MALARIA Prevention and Control

MALARIA Prevention and Control
Malaria poses the most significant threat to the health of the Ugandans. It is the biggest killer of children under five and is responsible for the majority of miscarriages and maternal health problems. Taking the lives of more than one million people each year, malaria is an epidemic largely affecting people in sub-Saharan Africa.
The children, adults, and elderly of Uganda are more of those affected by the disease.
Besides, malaria also has a great impact on the economic development of the country. The malaria menace, therefore, must be vigorously and aggressively tackled as an emergency.
In Uganda between twenty-five and forty percent of outpatient visits at health facilities in the country are for malaria. For Ugandan children, malaria is the primary cause of death. With high prevalence and great severity, the prevention of malaria is of extreme importance.
Emphasis on control and preventive approaches in the elimination of the mosquitoes should be accorded priority. Use of preventive measures could be an effective and cost-effective means against malaria.

Capacity strengthening of rural communities, and the various actors that support them, is needed to enable them to lead their own malaria control programmes. Here the existing capacity of a rural community should be evaluated in preparation for a larger intervention.
Methods like Focus group discussions and semi-structured individual interviews should be carried out in households to determine demographics of respondent and household, socio-economic status of the household, knowledge and beliefs about malaria (symptoms, prevention methods, mosquito life cycle), typical practices used for malaria prevention, the treatment-seeking behaviour and household expenditure for community malaria prevention and control.
In preventing and controlling malaria, both scientific knowledge and traditional beliefs, should be combined with socio-economic circumstances, leading to effective malaria prevention. Interventions like bush clearing and various hygienic measures should be emphasized for effective malaria prevention control.
Culturally sensitive but evidence-based education interventions, utilizing participatory tools, traditional beliefs which enable understanding of causal connections between mosquito ecology, parasite transmission and the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease should be considered. Community-based organizations and schools should be equipped with knowledge through partnerships with national and international research and tertiary education institutions so that evidence-based research can be applied at the grassroots level.

MALARIA Prevention and Control

sklocePrevention and Control
Malaria poses the most significant threat to the health of the Ugandans. It is the biggest killer of children under five and is responsible for the majority of miscarriages and maternal health problems. Taking the lives of more than one million people each year, malaria is an epidemic largely affecting people in sub-Saharan Africa.
The children, adults, and elderly of Uganda are more of those affected by the disease.
Besides, malaria also has a great impact on the economic development of the country. The malaria menace, therefore, must be vigorously and aggressively tackled as an emergency.
In Uganda between twenty-five and forty percent of outpatient visits at health facilities in the country are for malaria. For Ugandan children, malaria is the primary cause of death. With high prevalence and great severity, the prevention of malaria is of extreme importance.
Emphasis on control and preventive approaches in the elimination of the mosquitoes should be accorded priority. Use of preventive measures could be an effective and cost-effective means against malaria.

Capacity strengthening of rural communities, and the various actors that support them, is needed to enable them to lead their own malaria control programmes. Here the existing capacity of a rural community should be evaluated in preparation for a larger intervention.
Methods like Focus group discussions and semi-structured individual interviews should be carried out in households to determine demographics of respondent and household, socio-economic status of the household, knowledge and beliefs about malaria (symptoms, prevention methods, mosquito life cycle), typical practices used for malaria prevention, the treatment-seeking behaviour and household expenditure for community malaria prevention and control.
In preventing and controlling malaria, both scientific knowledge and traditional beliefs, should be combined with socio-economic circumstances, leading to effective malaria prevention. Interventions like bush clearing and various hygienic measures should be emphasized for effective malaria prevention control.
Culturally sensitive but evidence-based education interventions, utilizing participatory tools, traditional beliefs which enable understanding of causal connections between mosquito ecology, parasite transmission and the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease should be considered. Community-based organizations and schools should be equipped with knowledge through partnerships with national and international research and tertiary education institutions so that evidence-based research can be applied at the grassroots level.

