Aligning Incentives: Professional Writing in the Army’s Operational Domain

MILITARY REVIEW ONLINE EXCLUSIVE · FEBRUARY 2024

Aligning Incentives

Professional Writing in the

Army’s Operational Domain

Lt. Col. Jay Ireland, U.S. Army

Maj. Ryan Van Wie, U.S. Army

lear writing is an essential skil for Army leaders—

important to al, regarless of age, rank, branch,

component, or position. It benets soldiers while

serving and is an invaluale tool when transitioning to

civilian life. Using strong writing skils to contribute to

the U.S. Army’s professional dialoue is key to ensuring

a healthy ow of ideas and perectives across the force.

Saly, numerous Army pulications have suered in

recent years with decreasing article submissions, reader-

ship, and impact across the force.

Senior Army leaders,

including Chief of Sta of the Army (CSA) Gen. Randy

George, recently caled on al soldiers to return to more

intelectual rigor with professional writing, suporting dia-

loue on critical topics in professional Army pulications.

e newly launched Harding Project suports the CSA’s

uidance, seeking to reinvigorate U.S. Army professional

journals and making writing venues more accessile for

soldiers across the force.

A key to successfuly implementing the CSA’s uidance

is a robust suply of timely, wel-wrien articles from the

operational force. However, writing a professional article

can seem daunting for many soldiers. e nationwide

decline in writing skils is wel-documented, and schools

are less frequently mandating writing courses, including

at West Point.

While professional writing courses are fea-

tured in the U.S. Army’s institutional domain, covered in

most professional military schools, a soldier’s writing edu-

cation oen stagnates in the operational domain. e U.S.

Army’s fast-paced operational tempo and profuse tasks

create trade-os for soldiers and leaders who can only ac-

complish so much.

Varying education levels and writing

skils create further chalenges for unit leaders who would

like to create a writing development program. Given these

constraints and trends, how can a unit’s leadership develop

and incentivize professional writing in their organization?

is article provides a way for a baalion to opera-

tionalize the CSA’s uidance and cultivate writing skils in

the operational domain. While the Army’s institutional

domain has lead on educating writing skils, we arue that

leaders in the operational domain need to do more to

improve their subordinates’ writing skils in accordance

with the Army’s leader development model (see the

ure). Professional writing deserves a central place in

every unit’s leader development strategy and needs to be

incentivized by commanders. Leaders at echelon can play

an important role in cultivating a subordinate’s writing

skils, creating unit-level writing development programs,

seing reasonale goals, mentoring authors through the

submission process, and most importantly—incentivizing

writing. More plainly, commanders should look to make

professional discourse “cool” in their organizations.

We launched the Mustang Writing Initiative in

January 2023, comprising a series of leader professional

development sessions, working lunches, writing work-

shops, and baalion internal peer-review sessions. With

concerted eort and command emphasis, seven Mustang

authors have pulished articles in professional journals

over the last year. Another six, including ocers and

noncommissioned ocers, have papers submied for

review or papers that are in various stages of development.

is experience shows Army leaders in the operational

domain can play an important role in developing their

PROFESSIONAL WRITING

MILITARY REVIEW ONLINE EXCLUSIVE · FEBRUARY 2024

subordinates’ writing skils, fostering beer writers, and

suporting the CSA’s cal to write.

e Mustang Writing Initiative—How

It Started

As we mentioned, creating an eective incentive

structure aligned with professional writing helps produce

results in an era of competing demands on leader time.

What motivated the authors to write? e answer is

simple—we are in a business where the inability to do

one’s job can result in the unnecessary death of soldiers.

Combat experience as junior ocers was central to shap-

ing our professional outlook and worldview. Specicaly,

both of us have experienced a common occurence of

showing up to an area of operations to relieve a unit

from a mission only to realize that the previous team did

not write anything down about best praices or what

they learned. We came to understand the importance

and professional imperative of sharing the answers to the

test, eecialy when that knowledge came at the ex-

pense of soldiers’ lives. Writing serves to formalize those

lessons and memorialize the eorts of the thousands of

soldiers who came before. Units can fal into the trap

of immediately moving to solve a prolem they do not

understand without a professional discourse.

e Mustang Writing Initiative (hereinaer the

Initiative) was initialy pulished in our baalion’s

quarterly training uidance as part of the baalion’s

leader development strategy. e Initiative began as an

optional eort designed to suport any Mustangs inter-

eed in authoring a professional paper. e Initiative’s

expanded purpose was to improve Mustangs’ wrien

communication skils with tailored feeback, peer

review, and senior leader engagement. We deliberately

decided to make participation optional, acknowledging

that professional writing takes time and focus that may

not be availale for al soldiers in our formation.

