Step Out of Your Boots to Find Innovation

Eagles Rise Higher, Embedded with Industry

CW4 Mark J. Bowling

Article published on: March 1, 2025 in the Warrant Officer January-March 2025 Issue

Read Time: < 10 mins

The nature of Army Warrant Officers (WOs), particularly technical WOs, has always been somewhat ambiguous. Over the past century, various Army publications have repeatedly redefined their role. Commissioned officers are recognized as generalist leaders, Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) as managers, and junior enlisted Soldiers as followers. In contrast, Army Warrant Officers are defined as technical experts (DA PAM 600-3). Despite this distinction, commanders often question how and where to employ their technical WOs best, if they have one, particularly during periods of unit reset. I assert that technical WOs should spend at least 50% of their working hours in the private sector to gain intimate exposure to and expertise on emerging technologies. This will enhance their ability to integrate innovation into Army strategies, operations, and tactics, ultimately positioning them as champions of change in their organizations.

History and Definition

The role of the Army Warrant Officer has evolved. The precursor to the WO was the Army Field Clerk, authorized by an Act of Congress in 1916. Initially considered civilians, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) ruled them to be military members. This led to the genesis of courtesy titles like Mr. and Ms. Throughout the World Wars, WOs served in various roles, including pilots and marine engineers. Promotion to WO was often seen as a reward for exceptional enlisted service. However, after the Korean War, a more standardized language emerged (WOHF).

1957: “Highly Skilled Technicians…”

1985: “Highly Specialized Experts…”

1986: “Highly Specialized Single-Track Specialty Officers…

2005: “Adaptive Technical Experts…”

The current DA PAM 600-3 (2023) defines the Warrant Officer as:

“A technical expert, combat leader, trainer, and advisor. Through assignment experience, training, and education, the WO administers, manages, maintains, operates, and integrates Army systems and equipment across unified land operations. WOs are innovative integrators of emerging technologies, dynamic teachers, confident warfighters, and developers of specialized teams of Soldiers. They support a wide range of Army Missions throughout their career. WOs in the Army are assessed with specific levels of technical ability. They refine their technical expertise and develop leadership and management skills through tiered, progressive assignments and education.”

Developing Expertise

WOs initially gain their technical expertise from their education, training, and experience as enlisted Soldiers, or through civilian careers in the case of Reserve and National Guard Soldiers. Malcolm Gladwell asserts in “Outliers” that someone can be considered an expert after 10 years or 10,000 hours of experience (Gladwell). Most NCOs possess sufficient experience before applying to become WOs. However, the proficiency gained in the first decade of enlistment will not suffice for the subsequent 5-30 years of Warrant Officer service, particularly as technology and warfare evolve rapidly. In Chief of Staff Paper #1, General McConville succinctly states, “The United States Army faces an inflection point that requires innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship in the application of combat power…This requires the development and fielding of new weapon systems…This bold transformation will provide the Joint Force with the range, speed, and convergence of cutting-edge technologies needed to provide future decision dominance and overmatch required to win the next fight” (CoS Paper #1).

In 2004, however, during modularity and the Global War on Terror, a concerted effort was made to integrate WOs into the commissioned officer corps better. They were required to remove the eagle rising from their lapels and don a branch insignia, losing their unique identity (Welsh). We were no longer the Warrant Officer Corps; instead, the Warrant Officer Cohort of the Officer Corps. At the time, this seemed like a harmless change and distinction that enabled flexibility and interoperability during mobilization. However, this interchangeability neglected the WOs’ technical aptitude and potential to influence technological change. This narrative underscores the need to change the Army’s approach to WOs, which recognizes and utilizes their technical expertise.

In 2010, when I first became a Warrant Officer, I returned home from candidate school to find my unit without lieutenants. My commander asked me to serve as 2nd Platoon Leader (PL). I obliged; I thought I could do anything they could do just as well. In 2013, on deployment to the Middle East with the same unit, none of the PLs were trusted to lead a construction platoon; they were inexperienced. I was sent forward to Afghanistan with a Staff Sergeant by my side to lead a concrete detachment successfully. This experience highlighted the importance of WOs’ technical expertise in leading successful operations. Over the years, I progressed through various assignments with Directorates of Public Works (DPWs); I was assigned to replace staff officers who were Majors, never in a position to learn about, harness, or integrate new and innovative technological changes.

