The Effectiveness of Post-Industrial Leadership Styles in Today’s Military

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Leadership theories, roles, and principles are essential in public and private administrations and the military sector. Hence, students and professionals need to study the different leadership theories to understand the application of post-and-preindustrial administrative skills, traits, roles, and principles in military administration. Therefore, the purpose of the literature review will be to assess the post-industrial and pre-industrial leadership theories and models of leadership, as well as their application in military management. In this sense, the research will demonstrate the impracticability of destructive, directive, traditional military, hierarchical strategic, and passive pre-industrial leadership approaches in the current military administration. On the other hand, the study will show the effectiveness of post-industrial leadership approaches, including the participatory, shared, interactive, follower-centric, emergence, situational, indirect, complex adaptive system (CAS), and transformational models in current military management.

The Impracticability of Pre-industrial Leadership Styles and Approaches in Current Military Operations

Destructive leadership

The destructive leadership style would be impractical in current military operations since it entails systemic management styles that undermine followers’ motivation, satisfaction, and organizational goals. Reed and Bullis (2009) surveyed senior service college class members to examine the effect of destructive leadership on their job satisfaction. Reed and Bullis’s (2009) study also examined the effects of the destructive leadership design on the level of contact between employees and their administrators. In addition, Reed and Bullis (2009) examined how destructive leadership influences employee turnover among senior professionals in the service college. In this case, Reed and Bullis’s (2009) research showed that destructive leadership leads to negative job satisfaction among senior service members. Similarly, Reed and Bullis’s (2009) findings demonstrate that the destructive leadership style also reduces the direct contact or interaction between senior service members and their leaders. Destructive leadership also reduces the urge for senior military professionals to remain in service for long periods (Reed & Bullis, 2009). As a result, one can conclude that voiding destructive and toxic leadership approaches is essential to enhance employee retention, satisfaction, and the relationship between military officers and their leaders.

Directive leadership

The directive leadership model would be ineffective in the current military world because of its centralized and top-down decision-making strategies from military leaders. To prove the negative impacts of directive leadership in military administration, Arnold and Loughlin (2013) studied the theory using male and female leaders across Canada as participants of the research. The primary purpose of Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) research was to examine the impact of directive leadership on transformational headship behaviors among female and male leaders. The study also assessed the impact of directive leadership on the behaviors of leaders in the public, military, and corporate administration (Arnold & Loughlin, 2013). In this case, the research results indicate that directive leadership hinders transformational behaviors among male and female leaders in the military and public administration sectors. The research also confirmed that directive approaches prevent intellectual stimulation among administrators in the military (Arnold & Loughlin, 2013). Similarly, Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) results illustrate that the directive style of administration affects the ability to report and describe their thoughts and ideas to one another. Therefore, the directive method prevents military leaders from incorporating transformational, expressive, and integrative behaviors among themselves and their followers.

Traditional Military Leadership

The traditional military thinking and administration model is impractical in the current military world since it includes authoritarian administrative principles. The primary weakness of the traditional military style of administration is that it incorporates the tenets of authoritarian and autocratic models. Therefore, leaders undermine collective and participatory decision-making among themselves and their followers through traditional military thinking. In explaining the disadvantages of traditional military thinking, Kallberg and Cook (2017) examined the impacts of the leadership style on strategic planning and success when managing cyber-security issues in the military. In this case, Kallberg and Cook (2017) found that military thinking and administration styles trigger path-dependent behaviors among leaders. In the end, the style negatively impacts the cognitive, critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills of leaders in the military sector. Kallberg and Cook’s (2017) result also found that traditional military thinking affects the skills of leaders to formulate and implement strategic plans before, during, and after conflicts. Therefore, military leaders should avoid traditional thinking and administration strategies to enhance conflict resolution and strategic planning and management.

