essay on junior leadership in army

• Senior Fellows
• Research Fellows
• Submission Guidelines
• Media Inquiries
• Commentary & Analysis

Upcoming Events

• Past Events
• October 2021 War Studies Conference
• November 2020 War Studies Conference
• November 2018 War Studies Conference
• March 2018 War Studies Conference
• November 2016 War Studies Conference
• Class of 1974 MWI Podcast
• Urban Warfare Project Podcast
• Social Science of War
• Urban Warfare Project
• Project 6633
• Shield Notes
• Rethinking Civ-Mil
• Book Reviews

Select Page

Ten Lessons from Ten Years in the Army: Advice for Junior Leaders

Brandon Morgan | 01.09.24

Touring the West Point campus under the drizzling, early-winter rain during my ten-year reunion, I was struck by the passage of time. It felt like yesterday that the class of 2013, shivering under spring showers, tossed our covers into the air in Michie Stadium, jubilantly anticipating our follow-on service throughout the world. And indeed, not long after that day I found myself leading an infantry platoon in Iraq. Then, before I knew it I was pinning captain, deploying to Europe, writing my first MWI article , commanding an infantry company, and making a leap into the foreign area officer career field. Ten years passed, all seemingly in the blink of an eye. As I transition from company-grade to field-grade officer, I would like to share some lessons I learned in those ten years to help current and future company-grade leaders find their versions of success and personal satisfaction throughout their careers as military professionals. I offer this from the perspective of officership but hope that these insights can broadly apply to service members of all stripes. From a decade of opportunities, successes, struggles, and camaraderie I offer ten pieces of advice.

1. Put first things first.

As a newly commissioned officer, it can be tempting to focus on future, highly selective opportunities ahead of the more mundane and immediate. As a young lieutenant, a member of my IBOLC (infantry basic officer leaders course) class eagerly asked an instructor what we needed to do as infantry officers to best set ourselves up for a career in Special Forces. “Triumph at IBOLC and graduate,” replied the instructor. His response, while not likely what most of us expected (or wanted) to hear, was exactly what we needed. It highlighted the fact that the gateway to special opportunities begins with excellence in the basics. If you are initially assigned to serve on staff before platoon leadership or company command, focus on being a great staff officer. You will benefit tremendously from understanding how your higher headquarters operates. You will build relationships of trust and respect with your commander and other experienced officers, noncommissioned officers, and soldiers who will be critical in supporting your future platoon or company’s success. Strive to be the best officer you can be where you are now and seize the next opportunity when it arrives.

2. Get your systems in order.

As a new platoon leader or company commander, there will be no shortage of events that seemingly require your immediate attention. Perhaps you arrive to your office determined to write your unit operation order for an upcoming training exercise. You turn on your computer and open last year’s order to use as a template—so far so good. Then emails begin trickling into your inbox. Motivated squad leaders stop by your office. Your cell phone is ringing—it’s the boss (again). Before you know it, it’s meeting time at the battalion. You look at your watch, the day’s hours are running out, and you haven’t changed a word from last year’s training order. Where did the day go?

Time management is one of the most challenging yet important skills for a new leader to develop. This is where developing a battle rhythm can help. This document provides a predictable series of operations, key meetings, and events tracked at daily, weekly, and monthly frequencies. Battle rhythms inform subordinate leaders of expectations during physical readiness training, command maintenance, training meetings, and other key events—to include dedicated time for troop-leading procedures and the military decision-making process. Leaders should ensure that important cyclical events of higher headquarters are reflected in their own battle rhythm so their unit actions are properly aligned. Of course, surprises occur and Murphy will always take his share of the day. However, establishing and enforcing a battle rhythm will help to create order from chaos and much-needed predictability for both you and your subordinate leaders.

3. Delegate and do your part.

Now that you’ve managed your time, how are you managing tasks? There are several techniques, but I believe that all leaders can benefit from the Eisenhower matrix . When a task arrives, ask yourself whether it is truly important, and if it requires urgency or not. This should clue you in to whether you should either immediately do the task yourself, plan to accomplish it, delegate it, or eliminate it entirely. For tasks that are important but not urgent, for example, once you’ve conducted your initial planning you can delegate it to a subordinate by giving clear guidance. As a commander, this approach enabled me to focus on items that centered on my duties. This included training week management , short- and long-range training calendar updates, troop-leading procedures, and corresponding with my higher headquarters. As a battalion assistant operations officer, this enabled me to complete essential planning efforts and liaise with both brigade and company elements. To be sure, there are many factors that shape how you will conduct task management, to include the experience, talent, and preferences of your subordinates. Adjust your approach as the mission and circumstances require, and you will be able to manage your tasks and not let your tasks manage you.

4. Have the hard conversation.

Another critical challenge for officers, especially new lieutenants, is assessing the competence and character of their noncommissioned officer counterparts. From my experience, the vast majority are outstanding leaders who are experts in their craft. Personally, I owe my success in platoon and company leadership time to these phenomenal soldiers. That said, over my ten years I’ve seen a small handful of peers who had difficult relationships with their noncommissioned officer counterparts due to issues of character or competence. The most important thing new officers can do in recognizing and alleviating this problem is to ensure that they are of high character and competence themselves. If you know what right looks like, it’s easier to spot it (or its absence) elsewhere. Secondly, seek out other senior noncommissioned officers and officers that you trust to discuss your observations and to receive professional feedback. Perhaps it’s just a personality clash that will ease over time. But perhaps it’s something more. While initiating the conversation can be particularly difficult, early, candid, and professional dialogue is key to salvaging success from potential disaster. You owe it to him or her, your soldiers, and yourself to ensure your unit is one of high competence and strong character.

5. Write about your thoughts and experiences.

“The palest ink is better than the best memory.” The Chinese proverb reminds us of the imperative behind writing down our experiences—for yourself and those that follow in your footsteps. Whether you just finished a tour in command or staff, your successor will be very grateful for your notes and reflections upon your experience. Where did you succeed? Where could you have improved? What surprised you? Who, or what, were the key resources to your success? Answering a few questions like these is a great way to provide helpful guideposts to your successors as they navigate the journey you just completed. Never doubt the value of your experience or the ability of your writing to positively affect other service members. With renewed senior Army leader emphasis and grassroot efforts such as the Harding Project , there has rarely been a better time to write for the profession. I have had the opportunity to write about my experiences as a staff officer , as a company commander , and as a liaison officer , and I hope those articles were as useful to others preparing for those roles as they were in helping me to identify and reflect on the lessons I learned during each.

6. Tackle your weaknesses.

I have a confession to make. Remember the infantry lieutenant too eager to join Special Forces? It was me. I was too focused on what kind of workout would best prepare me for Special Forces selection to be bothered with mastering the infantry basics. Sure, I graduated and knew how to brief an operation order—but I was still struggling to properly lead an infantry patrol. Don’t take my word for it, though. Ask the Ranger School commander who kicked me out of Darby Phase on my first attempt. It was a really rough day, but I had no time to feel sorry for myself. I had to figure out how to improve my patrolling competence and confidence—fast. I had one month before the next class and the stakes couldn’t have been higher. An officer from my follow-on unit informed me that no tab meant no platoon. And no platoon meant no deployment. I printed off all the ranger patrol cards , laminated them, and reviewed them everywhere I went for the next month. I mentally rehearsed my actions on contact, leader’s reconnaissance, and actions on the objective until I knew that I could pass all graded patrols in Ranger School. And thanks to those efforts in tackling my weaknesses (and thanks to my Ranger buddies), I passed—but I did it the hard way.

