Rocio Bauer’s profile over at WashingtonExec is worth your time if you’re thinking about what leadership looks like when you’re serving the Army through technology. She’s spent her career at the intersection of mission and modernization, and the through-line is clear: technical depth matters, but so does the ability to translate capability into outcomes that commanders can use.
I see this tension in every search we run for program leaders and technical executives in the defense space. The best candidates aren’t just technologists or just operators—they’re bilingual. They can map an architecture and they can sit across from a two-star and explain why it matters. That’s not a common skill set, and it’s why passive candidate development takes time. You can’t post-and-pray your way to someone who’s done both.
If you’re building or leading a team that’s delivering technology to the Army or another service, ask yourself whether your bench has people who’ve actually served the mission—not just supported it from the sidelines. The difference shows up when things get hard.