Abstract
This paper proposes a research study intended to gather more information regarding different types of leadership in military units. Most of the past studies have failed to identify some of the common styles and their efficacy in the Marines. Such a gap affects the performance and goals of many mariners and their respective units. Through the use of open-ended questionnaires, the study seeks to interview high-ranking mariners and acquire additional insights about the common types of leadership. The findings will shed more light on the most effective style that could be implemented in different settings to support mariners and make it easier for them to achieve their objectives.
Proposal
Leadership strategies dictate the involvement of followers and their ability to pursue most of the outlined goals. In military settings, commanders and officials rely on diverse managerial styles depending on the needs of their soldiers, the task at hand and the anticipated objectives. Leadership in most of the infantry units remains a critical concept intended to support tactical missions. A unique chain of command dictates the way instructions are identified and implemented to achieve the much-needed objectives. Marines need to follow the guidelines their captains present in accordance with the stipulated codes of ethics and desirable traits. Commanders’ personality traits, organizational attributes and mission complexities work synergistically to dictate the promoted forms of leadership, such as autocratic, bureaucratic and democratic styles. The completion of a detailed study could shed more information about such strategies and explain whether an effective leadership style exists for mariners or not.
Background Science Review
Marines in the United Kingdom
The diversification of defense has led to the establishment and development of new forces capable of providing support to a wide range of operations. Naval infantries, also known as marines, have become common in different parts of the world. In the United Kingdom (UK) setting, these professionals offer a wide range of services intended to support the country’s interests and expectations, both internationally and locally. Bunin, Chung and Mount (2021) indicate that such military personnel can serve on naval ships, provide protection to established bases and respond to foreign threats. Some mariners might be deployed in embassies across the globe to provide security. The UK Royal Marines is one of the leading fighting arms intended to identify and prevent various threats to the country’s security. Proper leadership mechanisms make it possible for these units to operate seamlessly and pursue their objectives.
Leadership in the Military
The success of military groups and units has been largely attributed to the quality and nature of available leadership. Within the past decades, commanders and decision-makers have experimented with a wide range of tactics to meet the changing demands of the fighters (Liggett, 2020). In a study by Reiter and Wagstaff (2017), it emerged that most of these individuals had to make complex but critical decisions depending on the existing situation. These leaders would focus on the recorded pressure, possible consequences and the level of rebellion among the followers. To achieve desirable outcomes, Sujarwo, Sanusi and Firdiansjah (2020) encourage these commanders to engage in strategic thinking, involve all soldiers and ask pertinent questions before acting. This approach has a way of increasing the overall level of motivation, thereby making it possible for the involved unit members to be part of the process.
Before the 1970s, leadership in the military was characterized by autocratic decision-making and increased pressure on the soldiers. A top-down model was a common feature whereby units would rely on the presented instructions and act without questioning (Šimanauskienė, Giedraitytė and Navickienė, 2021). These approaches would remain common in a wide range of infantry groups, including in the marines. In their work, Šimanauskienė, Giedraitytė and Navickienė (2021) were convinced that some of the identified leadership practices and models were outdated and incapable of meeting the demands of more soldiers in the 21st century. Some fighters were keen to question any form of authority in an effort to ensure that all activities being undertaken were capable of supporting the outlined missions while getting rid of existing threats.
The dynamics recorded in different parts of the world have led to the introduction of more effective and acceptable leadership strategies. For instance, Bekesiene, Meidute-Kavaliauskiene and Hošková-Mayerová (2021) observed that the move to recruit or appoint infantry leaders who had gone through modern education systems led to better decision-making and problem-solving approaches. In the same study, it emerged that more commanders preferred participative and transformational leadership styles since they were reasonable and capable of improving stakeholder engagement (Bikescene, Meidute-Kavaliauskiene and Hošková-Mayerová, 2021). Additional ideas had emerged whereby leaders were keen to liaise with their followers during the formulation of military policies and identification of goals. These trends reveal that a wide range of leadership models are applicable in the marines that have the potential to disorient or support operations.
Democratic Leadership
Democracy remains a common concept that encourages people to solve issues amicably while allowing all stakeholders to be involved in decision-making processes. The practicability of the strategy has led to the development of a leadership style named after it. Kilicoglu (2018) identifies democratic leadership as a participative approach whereby all followers or participants in a certain group focus on the common good or outcome. The style is applicable in a wide range of organizational settings, including schools, military units and business firms. In their study, Bekesiene, Meidute-Kavaliauskiene and Hošková-Mayerová (2021) observed that this style had become common in different army units across the globe. The model is informed by the political and economic reforms that have been witnessed in the global community within the past five decades.