7. Take care of those who take care of you.

As a new army leader, you will likely find both challenges and opportunities spread across some good days, some tough ones, and everything in between. You may be surprised, though, at just how many people are invested in your success. From the soldiers in your platoon to your family at home, your peers, and senior officers, all have an interest in your professional success. Try finding out what they value and see if there’s any way you can give them a token of your appreciation. Perhaps your soldiers really value their time (who doesn’t?). When you anticipate a hard week of training, plan an appropriate period of down time once recovery operations are complete. Be sure to brief your boss at your training meeting. He or she will likely approve, commending your desire to reward hard work and your ability to forecast this in advance. Be sure to say thank you to the peers who got you out of a hot situation (on multiple occasions). Call home and thank the ones who are supporting you on this journey. Send them the photos you’ve been taking and you will likely make their day.

8. Foster a culture of cooperation.

I have one last confession. The company battle rhythm I previously mentioned wasn’t my idea. I adopted it from a fellow commander who was achieving great success through his organizational skills. In the initial weeks of my command, I was dousing daily (or hourly) fires while he was reserving land and ammunition months in advance. Touring his office one day, I noticed his battle rhythm product, and suddenly his organizational dominance all made sense. He deliberately set aside one afternoon a week to complete troop-leading procedures for the various operations his company was conducting. Knowing how much I could benefit from his system, I asked for his product and adjusted my processes accordingly—ultimately to the benefit of my soldiers and leaders.

Another peer had an excellent company maintenance system. From fault to fix, he had a detailed system for tracking broken vehicles, ordering parts, and ensuring their expedited repair. He invited me and my executive officer to observe his weekly maintenance meetings. From this opportunity we adjusted our processes, which resulted in greater predictability, more efficiency, and ultimately a higher level of operational readiness. And of course, I shared my own innovations as well.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is how much more effective and enjoyable it was to work in an environment of cooperation. Everyone had each other’s backs and was eager to help. Of course, we were always highly competitive (and sometimes cutthroat) when it came to certain events like battalion physical training competitions. But in terms of collective readiness, we were always willing to help out our peers to our left or right. Among company commanders, no one was unwilling to give out a product or share advice, afraid that a peer’s success would negatively affect his or her own evaluation. In a matter of just eighteen months, my brother and sister commanders became some of my best friends. As we each passed down our guidon, we were all able to celebrate a successful journey together as company-grade officers with amazing follow-on opportunities, the privilege to promote to field-grade ranks, and unforgettable memories together.

9. Have an open mind.

When one door closes, be ready to open all the others. You may be all the happier for the outcome. Personally, I was a bit disappointed that after my career course I was assigned to the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley and not Fort Hood. I wasn’t too keen on the upcoming Atlantic Resolve deployment to Europe, and I definitely did not want to serve as a liaison in Lithuania away from the unit. And yet, I am infinitely grateful for each of those experiences. My time serving at the US embassy in Vilnius inspired me to compete for the foreign area officer program. My peers at Fort Riley became my best friends. I commanded an amazing company—filled with outstanding officers, noncommissioned officers, and soldiers. Of course, one could suggest that I was incredibly lucky. I would agree. But I would also say that keeping an open mind and doing the best I could went a long way toward finding that luck. When one door closes, be ready and willing to open the other.

10. Take photos.

I saved perhaps the easiest recommendation for last. When training conditions permit, take as many photos as possible—especially with the friends you make along your Army journey. The only photos I regret are the ones I didn’t take. Each photo tells a unique story of soldiers, colleagues, and experiences of a lifetime. My favorite feature is to scroll across a map of the globe and review the incredible places my Army journey has taken me. Through infantry training and parachute jumps at Fort Liberty to Bradley operations at Fort Riley and deployed experiences around the world, the photos are a reminder of how lucky I am to have had such amazing experiences, and to have met the best friends in the world. I’m really looking forward to capturing photos of what the next few years will bring, and I hope you are too.

Captain Harrison (Brandon) Morgan is a US Army foreign area officer for the Middle East and North Africa. As an infantry officer, he served in command and staff roles overseas in Iraq, Lithuania, and the Republic of Korea. He also served as an MWI nonresident fellow between 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 .

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

Image credit: Staff Sgt. Scott Fletcher, US Army National Guard

Nice article, Captain. I think you offered terrific ideas and insights. I enjoyed reading it and wish you the best as a FAO. John Pollin CDR, USN (Ret)

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The articles and other content which appear on the Modern War Institute website are unofficial expressions of opinion. The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

The Modern War Institute does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published. Rather, the Modern War Institute provides a forum for professionals to share opinions and cultivate ideas. Comments will be moderated before posting to ensure logical, professional, and courteous application to article content.

Most Popular Posts

• The Five Reasons Wars Happen
• Understanding the Counterdrone Fight: Insights from Combat in Iraq and Syria
• The Illusion of Conventional War: Europe Is Learning the Wrong Lessons from the Conflict in Ukraine

Announcements

• Call for Applications: MWI’s 2024–25 Research Fellows Program
• Join Us Friday, April 26 for a Livestream of the 2024 Hagel Lecture, Featuring Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary Jeh Johnson
• Announcing the Modern War Institute’s 2023–24 Senior and Research Fellows
• Essay Contest Call for Submissions: Solving the Military Recruiting Crisis

Centre for Army Leadership

Essay competition 2024, about the competition.

The deadline has now passed. Results will be announced in due course.

The Centre for Army Leadership and The National Army Museum are proud to announce the theme of the 2024 CAL-NAM Essay Prize competition:

Unsung Army Leaders

From famous battlefield commanders to junior cadets, anyone can be a leader. Who are those leaders who have been overlooked, misunderstood, or forgotten? What was their contribution to leadership, whether in action or through their ideas? What made them stand out? And why should we remember them today?

We would like authors to think creatively about what it means to be a leader and to consider all ranks and roles, including reservists, cadets, nurses, coaches, padres, and anybody who contributes to life in the Army. We welcome essays that explore the history of Unsung Leaders in connection to Britain’s armies, including the Indian Army and other land forces serving under the Crown. Authors are encouraged to look back through history and to consider any Unsung Army Leader since the British Civil Wars.

Be creative and unique! We want challenging, fresh thinking. We look for new perspectives and innovative ideas.

Prize Giving Event - 13 June 2024

Winners will be presented with their certificate at a ceremony at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on Thursday, 13 June 2024.

Winners may be offered the opportunity to publish their work as an article in the NAM Muster magazine, as a CAL Research Paper or a CAL Leadership Insight.   