Given these chalenges associated with professional

writing, we did not mandate pulication in a profes-

sional outlet as the only end state. Pulishing an article

in a U.S. Army journal was not a feasile rst step for

numerous volunteers who needed aditional writing

development. We acknowledged dierent education

levels and writing experiences among Initiative volun-

teers, and we had a broad denition for a “professional

paper.” Instead of only focusing on professional puli-

cations, we encouraged participants also to consider

pulishing an aer aion review (AAR) or a short

white paper intended to be shared across our brigade

and division.

Given an already busy bale rhythm, we conducted

monthly Initiative meetings as a working lunch to max-

imize aendance and limit scheduling conicts. Initial

meetings focused on identifying potential topics, devel-

oping thesis statements, conducting literature reviews,

creating outlines, and leveraging evidence. Aditionaly,

we oered short discussions about writing techniques

from sources such as Dr. Trent Lythgoe’s Profesional

Witing: e Comand and General Sta Coege Witing

Guide.

As authors developed outlines and draed pa-

pers, they received tailored feeback on working dras

from one of us (baalion commander or XO), along

with submission advice and recommended next steps.

As the Initiative has evolved, the monthly meetings

now entail the folowing:

•

We briey discuss recent professional pulications of

interest to the 1st Baalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment,

and recommend future reading.

•

Successful authors share their pulication experience

to include thesis development, evidence selection,

research process, outlet selection, and submission

lessons learned.

•

Working dra authors share an update on their proj-

ects, including curent dra status, literature review,

help needed, and goal outlet or product (e.g., AAR or

white paper).

Maj. Ryan C. Van Wie,

U.S. Army, is an infantry

ocer and the executive

ocer of 1st Baalion, 8th

Cavalry Regiment, 2nd

Armored Brigade Combat

Team, 1st Cavalry Division.

He previously served

in the 101st Airborne

Division (Air Assault) and

the 4th Infantry Division.

He holds a BS from the

U.S. Military Academy and

a Master of Public Policy

from the University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Lt. Col. Jay A. Ireland,

U.S. Army, is an armor

ocer and commander of

1st Baalion, 8th Cavalry

Regiment, 2nd Armored

Brigade Combat Team,

1st Cavalry Division. He

previously served in the

1st Armored Division and

the 4th Infantry Division.

He holds a BS from the

U.S. Military Academy and

an MA in geography from

the University of Hawaii,

Manoa.

PROFESSIONAL WRITING

MILITARY REVIEW ONLINE EXCLUSIVE · FEBRUARY 2024

•

We close the meeting with an oportunity for new

authors to share project ideas, ask questions, and

receive feeback from the audience on thesis develop-

ment, paper outline, and literature review help.

In total, this monthly working lunch lasts an hour,

and participants are encouraged to schedule folow-on

apointments as needed to receive focused assistance

with any steps in the writing process. On average, over

the last year, each of us inveed aproximately ten

hours into the Mustang Writing per month; those

hours comprised monthly group meetings, one-on-

one meetings, and time ent reviewing dra outlines

and papers. We’ve found this process to be an eec-

tive method to develop our junior writers, educate

participants about the research and writing process,

mentor volunteers through the submission process,

and hold authors accountale for completing dras.

Eleven Mustang authors who used this model over

the last year wrote nine professional articles, three

white papers, and two AARs that contributed to the

U.S. Army’s professional discourse and shared lessons

learned across the force.

In adition to the Initiative, we instituted a require-

ment for the sta duty ocer (SDO) to write an analyt-

ical essay during their twenty-four-hour duty. Using the

division and brigade commander priorities as a uide, we

selected articles for the SDO to read and write a one-page,

single-spaced essay asking the author to explain how the

selected article is relevant to their curent position. e

SDO then sends that essay to the baalion commander,

executive ocer, command sergeant major, and their

commander and rst sergeant. Feeback for the SDO

essay comes in the form of a note from the baalion com-

mander focused on the essay’s substance, the writing, and

recommendations to improve. Mustang ocers serve as

SDO once a month, meaning they wil write twelve essays

a year. e paper is a page in length, requiring ve minutes

to read and another ten minutes to type a response.