Democratic leadership presents unique attributes that make it applicable in different military units. In a study by Liggett (2020), it emerged that the model created adequate room for shared decision-making. Most of the involved people were able to engage in various activities while sharing their responsibilities. The process of addressing emerging challenges is usually transparent and respects the inputs of all involved members (Haymaker, 2019). Additionally, Liggett (2020) identifies it as practical and capable of supporting the delivery of positive and timely results. Such attributes could explain why it has become common in different regions across the world.
Autocratic Leadership
The second type of leadership found in the military is the autocratic model. Warsono, Budiyanto and Riduwan (2019) indicate that the approach is characterized by powerful commanders who have total power, authority, or influence in decision-making processes. In most cases, the involved leaders will make the best choices in accordance with their expectations and thoughts. Veliuet al. (2017) challenges the practicability of the strategy since it does not allow followers to be involved in decision-making. Their inputs tend to be disregarded, thereby ensuring that the activities being performed are in accordance with the leader’s opinions and goals. The limited nature of the available time during military operations could support the implementation of this style of leadership. However, unique gaps exist that make it hard for marines to pursue their normal operations and routine activities.
Most of the commanders relying on autocratic leadership approaches would exhibit a number of attributes. For example, Guzman et al. (2022) indicate that the majority of the managers will make all key choices and decisions, offer directions and create rigid working environments. The inputs of the existing followers tend to remain low or unaccepted. Despite being a complicated approach for leading others, this style remains common in the military due to its ability to support swift operations and reduce chances of questioning.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational styles of leadership are intended to trigger meaningful changes in established social systems and settings. Those in positions of power allow their respective followers to remain involved and be involved in problem-solving efforts (Pasovska and Miceski, 2018). The participants will remain open to emerging thoughts, accept their roles and responsibilities, mitigate risks and trust one another (Jansen and Delahaji, 2020). The able leader applies his or her competencies to encourage more followers to remain involved. The emerging environment will be supportive of new thinking, thereby making it easier for the group to achieve its goals.
In the military, transformational leadership practices are becoming more common than ever before. Madjan and Jayasingam (2019) indicate that a new form of army tradition has emerged whereby both followers and commanders operate in accordance with the trends experienced in the environment. The involved participants are empowered to make timely decisions, engage each other and analyze most of the recorded challenges (Madjan and Jayasingam, 2019). These individuals will then focus on practical solutions and implement them to support the realization of the intended objectives. More units, military groups and departments across the world are embracing this strategy since it has the potential to deliver positive outcomes.
Comparative Analysis
In military units, such as the UK Royal Marines, different forms of leadership have been reported depending on the targeted missions, deployment areas and group dynamics. Past scholars have been keen to analyze the nature of such managerial approaches and their possible implications on group performance and the realization of the anticipated goals. Each style of leadership has its unique attributes, considerations and traits that are critical to the overall success of the team (Mujib, 2017). Those in positions of power need to be aware of such attributes and make their decisions in a professional and informed manner. However, they should understand that the specific style put in place can support or disorient the realization of the intended goals.
Scholars in the field of military leadership treat the issue of decision-making seriously since it helps shed more light about the model already in place. For example, autocratic leaders would not be ready to allow their followers to be involved in the process (see Table 1). For democrats, all soldiers or followers would be engaged collectively to make and support practical choices that can deliver the outlined results (Warrick, 2017). Transformational leaders will remain responsible while getting the insights of the soldiers (see Table 1). The approach creates room for having a coordinated response and ensuring that the unit remains successful.
Table 1: Comparative analysis of leadership styles.
In military settings, a number of situations dictate the most appropriate leadership style to apply to the specific unit to achieve its aims. For example, Pasovska and Miceski (2018) support the application of autocratic styles when commanders are aware of the existing challenges and the time remains limiting for engaging in shared decision-making. Analysts consider other key attributes whenever analyzing or studying various styles of leadership. Some of the key ones would include productivity, motivation, inference and the way delegation is done (see Table 1). These attributes encourage military officers to be aware of most of the existing challenges and consider evidence-based approaches to deliver on their mandate.