DP fronts Mao for President in 2011

THE Democratic Party (DP) has refused to join the planned opposition coalition because they want to field their own candidate, Norbert Mao, in the 2011 presidential elections. The party’s most potent mobilisation force, the Uganda Young Democrats, has already embarked on countrywide mobilisation for Mao, the Gulu District chairman. The current DP President, John Ssebaana Kizito, said Mao has the necessary qualities to lead DP and Uganda, but added that the party Delegates’ Conference will decide on who leads them. Sebaana will retire from the party leadership at the next Delegates’ Conference in November. “Mao is an outstanding orator and politics is about convincing. He has been a loyal party member since the days we backed him for the presidency of Makerere University Guild. While he was the Guild President of Makerere, I never heard any scandal about him,” said Sebaana. “He was my chief campaigner in 2006 and he is also working as the party vice president. He can make a good party leader.” Youthful DP stalwart Mukasa Mbidde said Mao is the most qualified person to become the party’s flag bearer in the 2011 elections. “To compete favourably at the national level, you must have the backing of your region. This makes Mao More powerful than FDC’s Dr. Besigye, who lost his home ground, Rukungiri, to Museveni. But Mao has already won the heart of the north,” Mbidde said. Mbidde, who has been moving around the country selling Mao’s candidature, argues that he is sure Buganda will vote for him. “Baganda are civilised people who don’t vote on basis of tribe but look for ability. Didnt they vote for Museveni in 1996 instead of their fellow Muganda Ssemogerere?” Mbidde asked. He added that time has come for Uganda to have a purely civilian president “We are tired of bloodstained leaders. We want a peaceful leader,” Mbidde said. Mao confirmed he wants to run for the presidency on the DP ticket. “As you remember I was narrowly defeated by Ssebaana in the previous election. I believe I will be able to win with a large majority. I will make sure that I strengthen DP so that it becomes the party of choice in the next general elections.” Mao reportedly convened a secret meeting recently with all the heavy weight politicians from northern Uganda, soliciting for their support in the 2011 presidential elections. Opposition and NRM politicians attended the meeting. Political analysts say fronting Mao will save DP from the long-time criticism that it is a party of Baganda Catholics, which has never been led by anyone from outside central Uganda since its inception in 1956. The UYD hopes that given his charisma and oratory prowess, Mao would help DP to win several constituencies in the 2011 parliamentary race and for the party to have more bargaining power if the need for a coalition in a re-run arises. They think he will appeal particularly to the younger generation of different tribes and religions. Using liberal political tactics, they argue, Mao has been supportive of development programmes and managed to raise the profile of Gulu, Acholi and Northern Uganda as a whole. Some party members are however hesitant to have Mao as their leader, saying he is not a DP diehard and is likely to make them lose some votes from the party’s main power base. Others think he too close to the ruling NRM. Another group within DP want to front Masaka municipality MP, Paul Kawanga as the next DP president. Kawanga, a veteran lawyer and former minister in the late 1980s, is a cousin to former DP chief Paul Kawanga Semwogerere. The legislator is considered within party circles as being experienced, competent and likely to galvanise support from the party’s main power base, the central region. Others fear that being led by Kawanga who is a Catholic, Muganda and a close relative of former party leader Semwogerere might deny them support from elsewhere However, Kawanga said he hadnt thought about contesting for the DP presidency. Inside sources have revealed that the desire