CAL-NAM Essay Prize 2024 – Senior Category

• This category is open to young writers above the age of 22.  
• Essays should be no longer than 3,000 words, excluding notes and bibliography.  
• Essays that exceed the word limit will not be accepted.      

CAL-NAM Essay Prize 2024 - Junior Category

• This category is open to young writers between the age of 16 and 21.  
• Essays must not be longer than 2,000 words, excluding notes and bibliography.  
• Essays that exceed the word limit will not be accepted.  

Deadline: Friday, 22 March 2024 at 23:59 (BST). Late entries will not be accepted. 

See our FAQ page for the competition.

2023 winners

The theme for 2023 was ‘Leadership and Emotional Intelligence’

The competition was open to military, reservists, and civilians based in the UK and abroad. It included a junior category for young writers between the age of 16 and 21. The call for submissions specifically asked for original and innovative perspectives that could support the continuous development of British Army Leadership and that could bring insights from other sectors and disciplines.

The response surpassed the most optimistic expectations of the organisers, with more than a hundred essays received from around the world.

The Centre for Army Leadership (CAL) and the National Army Museum (NAM) proudly announce the winners of the Leadership Essay Prize 2023.

Senior Category

• Winner - Major Alex Paske, Courageous Conversations: An Essential Leadership Tool. A former elite athlete and a commissioned officer, Major Paske is currently employed within the Army Diversity and Inclusion Team.
• Runner Up - Andrew Fox, Leadership and Emotional Intelligence: The How to the What and the Why. Andrew is a retired Army officer and currently Senior Lecturer in Communications and Applied Behavioural Science at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

Junior Category

• Winner - Joshua Ralph, Emotional Intelligence within Leadership. Joshua is in his second year studying Economics at the University of Southampton. He is in the Southampton University Officers' Training Corps and is a first-year Officer Cadet.
• Runner Up - Thomas Boyd, What Modern Leaders can Learn from Lieutenant General Hal Moore’s Human Leadership: Emotional Intelligence and Leadership by Example. Thomas is 17 years old and studying History, Philosophy and Business for his A Levels at King's College Taunton. He is in the Royal Marines Cadets.

Read the 2023 winning essays

Download the pdf of the winning leadership essays 2023, leadership essays, competition prize giving at the national army museum.

• Recent Articles
• Journal Authors
• El Centro Main
• El Centro Reading List
• El Centro Links
• El Centro Fellows
• About El Centro
• Publish Your Work
• Editorial Policy
• Mission, Etc.
• Rights & Permissions
• Contact Info
• Support SWJ
• Join The Team
• Mad Science
• Front Page News
• Recent News Roundup
• News by Category
• Urban Operations Posts
• Recent Urban Operations Posts
• Urban Operations by Category
• Tribal Engagement
• For Advertisers

Training or Educating: A Choice for Developing the Next Generation of Army Leaders

Training or Educating

A Choice for Developing the Next Generation of Army Leaders

Mark J. Lavin II

Are you informed by your experiences or captured by them ?

As the United States Army simultaneously amalgamates new national and defense security strategies, learns relevant lessons from Russia’s War in Ukraine, and accelerates the fielding of the next generation of weapons systems, we must also prioritize our greatest competitive advantage, our people. The Army’s intellectual institutions are struggling to find clarity in a future of competition with peer nations and capable militaries. As pundits hail the successful predictions of Russia’s tactical actions in Eastern Europe, the Army’s intellectual institutions may overlook continued strategic blunders such as understanding how the intelligence community could be so wrong about the capabilities of the Russian military or how 20 years of blood and treasure achieved so little in Afghanistan. The Army’s intellectual initiatives and learning are further diluted by the allure of academic status and accolades. Choosing an identity for Army intellectual institutions at echelon (why) and then aligning core competencies (how and what) will eliminate superfluous efforts and achieve a universal purpose of winning the Nation’s wars and sustaining the Army’s greatest military advantage…adaptive leaders.

Background and Disclaimers

This paper is intended to demonstrate a need for a comprehensive effort like the 1978 Review of Education and Training of Officers (RETO) [1] and corresponding 1983 Army Staff College Level Training Study conducted by then Army War College Fellow, Huba Wass de Czege. [2] The international and domestic conditions have changed sufficiently in the last forty years to warrant a review of how and to what end we are developing our leaders and specifically our field grade officer corps. 

In my last year as a lieutenant colonel, I requested to serve as a faculty instructor at the Command and General Staff School (CGSS) following four years as a consumer of their efforts. As the Chief, Future Operations (G35) and later the Assistant Chief of Staff for Strategy, Plans, and Policy (G5) my teams were predominantly comprised of post Command and General Staff Officer College (CGSOC) and School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) trained majors. For the most part I was a satisfied customer because the talent of our rising officer corps is second to none. However, there was one common trait: lack of clarity in thought. I define this term as one’s ability to understand and communicate staff work, organizational process, professional opinions, and leader decision implications in a context that accounts for the nature of the operational environment, established policy parameters, military theory, and history. Said another way, a professional’s ability to show their math; not just have an opinion.

My ten months as an instructor at CGSOC were illuminating. Armed with Training and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC) instructor certifications on the Adult Learning Model (ADM) and further pressured to pursue a parallel academic rank, I was entrusted with the Joint, Interagency, and Multinational operations instruction for a seminar of 16 students. The people whom I had the pleasure of teach beside are world class professionals driven by personal desires to empower the next generation of Army, sister service, and international leaders. The following observations and recommendations are oriented on the organizational necessities of the Army and do not reflect any perceived shortcomings of the incredibly talented cadre across CGSOC.

A Tale of Two Identities.

Training or Educating (What’s the difference). To most people these terms are synonymous; both involving teaching and learning. However, when designing organizational structures and expending finite resources (people/time/money) to produce individuals or teams with a specific skill set, these two terms couldn’t be more different. The January 2020 CGSOC Joint Professional Military Education (JPME)-I Reaccreditation Self Study highlights the distinct nature of these terms. Unfortunately, instead of choosing to be good at educating or training, the prescribed methodology for CGSOC is to balance and integrate “complementary approaches.” [3] Said another way, the one-year CGSOC program fits eight pounds of knowledge into three-pound brains. We can do better, and it begins with a clear purpose and function to drive decisions that innovate a culture of learning. [4]

Train to fight OR educate to think. Learning a specific skill utilized on the battlefield requires repetition, realistic conditions, and muscle memory. Learning how to think about war and subsequent battlefields requires reflection, research, and mentorship. Memorizing, through repetition, the intricate battlefield conditions and tactical actions of the forces commanded by Napoleon and Wellington may give you an expert appreciation of what happened at Waterloo, but alone cannot give an understanding of Napoleon’s revolution in military affairs or the impacts of the French Revolution on the character of warfare that remain today. This knowledge can only be achieved through research, reflection, writing, and engaging with a mentor who can enrich that learning experience. Similarly, reading, reflecting, and pontificating about the employment of weapons systems, particularly within complex environments of combined arms formations, will never give you a decisive victory over a skilled and capable adversary. Only through the crucible of training, repetition, assessments, and retraining can one achieve a decisive advantage and master the skills of fighting a crew, staff, or task force. Just ask the Russians in Ukraine.