What We Learned

Foremost, a unit writing program takes time and

effort. Specificaly, it takes commander energy that is

already short in suply and in high demand. A more

professionalized and intelectualy curious team is

Figure. Army’s Leader Development Model

(Figure from Department of the Army Pamphlet 350-58, Army Leader Development Program)

PROFESSIONAL WRITING

MILITARY REVIEW ONLINE EXCLUSIVE · FEBRUARY 2024

more lethal than one that does not engage in an ac-

tive dialoue about more effectively achieving read-

iness. We believe the writing program’s value comes

from the pride attained from completing the rigor-

ous process associated with professional writing and

the camaraderie that comes with working with peers

to make these articles hapen. A successful method

to ensure completion is to encourage coauthorship to

help share the burden as wel as further the network

of people thinking criticaly in the unit. This is even

more true when the authors are writing about new

and innovative ways of training ready formations

and employing new technology. Al of us have heard

young leaders complain about how stupid something

is—wel, why don’t they write about it and bring

about change?

Aditionaly, we are not advocating for everyone

to submit articles to professional journals. e ood

of papers would drown the already thin editorial

teams of our military journals, and the rigor required

for professional pulication is not necessary for ev-

eryone in the formation. We have found over the last

year that we do not strugle to nd people who want

to pulish. Most people feel they have nothing to

oer the larger community, are afraid of the backlash

associated with online trols, and/or feel that they

aren’t good enough to see something like this come to

fruition. It is our job as leaders to encourage and assist

those who are seeking professional development and

to show our people that we care.

Like al leader development efforts, the number

one key to success of any writing program is com-

mander participation and folow-through. If the

battalion commander is personaly writing an article,

participating in the program by sharing drafts (even

if they are underdeveloped and need improvement)

and taking feeback about how to best proceed

with their article, then others wil be encouraged

to dive in themselves. Our investment in the pro-

gram showed that we valued professional discourse,

enaling the program to take off with new authors

joining the Initiative every month. What started as a

handful of captains has evolved into a program with

al ranks including noncommissioned officers.

Another way to incentivize writing is senior leader

armation. Successful Army writing across the

force requires buy-in at echelon, with senior leaders

meaningfuly engaging with authors and continuing

the professional dialoue started in an article. Authors

wil be encouraged to continue professional writing

if they receive one email from a general ocer teling

them to keep going. Or from a baalion commander,

company commander, or rst sergeant who gained

something from the article pulished by a rst lieu-

tenant or sta sergeant. If an author ends months

rening an article and exercises personal courage by

opening themselves up to worldwide criticism only

to receive deafening silence, then it is reasonale to

assume that author wil never write again. Worse,

they may aively discourage those around them from

aempting professional writing.

Conclusion

e CSA and the Harding Project both note that

U.S. Army professional journals need to be revitalized to

strengthen wrien discourse and produce new ideas for

emerging operational concepts and technology. Writing

education in the U.S. Army cannot only exist in the insti-

tutional domain and professional military education. As

noted in the Army’s leader development model, education

continues in the operational domain (see the ure).

answer the CSA’s charge and create an aditional suply

of articles, the operational domain needs to do more to

foster professional writing in its ranks. We should not

alow our people to take complicated topics and boil them

down into one-slide concept of operations and instead,

A more professionalized and intellectually curious

team is more lethal than one that does not en-

gage in an active dialogue about more effectively

achieving readiness.

PROFESSIONAL WRITING

MILITARY REVIEW ONLINE EXCLUSIVE · FEBRUARY 2024

encourage our people to write tight, inteligent papers to

communicate those ideas across a larger community of

engaged minds. Leaders at echelon can enhance writing

skils in their units by creating unit writing development

programs and incentivizing their soldiers to write profes-

sionaly. ough the force is chalenged by a busy opera-

tional tempo, an investment from leaders at echelon can

provide soldiers with the writing development they need

to meaningfuly engage in professional discourse, share les-

sons learned, rene doctrine, and prepare the U.S. Army

for the complicated operating environment of the future.

Finally, Congrats to ese Mustang

Authors!

Pulished and forthcoming Mustang Writing

Initiative Papers:

•

Lt. Col. Jay Ireland and Maj. Ryan Van Wie,

“Task Organizing the Combined Arms Baalion

for Success in Eastern Europe,” Military Review

103, no. 6 (November/December 2023): 35–44,

hps://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/

Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/

November-December-2023/Task-Organizing/

•

Maj. Ryan Van Wie and Dr. Jacob Walden,

“Excessive Force or Armored Restraint:

Government Mechanization and Civilian

Casualties in Civil Conict,” Journal of Conict

Resolution 67, no. 10 (2023): 2058–84, hps://doi.

org/10.1177/00220027231154446

•

Lt. Col. Jay Ireland, “Peaking at LD: A Way to Assess

Maintenance Excelence at the Baalion,” Aro

Magazine 135, no. 4 (Fal 2023): 25–28, hps://www.

dvidshub.net/pulication/562/armor-magazine

•

Capt. Lary Tran, “Manning the Next Generation

Bale Tank,” Aro Magazine 135, no. 4 (Fal 2023):