Philosophy on Change

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus famously stated, “The only constant in life is change.” You can’t step into the same river twice (Heraclitus) - or battlefield. Beyond that, Charles Darwin is often misquoted as writing in the Origin of Species, “It is not the strongest of species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most adaptable to change.” Business professor Leon C. Megginson is credited with saying this after reading Darwin’s work (Darwin). Additionally, Moore’s Law, paying homage to the founder of Intel Corp, observes that computer processing power doubles every two years (Intel). This indicates that modern technological change is not only continuous but also exponential. WOs must remain experts in their field’s technology despite these rapid changes.

So, how do Warrant Officers remain proficient in the technology we are assigned if 1) it is always changing, 2) adaptation to change is required for survival, and 3) change is happening faster and faster as time progresses? It simply cannot be done based solely on the training, education, and experience they received as an enlisted Soldier. They must embrace an acceptance of lifelong learning to stay abreast of new and emerging technologies.

Once candidate school is complete, WOs progress through successive levels of professional military education (PME). This includes both common core and branch-specific training. Common core education is necessary for shared understanding with the generalist officers that WOs will serve and support. However, the technical training WOs receive is insufficient compared to the volume and pace of technological advancements. Moreover, the training provided by proponents is taught by instructors entrenched in the same bureaucratic military career as the student. They, too, are likely far removed from the cutting-edge technology emerging in their field of expertise.

Bureaucratic Organizations

It is understood that large bureaucratic organizations, such as the DOD, are often slow to change and innovate. They risk a loss of competitive advantage. This phenomenon is also familiar in business. Companies like Motorola and Microsoft illustrate how failure to adapt allowed Apple to beat them to market with innovations like the iPhone and iPad. Similarly, Tesla beat Ford and GM to market with electric vehicles, and Amazon beat Walmart to market with eCommerce. As Darwin suggested, it’s not the biggest, most substantial, or most innovative organization that survives but the quickest to adapt to environmental changes. While large organizations can innovate, most groundbreaking ideas come from individuals or small businesses in the private sector (Hamel).

Adaptation vs. Innovation

However, the philosophers mentioned earlier said nothing of innovation, only adaptation. So, what is the difference? Adaptation involves incremental adjustments to suit new conditions, while innovation represents paradigm-shifting changes (Kirton). Adaptors are akin to running backs in football, bruising at 4 yards per carry to score a touchdown. Innovators are like quarterbacks throwing “flea-flicker” bombs to wide receivers fifty yards down the field. Or better yet, switching to an entirely different sport. Both types of change, adaptation and innovation, have their advantages and are necessary. A good combination of runs and passes (and defense) is the best strategy to win a football game (or a war). In business, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford are examples of high adaptors, while Nikola Tesla and Elon Musk are seen as high innovators. All four have changed the course of history and revolutionized their respective industries and the world.

So What?

So, if the federal government is slow to change, but is required to adapt to survive and maintain a competitive advantage over adversaries, how can they do it? They must rely on private industry to innovate and procure those technologies—for example, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, SIG Sauer, etc. The list goes on and on. In my career field, Architectural/ Engineering (A/E) firms design revolutionary facilities. While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the design agent for the Army, most designs are contracted to A/E firms like Michael Baker, HDR, Jacobs Engineering, etc. (EP 715-1-7).

The Role of Warrant Officers

How do Army Warrant Officers fit into the picture? By definition, WOs are expected to be technical experts in their domains, integrators of innovation and emerging technologies, and have progressive assignments and education to refine their technical expertise. How can they do this while fixed within a bureaucratic organization? They can’t. WOs must be regularly synchronized within the industry to maintain their technical expertise. This integration allows them to remain current with emerging technologies rather than being confined to bureaucratic structures that stifle innovation. Army leaders need WOs to understand the Commercial off-the-Shelf (COTS) technology their units will train on and utilize down-range. I am not talking about simply visiting industry trade shows or performing Contracting Officer Representative (COR) duties for a procurement contract; I am talking about working alongside the engineers and inventors while the adaptations and innovations are taking shape, like an extended internship program.