Hierarchical Strategic Leadership

In the current military administration, hierarchical strategic leadership would be ineffective since it allows leaders to use commanding and directive management strategies on followers. Paparone et al. (2008) indicate that conventionally, military administrators incorporated hierarchical strategic leadership in operations management. In these periods, the heads developed organizational hierarchies and reporting channels that governed decision-making in the sector. The military had top-middle-and-bottom level managers to create and implement strategic policies. This decision-making and management approach depended on the supervisors to directly interact and oversee the operations of juniors and subordinates in the military. As a result, the technique affected organizational relations and rapport between leaders and followers in complex situations, such as during conflicts (Paparone et al., 2008). Therefore, based on the findings of Paparone et al. (2008), hierarchical strategies hinder effective leadership when there are numerous organizational complexities and uncertainties in military operations. These weaknesses of the hierarchical model exist because the approach allows leaders to pre-determine, define, simplify, and standardize roles for the service men (Paparone et al., 2008). The technique also gave the leaders the power to control, direct, and command their juniors during military operations.

Passive leadership

In current military operations, passive leadership would be ineffective because it leads to disengagement between leaders and followers. While assessing the weaknesses of passive leadership in military operations, Luria (2008) studied the effect of the management technique on climate strength and organizational relations. Similarly, Luria (2008) research assessed the effects of the passive leadership approach on the cohesion and transformational characteristics of team members. Luria’s (2008) research showed that passive leadership negatively impacts military heads’ organizational and leadership behaviors. Luria (2008) research found that passive leadership affects climate strength and awareness among military leaders and followers. The leadership approach reduces the abilities of leaders and juniors to understand each other, the people around them, the environment, and the needs of other stakeholders in the military. Luria (2008) also concluded that passive leadership in the military leads to negative organizational relations. Additionally, Luria’s (2008) study also affirmed that passive leadership destroys unity and cohesion among military leaders and group members because of the poor organizational relations that the technique promotes. Therefore, the passive technique creates unconducive and unsupportive environments for juniors or followers in military camps, leading to poor performance and management results.

The Effectiveness of Post-industrial Leadership Styles and Approaches in Current Military

Participatory Leadership

Participatory leadership would be effective in the current military operations since it supports followers’ and leaders’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Arnold and Loughlin (2013) study examined the benefits of participatory leadership for Canadian business, government, and military leaders. The results of Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) research showed that participatory leadership is essential in stimulating male and male leaders’ intellectual and cognitive performances. Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) findings also showed that even though participatory leadership improves managers’ problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, male leaders implement this technique more than females in the military. Therefore, according to Arnold and Loughlin (2013), military leaders should adopt the participatory style to enhance their intellectual skills and outcomes when solving leadership issues in the forces. In addition, Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) findings established that participatory leadership increases the abilities of leaders to develop and implement transformational behaviors for better organizational outcomes. Hence, the approach is also essential for military leaders who want to convince their followers to support positive organizational changes easily.

Shared Leadership

Another leadership approach effective in current military management is the shared strategy since it enhances leader-follower engagement and positive relationships. This leadership approach supports the successful administration of military affairs through continuous interaction and ideas sharing between followers and leaders. The approach involves continuous communication and interaction between juniors, seniors, and other stakeholders in the military world before the development and implementation of corporate strategies that affect the operations of one another. In understanding the benefits of shared leadership in the military, Lindsay et al. (2011) and Offord et al. (2017) study administrative studies, which are essential. For example, Lindsay et al. (2011) show that shared strategy is essential in military leadership since it supports team leadership and management. The approach helps leaders build cohesive working teams that easily support strategy and change implementations. Similarly, Offord et al. (2017) research indicates that in the military, shared leadership encourages team interaction and positive organizational relations. The approach reduces resistance and friction between leaders and their followers during decision-making.