Educate to fight AND train to think. The current Army professional education system is trying to be everything to everyone and unfortunately is slowly becoming a relic. The establishment of Army University, while at first was a noble effort to give service members and families an advantage when seeking degrees and opportunity in the world of higher education has grown to disproportionally influence policy decisions across TRADOC. To provide similar, if not superior, academic status as the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force, the Army University has expanded its scale and scope exponentially, blending the roles of commander, director, educator, and trainer. This is most notable at the executive level with the Commander, TRADOC serving as the Chancellor of Army University. The Director of the Combined Arms Center hold the office of Vice Chancellor and the Deputy Commandant of CGSOC is the Army University Provost [5] . A cursory comparison of their civilian counterparts at a civilian university demonstrates distinct differences in career development paths, professional expertise, and daily scope of work. [6] The point is NOT that Army senior leaders are unqualified for these positions, rather the unintended consequences of this structure has been the implementation of policies that educate soldiers to fight and train our people to think. Neither accomplishing optimal results. This is the cognitive dissidence that will ultimately erode the Army’s competitive advantage in the next 10 years.

There are two examples of CGSOC friction points that stem from this confusion. The first is the institutions inability to balance student time for reflection and study, with their classroom time to apply and process competencies such as planning and decision making. Often double booked based on instructor-student densities driven by accreditations, the work that doesn’t get finished is moved to homework and into direct competition with other efforts such as writing academic papers and projects imposed by multiple accreditation agencies. The result is that the learning is often ineffective because students will develop a survival routine that prioritizes everything or nothing at the same time. They become product vice content oriented and get captured by competing and redundant requirements that eventually force the learning experience into a routine of block checking and gamesmanship. Again, there is nothing nefarious about these realities rather another symptom of not having a guiding principle to prioritize toward. The second example was the incorporation external instructors for new curriculum dictated by senior Army leaders. The Army University chancellor in 2019 after concerns with CGSOC instructor qualifications, brought in training experts from the centers of excellence to educate CGSOC students on emerging warfighting concepts. Th outsourcing of academic tasks is a clear indicator of misaligned resources and intellectual confusion. A similar trend will emerge as TRADOC transform its mid-level courses and outsources education and training to units in the form of prerequisite distance learning requirements for prospective students.

The Bus to Abilene. It cannot be underemphasized that the collaging of education and training is neither a result of incompetence nor nefarious motives. The Army gets things done and the course of action that combines two distinct options is always the preferred and often directed method. Just like in Jerry B. Harvey’s 1974 article “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement,” [7] well-meaning professionals have perpetuated initiatives at CGSOC over the past forty years that have unintentionally resulted in saturated students, unfocused programs of study, and frustrated faculty either under resourced or unqualified to perform adequately. The creation and strategic implications of Army University is one example of good concepts with mixed results. The other is the SAMS Factor.

The SAMS Factor. The creation of SAMS will be codified as one of the most impactful innovations in American military history. Like the after-action review (AAR), history will show that SAMS had an exponentially greater impact on the successful employment of violence by the U.S. Army than most technological advancements. Given the geopolitical circumstances as well as the perceived state of training and education in the Army at the time SAMS was created, the true genius of Huba Wass de Czege was to both understand the needed skills of the Army officer corps in 1983, but also anticipate the limiting factors the bureaucracy would place on relevant solution strategies. Specifically, the establishment of SAMS was Huba Wass de Czege recognizing a need to return to a 2-year education model for majors that both trained officers to be tactically and technically proficient but also to be critical and creative thinkers. The establishment of SAMS as a pilot and then later a standalone course for a select group of officers was as much about addressing the Army’s cognitive gap as it was subverting to the bureaucratic resistance to change. Designed as building blocks, SAMS was the third phase of a complimentary education process that included the foundational course (now 12 years removed) led by the Combined Arms Service Staff School; teaching combined arms officers how to effectively operate at echelons above Brigade. Over the past 40-years, the SAMS curriculum, including the awarding of a master’s degree, has pollinated, and influenced the culture and vision of the entire Army University. Most influences have been positive. Others, like the fixation on master’s degrees and academic status have convoluted the CGSOC curriculum, overwhelmed the faculty, and confuses students. As in 1983, today the Army faces the same questions: where do we go from here and who is leading that charge?

Inflection Points come with hard decisions. Comprehensive adjustments must be made to address the evolving characteristics of warfare as well as the perceived cognitive dissidence in the Army education system. Tremendous investments are being made in Doctrine, Organizations, Training, Material, Personnel, and Facilities and the successful integration of these solutions relies on the adaptability of people which can only be gained through training and education. Moreover, as the Army’s modernization strategy comes into full view, the battlefield application remains fully reliant on adaptable and capable Soldiers and leaders. [8] The resources are available for the Army to align properly and effectively, it just requires thoughtful and comprehensive recommendations and hard decisions.

Where and how do leaders learn to fight and where and how do they learn to think?

The final section is a comparison of two options for developing junior field grade officers to be adaptable and lethal leaders: each compelling, suitable, and distinguishable. The hardest part is determining what competencies Army Junior Executives must perfect during the CGSOC experience, think or fight . If it is both, then the Army must find ways of dedicating more time. Each course of action below will drive change and increase reliance on either civilian institutions or military training and education centers across the force. If the Army chooses to study this paradigm and decides to both conduct better training and educate more effectively, then the Intermediate level education system must again go to a two-year experience. 

Course of Action 1. Training Focused instruction: How the Army fights.

• Integrate instruction with the School for Command preparation while simultaneously resurrecting the learning demands of the Combined Arms Service Staff School.
• Increase planning and scenario sets and reps.
• Military Instructors need to regain the majority if not a 3/1 ratio.
• Dissolve the master’s degree efforts at CGSOC
• Add Staff Work instruction for Flag Officer headquarters
• Military instructor positions must be career enhancing
• Turn Military History and Military Theory into electives

Course of Action 2. Education Focused instruction: How the Army thinks.

• New Departments with mandated civilian education requirements including PhD led syndicates.
• Reduced Leadership, Tactics, and Joint Doctrine instruction
• Create Military Theory department and instruction
• Retain Military History but focus on actual history, not theory
• Create International Relations and Political Science department

Choose a Direction of Travel and Resource the effort. If history has taught one thing it is that successful militaries have leaders who can both fight and think. Achieving this within the formations of the future begins with choosing an identity and purpose for the Army’s intellectual institutions and then aligning resources appropriately. The above is NOT a binary choice for the overall development of the officer corps, but a framework for how the Army develops mid-grade leaders for success and then adopt corresponding changes across the entire developmental timeline. There are equally compelling arguments for the Army to resource education or training at CGSOC. Whichever is decided, it cannot exist in a vacuum but reverberate across the Army’s professional development and education institutions. There will be second and third order effects that must be embraced or else the seeds of change will not take root. If CGSOC chooses to educate our officers, then the Centers of Excellence and pre-commissioning institutions must double down on training. Moreover, if education is the true focus for CGSOC, then how is the War College curriculum refined, or how do the Schools for Command Preparation or Advanced Military Studies evolve and further revolutionize our force?