to field their own candidate is the main reason DP is not interested in the planned opposition coalition. “We want to avoid past mistakes of alliances that led to the loss of our party's members to other parties," a senior DP official commented. Despite earlier promises by Sebaana, most party branches have indicated that they do not want DP to join the collation. “Though we are still making consultations, what seems to be the majority resolution is that DP will co-operate with other parties wherever it is necessarily but it is unlikely that we shall sign an inter-party pact. We realize it is not necessary as it may even be misinterpreted by our ordinary party members,” says Sebaana. The planning of the opposition coalition started early this year, with support from the Swedish Moderate Party, which dislodged the left-wing Social Democrats after forming an alliance with four other opposition parties. While visiting Sweden in July 2008, Ugandan opposition party representatives held talks with their hosts on campaigning tactics and skills for building a strong joint opposition. The DP was represented in the delegation and later participated in planning for the coalition. However, on August 5 when parties met to sign the Inter-parties Cooperation Agreement, DP did not turn up. On August 15, during an opposition parties’ conference at Ridar Hotel, Sebaana made a U-turn and promised DP would join the coalition. Days later, Sebaana said DP could not join before consulting party members. Recently the DP secretary general said they had given two weeks to their party organs including the district committees to consult members on the inter-party cooperation protocol. According to Sebaana, feedback from most areas indicates that DP members do not want a collation with other parties. DP members think they can co-operate with other parties in fighting common political barriers but not a coalition that involves fielding a joint candidate. Party insiders say they can only accept such a collation in case of a presidential election re-run. This stance has not gone down well with the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), the biggest opposition party, which is spearheading the coalition. Opposition Leader Ogenga Latigo said if DP cannot see the benefits of combined forces, other parties will have to proceed without them. The coalition, he explained, was mooted to create a joint platform for addressing political problems and not simply to get the numbers at elections. According to Latigo, the post-Museveni era will require a transition “because of the over-bearing nature” of the president. “If we were to win an election, our vision is that we would form a government of national unity.” But prominent political analyst and senior Makerere University political science lecturer, Dr. Aaron Mukwaya believes the move taken by DP is the wisest. “DP’s decision is the best. It is illogical for parties to think of an alliance before putting their houses to order. If they enter into alliance with their internal conflicts, the same conflicts will spring up in the cooperation or alliance and therefore it will be short-lived,” Dr. Mukwaya said. The political scientist said opposition parties should realize they are competing with powerful ruling party that is well anchored on the ground. “That is why we tell them not to waste their little time on cooperation. They should utilise this time to get established on the ground. They should be setting up structures and explaining their ideologies and policy plans to the electorate to get more support,” Mukwaya argued. Who is Nobert Mao?
Born on March 12, 1967
Chairman for Gulu district
Vice President for DP for Northern Region
Former guilt president of Makerere University
Former MP for Gulu Municipality
Chairman of the East African Chapter of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank (PnoWB) and member of its secretariat
Member of LRA-Government peace talks.
Lawyer by training
Founding member of the Great Lakes Forum for Peace