Interactive Leadership

The interactive administration model is also effective in managing current military organizations because it incorporates the principles of collaborative and shared leadership models. Based on the findings of Offord et al. (2017) and Lindsay et al. (2011), interactive leadership also encompasses follower-centric governance that benefits government and defense administrations. According to Lindsay et al. (2011), interactive leadership requires continuous communication between leaders and their followers before, during, and after policy creation and implementation. The approach allows military heads to use consensus-based and information-based ideas to implement organizational changes. About Offord et al. (2017) research, an interactive administration model encourages engagement and positive relationships between leaders and followers in military entities. This form of leadership is essential when managing uncertainties and complexities in the continuously changing and robust missions of military heads, forces, and service members. Based on the description and results of the research of Offord et al. (2017), service men and women can incorporate shared and interactive leadership to build functional teams at work. These strategies will also be key in developing supportive workplace teams to successfully implement military objectives based on continuously changing organizational objectives and expectations.

Follower Centric Leadership

The follower-centric management would also be effective in successful military administration since it promotes positive leader-follower relationships. Offord et al. (2017) support the use of the follower-centric approach in the military because it coincides with the interactive model, where both entail leaders listening to the needs and contributions of followers during decision-making. Likewise, Lindsay et al. (2011) findings support the introduction of follower-centric leadership in the military management of teams and human resources. The descriptions and principles of the shared administrative strategy presented by Lindsay et al. (2011) coincide with the tenets of the follower-centric approach. These tenets include empowering junior staff with ideas and allowing them to participate in military decision-making. In addition, shared leadership encourages follower-centric administration since it involves delegating authority and roles to junior and subordinate staff as the first line of defense in military management (Lindsay et al., 2011). Ramthun and Matkin’s (2014) case study also implies that follower follower-centric approach with shared leadership principles may be relevant to military leadership during emergencies and life-threatening situations. Therefore, the follower-centric administration in the military helps build trust and cohesion between leaders and followers because seniors entrust juniors with managerial roles and decisions.

Emergence leadership Model

The current military’s emergency leadership technique would effectively manage natural or artificial calamities. According to Vogelaar (2007), the emergency administration model is essential during crisis management in military operations. The approach allows managers and leaders to integrate ideas and contributions to mitigate the negative impacts of detrimental disasters in service colleges. The model also helps managers in the forces implement leadership strategies to reduce a country’s exposure to disasters threatening national security. Ramthun and Matkin’s (2014) study also highlights the benefits of military leaders’ emergency management approaches. For example, Ramthun and Matkin (2014) show that the emergency leadership approach helps manage the perils of dangerous dynamism and uncertainties in the military. Incident management demands that leaders provide followers with equal opportunities of proposing solutions to control the impacts of disastrous situations in the military. The approach encourages idea-sharing and mutual influence in military teams to improve situational awareness.

Situational Leadership

The situational leadership technique would also be practical in the current military since it supports flexibility in working and administrative environments. According to Hollis (2014), the situational approach incorporates the philosophies of contingency leadership in military operations. The model allows heads to change, customize, and vary their administrative techniques based on current situations, tasks, and organizational needs in the military (Hollis, 2014). Hollis (2014) also reports that situational strategy allows military administrators to incorporate transformational and transactional leadership models for better organizational outcomes. In most situations, situational leaders have traits, skills, and characteristics that resemble those of transformational and transactional leadership (Eid et al., 2004). These similarities allow military leaders to influence the attitude of followers towards proposed changes that support group success. Eid et al. (2004) and Vecchio et al. (2006) also indicate that situational leadership encourages status quo awareness among military managers. Therefore, the leadership model increases successful decision-making based on situational awareness in the military with a high prevalence of uncertainties.

Indirect Leadership

In the current military world, indirect leadership is practical since it enhances organizational collaboration and change implementation. Concerning the strengths of this model of administration, Larsson et al. (2005) and Charbonneau (2004) studied the benefits of indirect leadership in military operations. Charbonneau’s (2004) results showed that the indirect model encourages consultative, collaborative, and shared leadership among service men, women, and military organizations. Charbonneau’s (2004) findings also specify that the indirect approach enhances leaders’ inspirational and motivational skills. In the same context, Larsson et al. (2005) results show that indirect leadership makes military heads image-oriented and action-oriented. These tactics enhance the ability of military heads to initiate and implement change among team members for better organizational images and brands. Generally, indirect leadership philosophies emphasize the importance of shaping the behaviors of leaders to match current organizational needs. This principle harmonizes with the tenets of the behavioral system proposed by Mattaini and Aspholm (2016). According to Mattaini and Aspholm (2016), leadership success depends on a set of universal personalities and skills. These competencies may include collaborative, resilient, transformational, transactional, and goal-oriented, among other personalities that support the successful administration of military operations.