[1] U.S. Department of the Army. General Staff. Officer Training and Education Review Group.  Review of Education and Training for Officers (RETO), vol. 1-6 with appendices, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 30 June1978.

[2] Wass de Czege, Huba, Final Report: Army Staff College Level Training Study , pages 30-31, June 1983, https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p4013coll11/id/1378/ , accessed 5 July 2022.

[3] U.S. Army Command and General Staff College: JPME-I Reaccreditation Self-Study 3 January 2020, p 11.

[4] Lavin, Mark, “Foundational Principles of Innovation”, accessed 26 February 2020, https://smallwarsjournal.com/index.php/jrnl/art/foundational-principles-of-innovation-defining-an-elusive-term

[5] Army University Organizational Chart, circa October 2019.

[6] A review of leadership biographies at the University of Iowa, University of Missouri at Kansas City, and University of Northern Iowa shows a clear distinction. Academic leaders have extensive experiences in research, grants, and hold advanced degrees. Military commanders have extensive experience in operational and organizational leadership and while many have advanced degrees, it is not a requirement for general officers to attain a PhD in a specific research field of study.

[7] Harvey, Jerry B, The Abilene Paradox: the Management of Agreement , http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Group_Dynamics/Harvey_Abilene_Paradox.pdf , last accessed 5 July 2022.

[8] Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2020, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), May 2019, Table 6-19: Army Budget Authority by Public Law Title, percentages of current dollars for selected titles, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/FY20_Green_Book.pdf; CRS research. The 2020 Army budget has 33% committed to personnel compared to just 6% in research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and 14% in Procurement

About the Author(s)

Colonel Lavin is a US Army Strategist currently serving as the Assistant Chief of Staff, G5 Strategy, Plans and Policy for US Army North (5th Army). He most recently served as a faculty instructor at the Command and General Staff College in Leavenworth, Kansas. Previously assigned at US Army South, he served as the Assistant Chief of Staff, G5, Chief of Future Operations (G35), and the Strategy and Policy Branch Chief (G55). Former Strategist positions include as a Futures planner with the Army Capability Integration Center (now Army Futures Command) where he managed the Army’s future study program Unified Quest. Commissioned a CBRN officer, COL Lavin has held leadership positions at the company and platoon level including company command during Operation Iraqi Freedom II with the First Infantry Division. He has served as a Small Group Instructor and Army Congressional Fellow. His Joint assignments include Deputy Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Legislative Director for the Commander, US Forces-Iraq during Operation New Dawn.

It is always helpful to re…

It is always helpful to re-imagine Professional Military Education.  As a cornerstone of officer education, I presume Army leadership focuses on the effectiveness and relevance of any program that requires a massive investment of resources, such as CGSC and CGSOC.  In evaluating the efficacy or significance of any program, one must first understand some foundational truths about that program.

The first truth is that officers are not selected for academic acumen.  The path to selection is success in a company grade assignment.  A successful assignment might involve the soldier's basic branch, or it may be in a duty that has little to do with their branch or function, leading to a second fundamental truth.

CGSC, being part of the Combined Arms Center, is quite logically focused on Combined Arms, JPME, and parallel instruction on history, leadership, and sustainment.  CGSOC is not a branch-specific or branch-producing course.  To facilitate Combined Arms instruction, CGSS assumes that officers are tactically proficient as a company-grade officers in their basic branch.  The assumption regarding tactical proficiency is bold and often false.  As a remedy, significant efforts are made to make up for experiential deficits.  These deficiencies often involve a lack of fundamental knowledge or skills.

The SAMS effect is seductive, and the idea of re-making CGSOC to look like AMSP is nothing new.   My SAMS experience was an epiphany, but SAMS has an additional selection process beyond a centralized board evaluating a series of efficiency reports for resident CGSOC.  Mimicking AMSP involves a more rigorous selection process that fundamentally alters the nature of resident CGSOC.  Class size would be a tithe of the current size with commensurate reductions in knowledge and skills in any Field Grade cohort.

With all these impediments to evolving CGSOC, what can be done in continuing efforts to improve the course?  The first step may be as simple as answering two questions.  The first question is, what does the customer want?  The customer is not CGSS, CAC, the Army, or Joint Chiefs.  The customer is the Republic.  What do the people expect of their military? 

The second question is, what is CGSC?  Is it a college devoted to individual development that spends an unusual amount of time on military doctrine, or is it an Army Service School with a degree program?  Which of these identities best answers the requirements of the customer?

The most fundamental question is one of purpose.  What is the purpose of CGSOC?  Once resolved, the answers to the rest of the questions should fall out quite nicely.

Want To Get Into The Ivy League? Here’s How Long The Application Process Really Takes

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

One of the main gates on the Brown University campus, decorated with the University crest. (Photo by ... [+] Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images)

While the college admissions process begins in earnest during a student’s junior year of high school, a standout college admissions profile is the result of years of strategic and intentional planning. This is especially true for students with Ivy League dreams—joining the ranks of students at Yale, Princeton, and Harvard requires time, dedication, and consideration long before students start their applications. Even the most talented, qualified students underestimate the amount of time that goes into planning for and completing the application process. Starting early and planning ahead are crucial for crafting stand-out Ivy League applications.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of how much time you should realistically expect to invest in the Ivy League admissions process, from start to finish:

Developing Your Hook: 4 Years

A “ hook ” is the element of a student’s profile that “hooks” the attention of admissions officers—it is the X factor that distinguishes a student from thousands of other applicants. It should be the anchoring interest around which all other elements of an application coalesce. Developing this defining passion requires time and dedication, so the earlier a student starts intentionally exploring their interests to develop this hook, the better. Beginning in freshman year, students should explore activities, courses, and volunteer opportunities in their schools and communities, thoughtfully weighing what they most enjoy as they do so. Over the next few years, students should hone their hook through continued involvement in extracurricular or volunteer opportunities that align with their guiding interests, seeking leadership opportunities when applicable.

Building an Independent Project: 2 years

One of the most effective ways to showcase a hook is through an independent passion project. Sophomore, junior or fall of senior year, students should craft an initiative that uses their passions to better their communities, as this will demonstrate self-motivation, genuine passion, and leadership acumen to Ivy League and other top colleges. Their project could take the shape of scientific research, a nonprofit, a community initiative, or a startup business. Students should spend a few months brainstorming, planning, and setting clear goals before entering the implementation stage. They should be sure to document their progress meticulously as they overcome hurdles and meet their goals, as this will enable them to relay their successes clearly and specifically on their applications in the future.