54–59, hps://www.dvidshub.net/pulication/562/

armor-magazine

•

Capt. Lary Tran and 1st Lt. Brandon Akuszewski,

“Tanks Need Infantry to Lead the Way,” Aro

Magazine 135, no. 4 (Fal 2023): 20–24, hps://www.

dvidshub.net/pulication/562/armor-magazine

•

1st Lt. Daren Pis, “Maximizing Operational

Readiness on EUCOM Rotation,” Aro Magazine

135, no. 4 (Fal 2023): 50–53, hps://www.dvidshub.

net/pulication/562/armor-magazine

•

1st Lt. Ben Kenneaster, “Sustainment Chalenges

in the Baltics and the Eects of LSCO,” Ary

Sustainent (Winter 2024): 59-62, hps://www.

army.mil/article/273300/sustainment_in_the_bal-

tic_states_and_the_eects_on_lsco_a_junior_lead-

er_perective.

•

1st Lt. Dan Slaton, “Operating Uper Taical

Internet in the High North,” Ary Comunicato

(forthcoming)

Current Mustang Writing Initiative

Working Dras

•

Sta Sgt. Austin Abadie, Sgt. Damien Kirven,

1st Lt. Ben Kenneaster, and Sta Sgt. eodore

Montgomery, “Braley Fighting Vehicle Lethality

Initiative: An SME Informed Method for Improving

Gunnery Results”

•

Sta Sgt. Cordel Wright, “Back-Ups to Belt-Fed

Machineuns”

•

Capt. Chris Smar, “Creative Baalion Religious

Suport during EUCOM Rotation”

•

Capt. Cam Waugh, “Analysis of the Armored Cavalry

Troop Performance during CBR XVIII”

•

1st Lt. Christian Arne, “Baalion LNO Experience

on EUCOM Rotation”

Notes

1. Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, Army Leadership and the

Profession (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oce

[GPO], 2019).

2. Zachary Griths, “Low Crawling toward Obscurity:

e Army’s Professional Journals,” Military Review 103, no. 5

(September-October 2023): 17–28, hps://www.armyupress.

army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/

September-October-2023/Obscurity/.

3. Randy George, Gary Brito, Michael Weimer, “Strengthen-

ing the Profession: A Call to All Army Leaders to Revitalize our

Professional Discourse,” Modern War Institute, 11 September

2023, hps://mwi.westpoint.edu/strengthening-the-profes-

sion-a-call-to-all-army-leaders-to-revitalize-our-professional-dis-

course/.

4. Zach Griths and eo Lipsky, “Introducing the Harding

Project: Renewing Professional Military Writing,” Modern War

Institute, 5 September 2023, hps://mwi.westpoint.edu/introduc-

ing-the-harding-project-renewing-professional-military-writing/.

5. Michael J. Carter and Heather Harper, “Student Writing:

Strategies to Reverse Ongoing Decline,” Academic Questions 26,

no. 3 (Fall 2013), hp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12129-013-9377-

0; Steve Graham, “Changing How Writing Is Taught,” Review of

PROFESSIONAL WRITING

MILITARY REVIEW ONLINE EXCLUSIVE · FEBRUARY 2024

Research in Education 43, no. 1 (2019): 277–303, hps://doi.

org/10.3102/0091732X18821125; National Center for Education

Statistics, e Nation’s Report Card, Writing 2011 (Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics, September 2012),

hps://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2011/2012470.

aspx#section1; “West Point Writing Program History,” United

Stated Military Academy, accessed 26 January 2024, hps://www.

westpoint.edu/academics/curriculum/west-point-writing-program/

history.

6. James Clark, “Soldiers Under ‘Enormous Strain’ Warn Ar-

my’s Top Enlisted Leader,” Army Times (website), 12 May 2023,

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2023/05/12/sol-

diers-under-enormous-strain-warns-armys-top-enlisted-leader/;

Kyle Rempfer, “‘Got to Fix That’: Some Unit Ops Tempos

Higher than Peaks of Afghan, Iraq Wars, Army Chief Says,” Army

Times (website), 2 October 2020, https://www.armytimes.com/

news/your-army/2020/10/02/got-to-fix-that-some-unit-ops-

tempos-higher-than-peaks-of-afghan-iraq-wars-army-chief-

says/.

7. Trent Lythgoe, ed., Professional Writing: The Command

and General Staff College Writing Guide, Student Text 22-2

(Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and General Staff

College, July 2023), https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/

home/Resources/CGSC-Professional-Writing-Guide.pdf.

8. Department of the Army Pamphlet 350-58, Army Leader

Development Program (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 2013), 2.

US ISSN 0026-4148