Addressing Skepticism

Skeptics may question the rationale behind the government subsidizing a private company’s workforce. However, embedding WOs with industry will yield significant returns. The small investment of half the time of less than 2% of the Army will be a force multiplier. They will return to their unit with unique insights into emerging technologies’ functionality, capability, and weaknesses. In addition, their years of military experience will enhance the development of innovations and improve the Army’s operational capabilities. Companies crave this already, which is why retirees are hired so quickly by the private sector.

In 2004, while deployed to Iraq as an enlisted maintainer, we encountered a situation where our mechanics struggled with faults impacting newly delivered up-armored LMTVs. It was primarily due to their lack of experience with the equipment. Luckily, a contractor from Caterpillar was embedded with the unit and provided critical guidance. Had our maintenance WO been working with the company before deployment, they would have been better equipped to address potential problems. They might have known we needed a proprietary O-ring to fix a leaking injector pump on the engine. Instead, we were solely reliant on a contractor on the battlefield.

Ethical Considerations

Undoubtedly, concerns about the ethical implications of WOs working directly with contractors must be addressed. Clear guidelines can mitigate risks, such as requiring non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to protect intellectual property or restrictions against WOs completing performance evaluations and reviewing future solicitations. Some leaders might be concerned about WOs remaining gainfully employed while away from the flagpole. As a solution, although the WO chain of command would not change, executive-level leadership could provide supplemental input to the WO’s evaluation. In addition, the WO could regularly submit information papers to advise military leadership about changes on the horizon. This, in turn, could help inform future revisions of technical or field manuals and update tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). A trusted voice from a fellow service member would be better insight than a sales pitch from a company trying to secure future government contracts.

Embracing Change

Like accepting change in general, implementing a new model for WO utilization will be challenging. However, it is essential for maintaining a competitive advantage. Change is hard; humans are creatures of habit. Change, while perpetual and necessary, is uncomfortable. This is why some individuals and large bureaucratic organizations are reluctant to do it to their detriment. A strict militaristic system and organizational structure provide uniformity, predictability, and discipline for effectively performing clearly defined tasks, especially on the battlefield. However, it sacrifices the autonomy and flexibility of adaptation and innovation necessary for survival, a form of Mission Command.

Since Commissioned Officers are ultimately charged with leading their formations, and Non-Commissioned Officers manage, support, and train their soldiers, who are the Champions of Change (CoC) in an organization? It should be the WO. Officers seek creative ways to strategically, operationally, and tactically defeat the enemy. Meanwhile, NCOs and soldiers employ tactics, techniques, and procedures to get the job done. It is the WO that is best positioned to be the CoC and be the innovative integrator of emerging technology. It’s in their definition. WOs must be the CoC, leveraging their technical expertise to drive innovation across the Army, breaking the outdated trends of the past.

From inception, the nature of the technical Warrant Officer has been challenging to pin down. First, promotion was simply recognition for being the best at what they did, which made them an expert until that point in their career. Unfortunately, their enlisted experience can only get them so far, especially considering how much and how fast technology changes over time. To stay abreast of emerging technology, WOs must be embedded in the industry where adaptations and innovations are developed. Left of the deployment - not in the office while at home station. It is with industry that the engineers and inventors are revolutionizing their field.

If technical Warrant Officers spent half of their time with those organizations, they would be best positioned to uncover paradigm-shifting ideas and, in turn, share the knowledge with the rest of the Army. Whether a few days per week, every other month, or year-on-year-off, technical WOs spending half of their time embedded with industry will ensure they remain experts in their domain and champions of change in their organization. This will guarantee the United States stays one step ahead of its adversaries and any potential future threats.

References