Researching Colleges & Structuring College List: 6 months–1 year

During their junior year, students should consult a variety of resources and rankings and begin to develop their college lists. As they do so, they should keep in mind that every ranking system takes unique factors into account—for instance, while U.S. News and World Report focuses on metrics related to academic quality such as academic reputation and graduation rates, Forbes is heavily focused on financial metrics , considering ROI, average debt, and alumni salary. In addition to weighing schools’ rankings, students should also seek to balance their college lists by comparing their academic standing with the academic profile of admitted students. If a student’s GPA and test scores fall within the middle 50% of admitted students, the school is a match; if they are above the 75th percentile, that school is likely a safety, and if their scores are below the 25th percentile, the school is a reach.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

Studying & Taking Standardized Tests: 6 months–1.5 years

Typically, students will have completed the mathematics coursework needed to take the SAT and ACT by the spring of their sophomore year and should sit for diagnostic ACT and SAT tests around that time. Once they receive their diagnostic scores, students should create a study plan that will enable them to reach their goal score, which should be set relative to their college aspirations; students with Ivy League dreams should aim to earn a 34+ on the ACT or a 1550+ on the SAT. The amount of time needed to prepare for and ace standardized tests often varies greatly depending on students’ diagnostic scores, goal scores, and how much time and effort they devote to studying.

Writing Essays & Assembling Applications: 6 months

Finally, completing the actual application is perhaps the shortest stage of the process—though it is the most important. Students who have dedicated time and effort to building their applicant profiles throughout their high school careers will reap the benefits of their long term planning; they will be able to approach the process with a clear understanding of the unique story they wish to convey through their application components. Students should kickstart the process in the spring of their junior year by requesting recommendations from their teachers, school counselors, and other non-academic mentors. The summer before senior year is a critical time to work on the personal statement, which tends to be one of the most time consuming elements of the application process as it requires lengthy brainstorming, drafting, and editing. Supplemental essay prompts for specific schools are generally released in August, so students should plan to devote the remainder of their summer and fall to completing those essays. Finally, with focus and dedication, students can complete the activities list in one to two weeks, but they should devote concerted attention to the activities list like all the other elements of their application and be sure not to save it until the last minute.

While every student is different and will need to assemble their own timeline, the college admissions process is a demanding one—particularly for students determined to gain admission to the most elite universities in the country. Students should begin preparing early in order to give themselves some leeway and submit applications that they are truly proud of.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

The state of AI in early 2024: Gen AI adoption spikes and starts to generate value

If 2023 was the year the world discovered generative AI (gen AI) , 2024 is the year organizations truly began using—and deriving business value from—this new technology. In the latest McKinsey Global Survey  on AI, 65 percent of respondents report that their organizations are regularly using gen AI, nearly double the percentage from our previous survey just ten months ago. Respondents’ expectations for gen AI’s impact remain as high as they were last year , with three-quarters predicting that gen AI will lead to significant or disruptive change in their industries in the years ahead.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Alex Singla , Alexander Sukharevsky , Lareina Yee , and Michael Chui , with Bryce Hall , representing views from QuantumBlack, AI by McKinsey, and McKinsey Digital.

Organizations are already seeing material benefits from gen AI use, reporting both cost decreases and revenue jumps in the business units deploying the technology. The survey also provides insights into the kinds of risks presented by gen AI—most notably, inaccuracy—as well as the emerging practices of top performers to mitigate those challenges and capture value.

AI adoption surges

Interest in generative AI has also brightened the spotlight on a broader set of AI capabilities. For the past six years, AI adoption by respondents’ organizations has hovered at about 50 percent. This year, the survey finds that adoption has jumped to 72 percent (Exhibit 1). And the interest is truly global in scope. Our 2023 survey found that AI adoption did not reach 66 percent in any region; however, this year more than two-thirds of respondents in nearly every region say their organizations are using AI. 1 Organizations based in Central and South America are the exception, with 58 percent of respondents working for organizations based in Central and South America reporting AI adoption. Looking by industry, the biggest increase in adoption can be found in professional services. 2 Includes respondents working for organizations focused on human resources, legal services, management consulting, market research, R&D, tax preparation, and training.

Also, responses suggest that companies are now using AI in more parts of the business. Half of respondents say their organizations have adopted AI in two or more business functions, up from less than a third of respondents in 2023 (Exhibit 2).

Gen AI adoption is most common in the functions where it can create the most value

Most respondents now report that their organizations—and they as individuals—are using gen AI. Sixty-five percent of respondents say their organizations are regularly using gen AI in at least one business function, up from one-third last year. The average organization using gen AI is doing so in two functions, most often in marketing and sales and in product and service development—two functions in which previous research  determined that gen AI adoption could generate the most value 3 “ The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier ,” McKinsey, June 14, 2023. —as well as in IT (Exhibit 3). The biggest increase from 2023 is found in marketing and sales, where reported adoption has more than doubled. Yet across functions, only two use cases, both within marketing and sales, are reported by 15 percent or more of respondents.

Gen AI also is weaving its way into respondents’ personal lives. Compared with 2023, respondents are much more likely to be using gen AI at work and even more likely to be using gen AI both at work and in their personal lives (Exhibit 4). The survey finds upticks in gen AI use across all regions, with the largest increases in Asia–Pacific and Greater China. Respondents at the highest seniority levels, meanwhile, show larger jumps in the use of gen Al tools for work and outside of work compared with their midlevel-management peers. Looking at specific industries, respondents working in energy and materials and in professional services report the largest increase in gen AI use.

Investments in gen AI and analytical AI are beginning to create value

The latest survey also shows how different industries are budgeting for gen AI. Responses suggest that, in many industries, organizations are about equally as likely to be investing more than 5 percent of their digital budgets in gen AI as they are in nongenerative, analytical-AI solutions (Exhibit 5). Yet in most industries, larger shares of respondents report that their organizations spend more than 20 percent on analytical AI than on gen AI. Looking ahead, most respondents—67 percent—expect their organizations to invest more in AI over the next three years.

Where are those investments paying off? For the first time, our latest survey explored the value created by gen AI use by business function. The function in which the largest share of respondents report seeing cost decreases is human resources. Respondents most commonly report meaningful revenue increases (of more than 5 percent) in supply chain and inventory management (Exhibit 6). For analytical AI, respondents most often report seeing cost benefits in service operations—in line with what we found last year —as well as meaningful revenue increases from AI use in marketing and sales.

Inaccuracy: The most recognized and experienced risk of gen AI use

As businesses begin to see the benefits of gen AI, they’re also recognizing the diverse risks associated with the technology. These can range from data management risks such as data privacy, bias, or intellectual property (IP) infringement to model management risks, which tend to focus on inaccurate output or lack of explainability. A third big risk category is security and incorrect use.

Respondents to the latest survey are more likely than they were last year to say their organizations consider inaccuracy and IP infringement to be relevant to their use of gen AI, and about half continue to view cybersecurity as a risk (Exhibit 7).

Conversely, respondents are less likely than they were last year to say their organizations consider workforce and labor displacement to be relevant risks and are not increasing efforts to mitigate them.

In fact, inaccuracy— which can affect use cases across the gen AI value chain , ranging from customer journeys and summarization to coding and creative content—is the only risk that respondents are significantly more likely than last year to say their organizations are actively working to mitigate.

Some organizations have already experienced negative consequences from the use of gen AI, with 44 percent of respondents saying their organizations have experienced at least one consequence (Exhibit 8). Respondents most often report inaccuracy as a risk that has affected their organizations, followed by cybersecurity and explainability.