Kayongo arrested over BUDO fire

BUDO Junior School’s former headmaster Dr. William Kayongo was on Thursday night arrested on charges of criminal negligence leading to the death of 20 pupils. The pupils died when Nassolo dormitory caught fire on April 12. “The policies and programmes that Kayongo put up in Budo Junior School during his tenure were directly linked to the tragic incident,” police spokesperson Judith Nabakooba said. Nabakooba said the congested dormitories, use of triple decker beds and failure to arrange Board of Governors’ meetings as examples of the negligence Kayongo exhibited. The dormitory which was gutted by fire was supposed to handle 30 pupils, according to guidelines that were set by the school. Instead, this was altered to 60 pupils in the same size of the dormitory, at the time of the inferno,” Nabakooba explained. Kayongo was arrested at about 7:00pm in Kampala and detained at Central Police Station. He was due to appear in court on Friday afternoon, according to Police. “The file was sanctioned by the Director of Public Prosecution, and the charge sheet is ready. There is no reason why he should not appear in court today,” Nabakooba said on Friday morning. Twenty school girls aged between eight and nine on April 14 died in an inferno that razed down the Nassolo dormitory, which was previously a classroom. In April Kayongo was interrogated at the CID head offices in Kibuli in relation to the inferno. After the interrogation that reportedly spanned hours, Kayongo recorded a statement. The inferno came at the time Kayongo, a long-serving headmaster at Budo, had just been transferred to Buloba Primary School. Dr. Livingstone Ddungu took over from him two weeks before the inferno. Kayongo and 10 teachers were transferred from the school following a sit-down strike by teachers over non-payment of salaries. Parents and the public accused Kayongo of mismanaging the school, a situation that could have led to the tragedy. Since April 15, Police have interrogated and recorded statements from witnesses and suspects. Nabakooba, yesterday said that the other “investigations on the other five suspects that were at one time arrested, have been completed.” She added that investigations are still going on to “ascertain who exactly started the fire.” “All the culprits will be brought to book and tried in courts of law. No person that is connected to this fire will escape the law. We ask the bereaved parents and the public to remain patient.” Nabakooba added that investigation will go on. “If it means arresting more culprits, we shall do that. There are a number of leads we are following and we will follow all of them.”
He studied at King’s College Budo between 1980 and 1982. He was residing in Canada House.
He completed his studies and later proceeded for further studies at the Institute of Teacher Education, Kyambogo.
After studies, Kayongo returned as a teacher at Budo Junior School. He rose through the ranks to deputy headmaster.
He was promoted to headmaster of Budo Junior School, when the then headmaster retired.
He led the school for 12 years, before being transferred to another school.
During his time at Budo Junior School in the 1990s, he master-minded a concerted effort to convince parents, staff and pupils that they were getting the best education and care with the little resources they had at hand.
On being transferred, he made an incomplete handover to the new headmaster, Dr. Livingstone Ddungu.
During his time at Budo Junior, he opened up his own school, Berkley Education Institute, which has recently become indebted to banks.
He is also a renowned businessman in and out of Kampala city.
He was working with his wife at Budo Junior. She, however, left early this year after a teachers’ and pupils’ strike. Teachers accused him of mismanaging the school and mistreating them, among other issues.
He was interrogated by the Police criminal investigators, following the Budo inferno in April.
Of late, he has been in and out of the country, until his arrest on Thursday. Compiled by Conan Businge
April 14: Fire guts Nasolo girls’ dormitory in Budo Junior in the night, 19 students feared dead, plunging the nation into shock.
April 14: Police interrogates several UMEME officials over the tragedy, since the school was in a power black out when the fire broke out.
April 15: State House investigators separately interrogated the current headteacher, Dr. Livingstone Ddungu, his deputy Moses Ssewalu and some teachers.
April 15: International Children’s Charity, Save the Children in Uganda asks the Government to formulate a health and safety policy to protect children in boarding schools.
April 17: Police quiz former Budo Junior headmaster Dr William Kayongo, arrests 10 Budo guards and a matron in connection with the inferno whose death toll police official puts at 20.
April 22: A week after the inferno, forensic investigations fail to establish cause of the fire.
April 23: Budo matron Damalie Basirika together with four other guards are charged with criminal negligence and remanded to Luzira as Police seals off scene of the grisly incident.
May 1: Budo parents counselled.
May 5: Budo matron Damalie Basirika appears in court, denied bail and returned to Luzira for another two weeks pending further investigations into the inferno.
May 6: Budo matron Basirika and four security guards sent back to Luzira Prison for two more weeks pending more investigations into the inferno.
May 8: Parliament passes a motion to declare the late Yvonne Namaganda of Budo Junior School a national heroine.
May 20: Buganda Road Magistrate Margaret Tibulya is irked by the slow pace of the investigations, says Police should wind up investigations.
June 3: Basirika and her co-accused, the four guards are granted bail by court after 42 days on remand.
June 10: Budo Junior School re-opens amid protests by a group of bereaved parents, demanding the release of the Police report on the fire that killed their children.
July 15: Budo parents demand for an independent probe into the fire that gutted the dormitory and killed their children.
July 18: The LCV chairman of Wakiso district, Eng. Ian Kyeyune, while addressing parents reveals that according to the district investigations, the fire that gutted the school, was not an accident.
July 22: Parents appear before the speaker of Parliament, Edward Ssekandi, requesting the Government to compensate them reasonably for the lives and property of the children within 14 days

US Libya relations in 'new phase'

Relations between the US and Libya have entered a "new phase", according to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Speaking after a historic meeting with Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, she said differences remained but they had started a new era of co-operation.
A cultural exchange agreement would be signed, and the US hopes to have an ambassador in Tripoli soon, she said.
They met in a compound bombed by the US in 1986 over what the US said was Libyan involvement in a terror attack.
Ms Rice flew to Tunisia after the talks as part of a North African tour that will also include Algeria and Morocco.
Security Council
At a news conference in Tripoli, the US secretary of state said that the two countries had made progress in concrete ways.