Complex Adaptive System (CAS)

The CAS of administration would be effective in current leadership since it supports corporate flexibility, and changes and creates democratic working environments. According to Paparone et al. (2008), the complex adaptive model requires leaders to implement contingency and non-traditional approaches to administration. Moreover, Paparone et al. (2008) show that CAS leaders are learners, improvisers, and emergent thinkers who promote organizational growth and changes for the best interests of stakeholders. Based on this, one can conclude that CAS managers have servant, democratic, and transactional leadership skills and competencies since they are patriots as well as nationalists. As active servant and transactional leaders, they enhance organizational agility and transformation based on current and future situations as well as organizational needs (Hollis, 2014; Ivey & Kline, 2010; Taylor et al., 2015; Kirchner & Akdere, 2017). On the other hand, as patriots, nationalists, and democrats, CAS leaders support equality, inclusion, and shared decision-making in the military (Kirchner & Akdere, 2017; Solar, 2022; Griffith, 2010). Thus, the technique encourages leaders to have team and relationship-building skills. In addition, complex adaptive system leaders are also flexible, frequently incorporating ideas of other managers and followers at work.

Transformational Model

Finally, in current military leadership, the transformational approach is practical since it enhances organizational change, flexibility, and positive working relations between followers and leaders. Ivey and Kline (2010) show that transformational strategy eliminates hierarchies in militaries, encouraging team, relationship, and contingent leadership. Transformational leaders are compassionate, empower subordinates, and apply sincerity in corporate leadership (Bangari, 2014). In addition, García-Guiu et al. (2016) indicate that the model allows military leaders such as cadets to incorporate laissez-faire, active, and transactional techniques in administration. Nissinen et al. (2022) suggest that transformational leadership improves collective or group efficiency that depends on cohesion and positive attitudes toward success. Concerning the study of Eid et al. (2008), transformational strategies support leadership learning, development, and corporate agility. Besides, the transformational model supports the development of patriotic and nationalist behaviors among soldiers and their heads (Griffith, 2010). The leadership style also supports compliant and contingent behaviors and positive attitudes among the service men and women (Hardy et al., 2010). The model also supports independent decision-making among followers by providing them with professional development opportunities (Kark et al., 2003). Thus, these findings show that the transformational model guarantees multifaceted solutions to traditional leadership problems in the military sector.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the study confirms that pre-industrial leadership models are ineffective in the current military leadership since they are autocratic, dictatorial, and authoritative in nature. On the other hand, the post-industrial leadership models are applicable and effective in the current military administration since they are democratic, flexible, and inclusive for followers and leaders. The research demonstrates that ineffective military administration may result from managers implementing pre-industrial models such as destructive, directive, traditional military thinking, hierarchical strategic, and passive leadership styles. These pre-industrial models prevent creativity, problem-solving, team-building, cohesion, and positive relationships between followers and heads in military organizations. On the contrary, the post-industrial models are the best and most functional leadership models for current military heads, as demonstrated by the study. These models include the shared, emergent, situation, CAS, transformational, participatory, interactive, and indirect strategies. These approaches encourage collective decision-making, team leadership, trust, and positive relationships and promote situational awareness, organizational agility, employee empowerment, and consensus-based decision-making among service people because they are follower-centric. For these reasons, one can conclude that the strengths of post-industrial leadership models complement one another. On the other hand, the weaknesses of the pre-industrial approaches are counterbalanced by the advantages offered by transformational, follower-centric, non-conventional, hybrid, and CAS administrative models in the military.

