J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 1 2 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 31 produces technically capable but one-dimensional soldiers. While the level of resources available to the Army facilitates implementation of its vision of leader development, the institutional commitment to sup- porting that vision is the real reason for its success. In terms of professional educa- tion supporting leader development, the Army really does put its money where its mouth is. The lessons that the State Department can learn from the Army’s experience with professional leader develop- ment can be summarized as follows: 1. Leaders are made, not born. 2. Leader development requires the proper mix of training, education and experience throughout an entire career. 3. Professional development of subordinates is as much the respon- sibility of supervisors as it is of the institution itself. 4. Leader development needs to be a top organizational priority. Resources are always an issue, but the Army has shown that an unwa- vering, institutional commitment to leader development as a core element of professional train- ing and education is the important first step in obtaining the necessary money and personnel for such a program. For the State Department to carry out its foreign pol- icy and diplomatic mandates, it needs a Foreign Service composed of trained professional leaders, not talented am- ateurs. The Army has a proven, professional leader de- velopment system that State would do well to study and adapt for its own needs. ■ F OCUS Leader development is a continuous process — not a single event, course or assignment.