Gaddafi: 'Mad dog' no more Gaddafi's shrewd move Libyans adjust to changing times
"We are working on a trade investment framework which will improve the climate for investment, which I know many American firms want to do," Ms Rice said.
"We are co-operating on Libya's membership of the security council of the United Nations," she said, although she pointed out that discussions were in the early stages.
"The relationship (between the US and Libya) has been moving in a good direction for some time but we have a long way to go", she said, adding "we have established a good framework for our relationship."
Ms Rice spent more than two hours in a private meeting with Mr Gaddafi.
She said she had sought to reassure Mr Gaddafi about US plans to establish a major base in Africa - known as Africom - saying its purpose was to "help Africans to help themselves" on issues such as peacekeeping.
She repeated that the US did not have "any permanent enemies".
When asked if she had raised human rights issues with Mr Gaddafi, Ms Rice said she had raised cases "in a respectful manner", and emphasised "that it is important to maintain an open dialogue, including on human rights".
Libyan Foreign Mininster Abdel Rahman Shalgam said that Ms Rice's presence was proof that Libya, the US and the world had changed.
However, the BBC's Rana Jawad in Tripoli says that far from a hard-hitting encounter that brought anything new to the table, Ms Rice's visit to Libya proved only to be a symbolic gesture of diplomacy by the Americans.
Although both sides refrained from calling each other friends, they seemed eager to sustain the momentum of bridging gaps in a relationship that has long been in a state of disarray, she adds.
Historic visit
Ms Rice is the first US Secretary of State to visit Libya since 1953.
She met Mr Gaddafi at the same compound in Tripoli which was hit in US bombing raids ordered by Ronald Reagan in 1986.
Libya was on the US state department list of sponsors of terrorism until 2003, when it abandoned weapons of mass destruction and renounced terrorism.
Earlier this month, Libya agreed to pay compensation to families of the victims of the Lockerbie aircraft bombing, for which it formally accepted responsibility in the same year.
The deal includes compensation for Libyan victims of the United States' retaliatory bombing raid over Libya in 1986.

