LEADERSHIP MILITARY

Leadership Military

Leadership Military

Introduction

A military leader leads by example, walking in front of his troops. Paradoxically, it is a visionary and a pragmatist. The military leadership has been one of the earliest forms of leadership. Men stood up and led tribes mobilized people and nations to defend or conquer territory and wealth. There is no such thing as military leadership. As a rule, it is a poor strategy for authors to deny the existence of the very subject matter they intend to examine. The truth is that the military leadership does not exist along the lines of military leader stereotypes popularized for entertainment in television or film—most people's primary source of information about military leadership. In fictional accounts, military leadership tends to be heavily stereotyped as autocratic, dogmatic, and dependent on legitimate authority bestowed by rank in hierarchically rigid organizations. Sometimes the stereotype portrays military leaders as colorful, bold, aggressive, inflexible, or either intolerant of bureaucracy or a key player in it, depending on the plotline or the proclivities of the screenwriter. It is the popular caricature of a military leader that may cause one to assume that the military leadership exists as a style, or that military leaders possess clear patterns of personality characteristics in common. Neither assumption is true. Military leadership best understood as a comparison to civilian leadership or to leadership in general, using a range of theoretical approaches, from transformational leadership through transactional leadership to even mere laissez-faire supervision. (Gorn, 2002)

Military leaders do, however, have more in common with each other than they do with leaders of most other organizations, especially those in the private or social sectors. Our leadership qualities formed in a progressive and sequential series of carefully planned training, educational, and experiential events. Military leaders tend to hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of the organization. Military leadership based on values surrounding duty and a service obligation. We view our obligations as a moral responsibility, and we take an oath to that effect. Self-sacrifice pledged upon occupation of our leadership role. Our leadership extends to the families of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines. We are all expected to lead well in crisis conditions, and part of our expert knowledge includes leadership in dangerous contexts. Adaptability and tenacity in the face of danger expected. Serving in contexts where leadership influences the physical well-being or survival of both a leader and the led—in extremis contexts—transactional sources of motivation (e.g., pay, rewards, or threat of punishment) are insufficient and thus transformational leadership must emerge. Under conditions of service, self-sacrifice, and common threat, interdependence among military members at risk creates loyalty and cohesion in the ranks. Failed leadership in those crucibles has the opposite, and sometimes dramatic, effect.

Challenges for leaders

Services in military leadership are very challenging, across all services, developed through systems that blend self-development, some institutional or educational experiences, and a sequential pattern of job experiences to increasingly challenge and develop leaders. All services, for example, have educational sequences for their noncommissioned ...