Our previous research has found that there are several elements of governance that can help in scaling gen AI use responsibly, yet few respondents report having these risk-related practices in place. 4 “ Implementing generative AI with speed and safety ,” McKinsey Quarterly , March 13, 2024. For example, just 18 percent say their organizations have an enterprise-wide council or board with the authority to make decisions involving responsible AI governance, and only one-third say gen AI risk awareness and risk mitigation controls are required skill sets for technical talent.

Bringing gen AI capabilities to bear

The latest survey also sought to understand how, and how quickly, organizations are deploying these new gen AI tools. We have found three archetypes for implementing gen AI solutions : takers use off-the-shelf, publicly available solutions; shapers customize those tools with proprietary data and systems; and makers develop their own foundation models from scratch. 5 “ Technology’s generational moment with generative AI: A CIO and CTO guide ,” McKinsey, July 11, 2023. Across most industries, the survey results suggest that organizations are finding off-the-shelf offerings applicable to their business needs—though many are pursuing opportunities to customize models or even develop their own (Exhibit 9). About half of reported gen AI uses within respondents’ business functions are utilizing off-the-shelf, publicly available models or tools, with little or no customization. Respondents in energy and materials, technology, and media and telecommunications are more likely to report significant customization or tuning of publicly available models or developing their own proprietary models to address specific business needs.

Respondents most often report that their organizations required one to four months from the start of a project to put gen AI into production, though the time it takes varies by business function (Exhibit 10). It also depends upon the approach for acquiring those capabilities. Not surprisingly, reported uses of highly customized or proprietary models are 1.5 times more likely than off-the-shelf, publicly available models to take five months or more to implement.

Gen AI high performers are excelling despite facing challenges

Gen AI is a new technology, and organizations are still early in the journey of pursuing its opportunities and scaling it across functions. So it’s little surprise that only a small subset of respondents (46 out of 876) report that a meaningful share of their organizations’ EBIT can be attributed to their deployment of gen AI. Still, these gen AI leaders are worth examining closely. These, after all, are the early movers, who already attribute more than 10 percent of their organizations’ EBIT to their use of gen AI. Forty-two percent of these high performers say more than 20 percent of their EBIT is attributable to their use of nongenerative, analytical AI, and they span industries and regions—though most are at organizations with less than $1 billion in annual revenue. The AI-related practices at these organizations can offer guidance to those looking to create value from gen AI adoption at their own organizations.

To start, gen AI high performers are using gen AI in more business functions—an average of three functions, while others average two. They, like other organizations, are most likely to use gen AI in marketing and sales and product or service development, but they’re much more likely than others to use gen AI solutions in risk, legal, and compliance; in strategy and corporate finance; and in supply chain and inventory management. They’re more than three times as likely as others to be using gen AI in activities ranging from processing of accounting documents and risk assessment to R&D testing and pricing and promotions. While, overall, about half of reported gen AI applications within business functions are utilizing publicly available models or tools, gen AI high performers are less likely to use those off-the-shelf options than to either implement significantly customized versions of those tools or to develop their own proprietary foundation models.

What else are these high performers doing differently? For one thing, they are paying more attention to gen-AI-related risks. Perhaps because they are further along on their journeys, they are more likely than others to say their organizations have experienced every negative consequence from gen AI we asked about, from cybersecurity and personal privacy to explainability and IP infringement. Given that, they are more likely than others to report that their organizations consider those risks, as well as regulatory compliance, environmental impacts, and political stability, to be relevant to their gen AI use, and they say they take steps to mitigate more risks than others do.

Gen AI high performers are also much more likely to say their organizations follow a set of risk-related best practices (Exhibit 11). For example, they are nearly twice as likely as others to involve the legal function and embed risk reviews early on in the development of gen AI solutions—that is, to “ shift left .” They’re also much more likely than others to employ a wide range of other best practices, from strategy-related practices to those related to scaling.

In addition to experiencing the risks of gen AI adoption, high performers have encountered other challenges that can serve as warnings to others (Exhibit 12). Seventy percent say they have experienced difficulties with data, including defining processes for data governance, developing the ability to quickly integrate data into AI models, and an insufficient amount of training data, highlighting the essential role that data play in capturing value. High performers are also more likely than others to report experiencing challenges with their operating models, such as implementing agile ways of working and effective sprint performance management.

About the research

The online survey was in the field from February 22 to March 5, 2024, and garnered responses from 1,363 participants representing the full range of regions, industries, company sizes, functional specialties, and tenures. Of those respondents, 981 said their organizations had adopted AI in at least one business function, and 878 said their organizations were regularly using gen AI in at least one function. To adjust for differences in response rates, the data are weighted by the contribution of each respondent’s nation to global GDP.

Alex Singla and Alexander Sukharevsky  are global coleaders of QuantumBlack, AI by McKinsey, and senior partners in McKinsey’s Chicago and London offices, respectively; Lareina Yee  is a senior partner in the Bay Area office, where Michael Chui , a McKinsey Global Institute partner, is a partner; and Bryce Hall  is an associate partner in the Washington, DC, office.

They wish to thank Kaitlin Noe, Larry Kanter, Mallika Jhamb, and Shinjini Srivastava for their contributions to this work.

This article was edited by Heather Hanselman, a senior editor in McKinsey’s Atlanta office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Moving past gen AI’s honeymoon phase: Seven hard truths for CIOs to get from pilot to scale

A generative AI reset: Rewiring to turn potential into value in 2024

Implementing generative AI with speed and safety

Election latest: Sunak not taking questions amid talk of Tory battle to succeed him - as Dragon joins Starmer at brewery

A poll has found Reform's Nigel Farage would be the favourite to take over as Tory leader if Rishi Sunak loses the election. Labour says the Conservatives are already battling over the succession. Earlier, the transport secretary denied that the PM's D-Day blunder had lost the election.

Saturday 8 June 2024 19:53, UK

• General Election 2024

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Election news

• PM not taking questions as D-Day row rumbles on
• Sir Keir joined by Dragon to launch small businesses plan
• Farage should take over from Sunak as leader of Tories, poll finds
• Tories will scrap ULEZ expansion in 'backing drivers bill'
• Sunak vows to axe stamp duty for first-time buyers
• Electoral Dysfunction:  What could be in the party manifestos?

Expert analysis

• Rob Powell: It beggars belief someone didn't sound the alarm about PM leaving D-Day events early
• Tamara Cohen: Labour can't believe their luck

Election essentials

• Battle For No 10: PM and Starmer taking part in Sky News special
• Campaign Heritage: Memorable moments from elections gone by
• Trackers: Who's leading polls? | Is PM keeping promises?
• Follow Sky's politics podcasts: Electoral Dysfunction | Politics At Jack And Sam's
• Read more: Who is standing down? | Key seats to watch | How to register to vote | What counts as voter ID? | Check if your constituency is changing | Your essential guide to election lingo | Sky's election night plans

Question. If a prime minister is heckled at a rally and there's no backdrop scandal to imbue it with meaning, should it still end up on the news?

