion

This article describes and evaluates selective leadership expectations in the NATO multinational environment context. It applied the methodology of examining selected training courses offered at the NSO. In looking at the course content, selective leadership expectations were revealed as defined by the training for the specific ranks of the trainees.

The five courses have a common learning goal – the graduate should be empowered to lead, in peace and war, by command or by example, in a multinational force environment and the spirit of Wellington. That is to serve the “same goal” where forces being led are not necessarily from their own country. Further, it shows that the specific content of each training course adds value to other training that might have been provided by NATO or national training.

This course content and the respective specialist leadership knowledge were evident in the course content at the OR-4/OR-5 level and defined as being expected to lead in interoperability in joint and combined forces within NATO. At OR-6/OR-7 ranks, the focus is on rules of engagement and combating trafficking in human beings. The graduates of the latter course are also expected to lead others within the broader issue of tackling organized crime, which requires knowledge of fundamental investigation principles and good practices. The leadership expectations determined by the specific course content at the OR-8/OR-9 rank relate to the international ethics and law of armed conflict.

Further, the leadership expectations determined by the specific course content at the commissioned officer ranks OF-4 to OF-9 or civilian equivalents is to lead in integrity building, apply anti-corruption activities within national ministries and military organizations, including principles of transparency and accountability in the management of defense resources, the impact of corruption as a security risk, and the importance of addressing its elements in all phases of planning and implementation. 

Between 2015 and 2021, a total of 1555 trainees participated in these five courses. Given their ranks, they would be leading over 85 000 subordinates in deployment. A takeaway from the common content thread that permeates throughout all the courses is the goal to enable the graduates to lead their subordinates in the myriad of challenges and ethical dilemmas in NATO’s multinational environment. These relate to a multiracial, multicultural, and multi-gender force, ensuring compliance with policies, adherence to standards and performance, providing oversight at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels, and supporting the commander’s intent.

Leadership is a process of social influence. The training provided adds value by aiming to assist those at all ranks to develop their cognitive awareness to engage in critical analysis. This could extend generically beyond the specific course content to implementing effectively other approaches, concepts, and tools like national and NATO down/rightsizing, NATO and national defense transformation, network-centric warfare, network-based operations, network-enabled capabilities, concepts development and experimentation, and capabilities-based planning.

Further research could build on the findings here to examine in a comparative perspective how non-NATO, for example, Russian and Chinese approaches to leadership expectations, differ from those of NATO and their training content (if such content is accessible). There could also be further research on the leadership of organizations that have been designated as “terrorist,” that do not have the enduring values, morals, or ideologies that NATO has.

Disclaimer

The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent official views of the PfP Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes, participating organizations, or the Consortium’s editors.

Acknowledgment

Connections: The Quarterly Journal, Vol. 21, 2022, is supported by the United States government.

About the Author

Dr. Glen Segell (FRGS) is Visiting Professor and Research Fellow at the University of the Free State, South Africa, Visiting Scholar at the Niger Delta University, Nigeria, and a Research Fellow at the University of Haifa, Israel. He serves on several working groups at the NATO Science and Technology Organization. He was born in South Africa and received BA and MA degrees from Hebrew University Jerusalem and a DPhil degree from the University of Oxford. He also holds editorial, research, and teaching positions in the United Kingdom. Holding the rank of Brigadier-General (Reserves), he specializes in intelligence studies, civil-military relations, and strategic communication, and consults as an expert for NATO. He was involved in active security and intelligence operations, including psychological warfare, in Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, and Libya. Dr. Segell has published a substantial number of peer-reviewed articles and books.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4186-2761.

E-mail: glen@segell.com