Reflections on the “Be, Know, Do” Model of Leader Development

According to the Army, leaders lead others by their character, by their competence, and by their actions; therefore, effective leader development must focus on the leader’s character and values (“Be”), his competencies (“Know”), and his decisions and actions (“Do”).
In defining a holistic goal for leader development, the BKD model has some clear strengths; indeed, it is far superior to a purely academic approach. However, the BKD model also has significant limitations – especially when used in distinctly Christian leader development.
Limitations
Again, our purpose is not to critique the Army’s use of this model, but rather its use as a goal for distinctly Christian leader development.
1. The BKD model emphasizes character development – indeed character is so important to the Army that it comes first. Certainly, character is vitally important in Christian leadership but it is not first.
Christ is first!
However, Christ is entirely missing from the BKD model. This is not a small issue, but it is a critical and ultimately-fatal flaw of the BKD model as a basis for Christian leader development.
Union with the Person of Jesus Christ is not a “part” of Christian leadership – it is the very nature of Christian leadership. Thus, union with Christ must explicitly and pervasively define Christian leader development.
During His earthly ministry, Jesus lived in continuous union with His Father. This inward, spiritual fellowship was the source of everything in His life and ministry:
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. (John 6:38)
…the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. (John 5:19)
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear… (John 5:30)
The Jews were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having studied?” Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me…” (John 7:15-16)
…what I have heard from him I tell the world…I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. (John 8:26-28)
…it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. (John 14:10)
…These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:24)
Jesus lived in continuous fellowship with His Father, and through that fellowship He drew from, and lived by, His Father’s life. Thus, Jesus’ leadership came from His inward union with His Father and perfectly revealed the Father:
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him… Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father… (John 14:7-9)
Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me.”(John 12:44-45)
Furthermore, just as Jesus lived His life by the indwelling life of His Father, so we are to live our Christian lives by the life of Jesus in us.
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so (i.e. even so, or in the same manner) the one who feeds on me will live because of me. (John 6:57)
Just as Jesus lived in continuous fellowship with His Father, so we are to live in constant inward fellowship with Him by His Spirit. Jesus’ leadership entirely came from His union with His Father, and He sent us to lead the same way.
This is the source of Christian leadership: fellowship with Jesus Christ by His indwelling Spirit. It is Divine fellowship that enables us to live and to lead according to Divine life.
…If a man abides in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)
It was Jesus’ fellowship with His Father, in itself, that enabled Him to live and lead by His Father’s life. So it is our fellowship with the Father and the Son, in itself, that will be the source of our life and leadership.
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3)
… He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him…My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. (John 14:21-23)
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Cor. 3:18, NKJV)
Biblically, Christian leadership is not character-based; it is Christ-based.
According to the Army’s BKD model, values are crucial to leader development because values “tell” the leader what he needs to do, guiding his everyday actions and decisions. This view, while exemplary for a secular organization, is not, however, a biblical view of Christian leadership.
In Christian leadership, everything does not proceed from character and values; everything proceeds from union with Christ. This is not mere semantics but it goes to the very heart of how we understand the Christian life and Christian leadership.
To make this distinction is not to undermine the importance of character and values. On the contrary, this actually establishes true character and values, proceeding not from human effort but from the indwelling life of Christ!
…If a man abides in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit… (John 15:5)
so that you may be… filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ – to the glory and praise of God. (Phil. 1:10-11)
True Christian leadership is not possible without Christ first!
When character is first and Christ is omitted (or “sub-pointed”) the result is human righteousness, which, in God’s eyes, is like “filthy rags.”
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags… (Is. 64:6)
… apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)
This is not just the “best” way; it is the only way to true Christian leadership. Everything else is mere human works. Jesus is preeminent!
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 3:11)
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. (Col. 1:18)
It is conceivable that someone would add Christ as a sub-point to the BKD model; for example: “Be” (the leader walks in union with Christ) or “Know” (the leader knows God). However, in view of the absolute preeminence and centrality of union with Jesus Christ as the very core of what Christian leadership is, to adapt the BKD model to Christian leader development by simply adding Christ as a polite sub-point is hardly appropriate! Union with Christ is not a sub-point added as an afterthought – it is the very core, the very essence of Christian leadership and must be at the very center of all our leader development endeavors.
In summary, while we recognize the appropriateness of the Army’s use of the BKD model, it is absolutely unacceptable as a model for Christian leadership and leader development; its neglect of the Person of Jesus Christ disqualifies