I ask because so often in election campaigns, individual and often innocuous events get sucked into the black hole of a political narrative and spat out as something very different and much more dangerous.

Exhibit A - the torrid two days Rishi Sunak has had after his early departure from the D-Day commemorations.

Such was the scale of this saga that even a solitary road sign in rural Gloucestershire was transformed into a symbol of the hapless Tory campaign stumbling from one PR disaster to another - simply because it read "Veterans Way" and happened to be next to a school the prime minister was visiting.

A GP with gripes about the widening of access to medical care topped off the party's hell day after she interrupted Mr Sunak at a rally in Wiltshire.

This was inevitably seen as another blow for the embattled campaign, despite the prime minister giving a fairly convincing defence of his policy.

You wonder how such a situation would have been received had it happened to Sir Keir Starmer - the drama potentially diluted by his huge lead in the polls and polished campaign machine.

None of this is to deny the importance of the D-Day story.

As one pollster put it, the debacle seemed almost "laser guided" to inflict the maximum amount of damage on a leader leaking votes to the right and facing frequent accusations of being out of touch.

That was certainly evident in Bishop Auckland on Saturday.

The Tories took this seat for the first time ever in 2019, but metres from a Conservative campaign stop one former candidate for the party told Sky News he could "never vote for that man" after events of the past two days.

"He's leading them off the cliff like rats following the Pied Piper," he said.

So how can Rishi Sunak change the weather?

Read Rob's full analysis below... 

The polls are stubbornly refusing to move for the Conservatives.

Sky's latest average poll tracker shows Labour on 43.6% while the Conservatives trail on 22.8% - a commanding lead.

And - despite Rishi Sunak appealing to the right of his core vote with policies on immigration and national service, Nigel Farage's Reform party are nipping at the Tories' heels. 

One YouGov poll this week showed the party on 17% - just two points behind the Conservatives on 19%.

Conservative peer and poll expert Lord Hayward has said the Tories have been "flatlining" in the polls. 

"I think the polls have somewhat overestimated the Labour lead but it's still solid and it's still very substantial," he tells the Politics Hub. 

He says Reform's position is "dangerous" to all other parties. 

"What's interesting is that Reform, and other disruptor parties like the Greens, are taking away votes from the major parties," he adds. 

"It will hit all parties, not just the Conservatives, and this what people have to be aware of nbecause voter loyalty is very low." 

He adds that he believes his party's chances of achieving a majority is going to be "pretty difficult". 

Ali Fortescue is joined now by our political correspondent Tamara Cohen , and the pair are discussing whether the Conservatives can dig themselves out of the hole they've found themselves in after a bad week. 

Tamara says there is a lot of deep despair in the Tory ranks. 

"Rishi Sunak refusing to speak to journalists today and just look at the seats that they're visiting. The prime minister in Bishop Auckland, where the Conservatives have an 8,000 majority," she says. 

"Whereas Labour today is in Aldershot - a seat the Conservatives have held for 100 years. 

"Next week we have the manifestos released. Is that a moment for Rishi Sunak to regain a bit of momentum?

"We've also got more debates including our election event and the Tories are chucking out a lot of ideas here." 

Next up on the show is Labour's shadow treasury minister James Murray. 

Ali begins by asking him about Labour's plan to overhaul the business rates system if it gets into power. 

Mr Murray explains that his party wants to replace the current system with one that "rebalances the burden away from high streets and make sure that online giants pay their fair share". 

"People want high streets to thrive... but at the moment they pay a disproportionate amount of tax through business rates," he adds. 

He explains that bricks and mortar stores would be given extra support under a Labour government. 

He reiterates Labour's pledge to not rejoin the single market, the customs union and it will not have the freedom on movement again.

But he says that the party wants to "reduce friction" with the European Union to improve the economy. 

Business Minister Kevin Hollinrake is the first guest to appear on tonight's Politics Hub with Ali Fortescue. 

He is asked about the Conservatives defenders seemingly missing in action, saying everybody's time in politics eventually comes to an end, and they have their own decisions to make. 

Mr Hollinrake is among those standing again as an MP. 

"Politics isn't the only thing to do in your life," he adds. "But there are some fantastic people coming through, and we have a fantastic leader in Rishi Sunak." 

Ali pushes him on the criticism surrounding Sunak over his decision to leave D-Day commemorations early. 

"He made a mistake, and he was of course in the commemorations in the UK and in the British commemorations in France," Mr Hollinrake says, adding that the PM has apologised. 

He adds that only one person he has spoken to in his constituency have raised D-Day as an issue. 

"I think it's time now to talk about other issues," he says. 

Moving on now to the Ultra Low Emission Zone in London, he insists the Conservatives want to make sure the cost of moving to a cleaner environment is "sensible and proportionate". 

   Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been trying to move on from anger over his decision to leave D-Day commemorations early – today he refused to speak to journalists.

Last night though, a cabinet minister speaking on live TV told the country his decision was "very wrong". 

But where have all those who would be out defending the Conservatives got to? 

Boris Johnson, long-time deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid, Liz Truss, even Michael Gove, have all deserted the field.

None - apart from Liz Truss - are even standing at the election.

Here's our political correspondent Rob Powell's latest report from today's campaign trail... 

In the last few moments, Rishi Sunak has posted on X about the release of four Israeli hostages in Gaza. 

He said it was a "huge relief" to see them returned home after their "unimaginable ordeal". 

"We will continue to strive towards an end to the fighting as well as safety and security for all," he added. 

Earlier, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer reposted a message from shadow foreign secretary David Lammy, which said the hostage's rescue was a "glimmer of hope in the darkness". 

Tonight's show begins with a look at the rescue of four Israeli hostages from Hamas captivity in Gaza earlier today.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his forces had acted with "creativity and boldness" and they will not relent until all hostages have been returned home. 

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has accused Israeli forces of a "bloody massacre". 

The Hamas-run government in the enclave has said at least 210 Palestinians were killed during the rescue mission. 

You can read all the latest updates in our dedicated Israel-Hamas war blog below...

Our weeknight show  Politics Hub With Ali Fortescue  is live now on Sky News.

The fast-paced programme dissects the inner workings of Westminster, with interviews, insights, and analysis - bringing you, the audience, into the corridors of power.

Watch in the stream at the top of this page, and follow live updates here in the Politics Hub.

Watch  Politics Hub  from 7pm every night during the election campaign on Sky channel 501, Virgin channel 602, Freeview channel 233, on the  Sky News website  and  app  or on  YouTube

Rishi Sunak has faced impromptu questioning over the state of the NHS for a second time in 24 hours.

The prime minister was on the campaign trail again today - but was not taking any questions from journalists as the row over his early departure from D-Day rumbles on.

He attended a fete in his own constituency, where he ended up being challenged over the state of the NHS.

This comes after he was challenged at a campaign rally on Friday over GPs (see here ).

Today, a woman who identified herself as a consultant called Chloe stopped the prime minister and asked him for "his plan for waiting lists" - and claimed the government had left the NHS "completely unprepared" for the pandemic.

The pair shook hands at the start of the encounter, and Mr Sunak moved on after around 30 seconds.

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free