References

Arnold, K. A., & Loughlin, C. (2013). Integrating transformational and participative versus directive leadership theories: Examining intellectual stimulation in male and female leaders across three contexts. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.

Bangari, R. S. (2014). Establishing A Framework of Transformational Grassroots Military Leadership: Lessons from High-Intensity, High-Risk Operational Environments. Vikalpa, 39(3), 13–34. Web.

Charbonneau, D. (2004). Influence tactics and perceptions of transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.

Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C., Nyhus, J. K., & Larsson, G. (2004). Situation awareness and transformational leadership in senior military leaders: An exploratory study. Military Psychology, 16(3), 203-209. Web.

Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Bartone, P. T., & Nissestad, O. A. (2008). Growing transformational leaders: Exploring the role of personality hardiness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.

García-Guiu, C., Moya, M., Molero, F., & Moriano, J. A. (2016). Transformational leadership and group potency in small military units: The mediating role of group identification and cohesion. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 32(3), 145-152. Web.

Griffith, J. (2010). When does soldier patriotism or nationalism matter? The role of transformational small‐unit leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1235-1257. Web.

Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., Jones, G., Shariff, A., Munnoch, K., Isaacs, I., & Allsopp, A. J. (2010). The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors, psychological, and training outcomes in elite military recruits. The leadership quarterly, 21(1), 20-32. Web.

Hollis, E. T. (2014). Leadership styles: A phenomenological study of transformational, transactional, and situational leadership styles employed by CIOs at military combatant commands (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Web.

Ivey, G. W., & Kline, T. J. (2010). Transformational and active transactional leadership in the Canadian military. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.

Kallberg, J., & Cook, T. S. (2017). The unfitness of traditional military thinking in cyber. IEEE Access, 5, 8126-8130. Web.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 246. Web.

Kirchner, M., & Akdere, M. (2017). Military leadership development strategies: Implications for training in non-military organizations. Industrial and Commercial Training. Web.

Larsson, G., Sjöberg, M., Vrbanjac, A., & Björkman, T. (2005). Indirect leadership in a military context: A qualitative study on how to do it. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(3), 215-227. Web.

Lindsay, D. R., Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2011). Shared leadership in the military: Reality, possibility, or pipedream?Military Psychology, 23(5), 528-549. Web.

Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength–How leaders form consensus. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 42-53. Web.

Mattaini, M. A., & Aspholm, R. (2016). Contributions of behavioral systems science to leadership for a new progressive movement. The Behavior Analyst, 39(1), 109-121. Web.

Nissinen, V., Dormantaitė, A., & Dungveckis, L. (2022). Transformational leadership in military education: Lithuanian case study. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 44(1), 103-116. Web.

Offord, M., Gill, R., & Kendal, J. (2016). Leadership between decks: A synthesis and development of engagement and resistance theories of leadership based on evidence from practice in Royal Navy warships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.

Paparone, C. R., Anderson, R. A., & McDaniel Jr, R. R. (2008). Where military professionalism meets complexity science. Armed Forces & Society, 34(3), 433-449. Web.

Ramthun, A. J., & Matkin, G. S. (2014). Leading dangerously: A case study of military teams and shared leadership in dangerous environments. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 244-256. Web.

Reed, G. E., & Bullis, R. C. (2009). The impact of destructive leadership on senior military officers and civilian employees. Armed Forces & Society, 36(1), 5-18. Web.

Solar, C. (2022). Trust in the military in post-authoritarian societies. Current Sociology, 70(3), 317-337. Web.

Taylor, T. Z., Psotka, J., & Legree, P. (2015). Relationships among applications of tacit knowledge and transformational/transactional leader styles: An exploratory comparison of the MLQ and TKML. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.

Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, R. C., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of situational leadership theory: A replication in a military setting. Small Group Research, 37(5), 407-424. Web.

Vogelaar, A. L. (2007). Leadership from the edge: A matter of balance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 27-42. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!