Reflections on the “Be, Know, Do” Model of Leader Development

It may be a surprise to learn that the “Be, Know, Do” (BKD) model of leader development which has gained some degree of popularity in both formal and non-formal Christian leader development did not originate in the church, but in the U.S. Army.
In view of its endorsement and extensive use by such a large-scale and diverse organization whose mission wholly relies on the ongoing building of new leaders, the BKD model clearly has some degree of credibility.
There are questions, however, about the appropriateness and, most importantly, the sufficiency of this model for specifically Christian leader development. This Letter will begin to examine the BKD model as an overarching framework for understanding the goal and process of Christian leader development.
The Need for an Appropriate Goal
The very first step of designing an effective leader development strategy must be to clearly define the goal. Into what, exactly, are we trying to build the emerging leader? If our leader development efforts are successful, what they will produce? What will the leader “look like” at the end of an effective leader development process?
Thus, we must first define the “ideal” Christian leader – or, in our language, the “healthy” Christian leader. This definition of the healthy Christian leader then becomes the goal of all leader development activities. The “process” – or all the various activities that we implement to build the leader – must directly correspond to the goal and help the emerging leader move toward the goal in his development.
This highlights the extreme importance of having the right goal. If the goal is not appropriate or adequate, then the process (which proceeds from the goal) will be insufficient and the leader development work itself will not be successful.
The BKD Model as a Holistic Goal for Leader Development
The BKD model is a framework for understanding the goal of leader development. According to the Army, leaders lead others by their character, by their competence, and by their actions; therefore, effective leader development must focus on the leader’s character and values (“Be”), his competencies (“Know”), and his decisions and actions (“Do”).
Versions of the BKD model have influenced U.S. Army leadership doctrine for more than half a century, and the Army’s long-term, continuing reliance on this model is significant evidence of its robustness.
Clearly, this model provides a holistic goal, and leader development toward this goal becomes synonymous with the building of the whole person.
While the three components of the BKD model are necessarily interrelated and integrated, for the sake of clarity we will discuss each of them separately.
“Be” – Character First!
The Army sees itself as a values-based organization; therefore, the BKD model emphasizes “character-based” leadership. In addition to personal character development (in the seven main areas of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage), the “Be” component stresses adherence to organizationally-shared values that bind together all members of the Army. This component also addresses mental, physical and emotional wellbeing.
“Know” – Know What and Know How!
The second component focuses on competencies: what a leader needs to know (in the sense of both “know what” and “know how”), in four main areas:
Interpersonal skills (communication, coaching, teaching, counseling, motivating and empowering).
Conceptual skills (critical reasoning, creative thinking, ethical reasoning, and reflective thinking).
Technical skills (skills with equipment and systems).
Tactical skills (combat, and survival).
“Do” – Acting Well!
The last component of the BKD model focuses on the actions of a leader:
Influencing (making decisions, communicating those decisions, and motivating people).
Operating (accomplishing the mission through planning, executing, and assessing).
Improving (developing subordinates, building teams and creating learning opportunities and self-improvement).
Three Levels of Leadership
In an extremely useful demarcation, the Army’s BKD model distinguishes between three levels of leadership, with each level requiring distinct capacities and skills:
Direct leaders. Those involved in front-line, one-on-one leadership.
Mid-organizational leaders. Leaders who influence others indirectly through their subordinates as well as through the policies they establish and the climate they create.
Strategic leaders. The top leaders of the organization.
Strengths
As we begin to reflect on the strengths and limitations of the BKD model, our purpose is not to critique the Army’s use of this model, but rather its use in distinctly Christian leader development.
The model has numerous strengths:
It articulates a clear, systematic goal for leader development. Too often, in Christian ministerial training, we simply perpetuate traditions, teaching as we ourselves were taught, without systematically defining what our specific goals actually are and without questioning whether or not our processes are likely to achieve those goals. Simply by codifying the often unstated views about the “ideal” Christian leader, the leader development process will be strengthened through this model – indeed, almost any halfway-decent goal is better than none!
The BKD model describes a holistic goal, attempting to address the developmental needs of the whole person. Sadly, a vast amount of Christian leader development consists merely of academic courses such as Old Testament Survey, New Testament Survey, Systematic Theology, Biblical Ethics and Church History, with little attempt being made to address spiritual life, relational capacity, character, calling and vision, not to mention the myriad of complex ministry competencies that are necessary for successful Christian leadership. Compared to this, the BKD model is a vast improvement!
The three components of the BKD model are, unarguably, all of vital importance for Christian leaders. In particular, the model explicitly highlights personal character development as a central and obligatory issue in leader development.
The BKD model not only outlines a holistic goal, but also offers substantial insight into the processes by which an emerging leader is built. The main developmental processes emphasized are:
Modeling and mentoring.
Hands-on experiences and job assignments.
Systematic feedback and evaluation.
Self-reflection and evaluation.
The BKD model’s observation of varying levels of leadership with correspondingly-different developmental needs (essentially in the “Know” and “Do” components) is an extremely useful insight for leader development in every sphere, including Christian ministry.
Without a clear goal in leader development, any evaluation is virtually impossible. The BKD model, by establishing such a clearly defined picture of the desired outcome of leader development, thus lays a foundation for effective evaluation of its effectiveness.
The BKD model’s high level of detail in its elaborations of the many attributes of each of the three components creates a rich and multi-faceted lens to facilitate effective leader development design. Recommended reading:
The U.S. Army Leadership Field Manual: Be, Know, Do by The Center for Army Leadership
Be, Know, Do: Leadership the Army Way by the Leader to Leader Institute.
But, is it all positive?