This study examines the Army's top-down performance evaluation system. Many claim that it drives behavior in organizations that not only inhibits the exercise of mission command, but also rewards image management over organizational leadership. Colonel Curtis Taylor takes a hard look at this system, its benefits and its cultural incentives. More importantly, he asks if the current system promotes or impedes the exercise of mission command. After examining the history of the Army's performance evaluation system and alternative models outside the military, Colonel Taylor concludes that a more holistic system that combines top-down evaluations, peer and subordinate evaluation, and objective testing might be a better approach. The Strategic Studies Institute offers this monograph to enable its readers to assess whether the recommended system may balance incentives more carefully, ensuring that the very best organizational leaders are easier to identify, assign, and promote. In 2014, the National Defense Authorization Act directed the Department of Defense to reconsider the way the Army evaluates and selects leaders. This call for reform came after repeated surveys from the Center for Army Leadership suggested widespread dissatisfaction with the current approach. The U.S. Army today is seeking to inculcate a philosophy of mission command across the force based on a culture of mutual trust, clear intent, and decentralized initiative. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask if our current performance evaluation system contributes or detracts from such a culture. This monograph seeks to answer this question by considering the essential leader attributes required for the exercise of mission command and then considering practical methods for evaluating this behavior. It then reviews the history of the existing Army performance evaluation system and analyzes how well this system conforms to the attributes of mission command. Finally, it examines other methods of performance evalua