Researchers in the selected field have identified leadership as an integral attribute that dictates the level of performance among military groups. Those in positions of power tend to rely on their professional expertise and background to guide their followers. Burns (2017) observed that some of these commanders could personalize their styles depending on the existing issues and the anticipated goals. In the marines, proper leadership practices ensured that more people were involved and capable of pursuing their goals. However, Dyczkowska and Dyczkowski (2018) indicated that the absence of effective leadership could disorient the actions and missions of the involved marines. Without proper support and empowerment, most of these soldiers would be unable to complete their roles diligently or support the outlined unit mission.
From the completed analyses, it emerges that leadership is an evidence-based approach for guiding soldiers and mariners to pursue their goals. The strategy equips them with the necessary ideas and resources while creating room for addressing most of the recorded personal or group challenges (Burns, 2017). Most of the studies have observed that most of the leaders would apply divergent styles depending on the encountered situation (Yuniatiet al., 2021). The involvement and expectations of most of the soldiers could also influence the style of management associated with those in positions of power (Alder et al., 2021). Such findings and observations encourage commanders and captains to adopt the best approaches whenever guiding their juniors or pursuing tactical missions.
Weaknesses and Gaps in Existing Research
While most of the past research supports the use of effective leadership, very little evidence exists regarding the most appropriate or practical style for the marines. For instance, Hinen (2020) focused on the idea of management and how it was applicable in different military units. The findings showed that proper leadership was capable of improving the overall engagement of the involved followers and empowering them to complete their tasks diligently (Hinen, 2020). However, the analysis failed to outline a single leadership model that was appropriate for the marines if they were to become more involved and capable of delivering timely security goals.
Different leadership styles are evident in the military that have the potential to support different infantry units and support the realization of their objectives. Captains would identify most of these approaches and customize them depending on the needs of the followers and the emerging situation (Nazri and Rudi, 2019). These findings encourage commanders to take the issue of leadership seriously if they are to make their units more efficient and successful. Unfortunately, the existing literature fails to offer conclusive suggestions regarding the applicability of various leadership styles and how they could make marine units more successful. In another study, Caza, Cough and Puranik (2018) observed that the regimented nature of military units made it impossible for past scholars to learn more about the issues of leadership. This kind of challenge was attributable to the unavailability of authentic and trustable information from such military groups.
Suggestions for Future Research
The above observations show conclusively that unique weaknesses exist in the current research. For instance, military leaders are unable to pinpoint the most appropriate style that can make marines more efficient and capable of achieving their goals much faster. Based on the identified gaps, future scholars should focus on additional studies to shed more light on the three leadership styles and how they contribute to positive performance in the military. The proposed study has the potential to describe the unique challenges, strengths and opportunities associated with each of the three types (Reiter and Wagstaff, 2017). This analysis will present additional ideas regarding the most effective leadership that could be applied in the UK Royal Marines and support the timely delivery of desirable results (Fosse et al., 2019).The emerging insights could reshape managerial theory in the military and preset additional insights that could improve the overall level of national security.
Research Plan
Study Objectives
- To elaborate the major leadership styles that high ranking mariners and captains apply to guide their followers.
- To identify the major differences, similarities and attributes associated with these three leadership styles in the military: democratic, transformational and autocratic.
- To examine whether there is a more effective leadership style for mariners.
Hypotheses
These five hypotheses are intended to get relevant answers depending on the intended research questions and the outlined military leadership styles
- Hypothesis 0 (H0): Democratic, autocratic and transformational styles are similar and effective for mariners.
- Hypothesis 1 (H1): Democratic, autocratic and transformational are all ineffective styles for mariners.
- Hypothesis 2 (H2): Democratic leadership style is more effective than autocratic and transformational approaches.
- Hypothesis 3 (H3): Autocratic leadership style is more effective than democratic and transformational approaches.
- Hypothesis 4 (H4): Transformational leadership style is more effective for mariners than autocratic and democratic approaches.
Proposed Methodology
The proposed research study will rely on the use of a questionnaire targeting high-ranking officials and marines in the UK. A simple sampling design will be considered to identify potential respondents in accordance with the anticipated results. Close-ended questions will be useful to gather information from the selected respondents. The individuals would present their opinions regarding the effectiveness of different forms of leadership.
The specific ones would include transformational, democratic and autocratic styles. Following the successful collection of the results, the researcher would rely on Spearman-order ranking and Pearson correlation model to come up with the necessary statistical baselines (Zaman, Alwi and Shaiq, 2019). Based on these models, the three types of leadership would be identified as independent variables. The dependent variable for the intended findings would be the respondents’ views regarding the effectiveness of each of the selected leadership styles.
Likert Scales
The Likert scale has become an instrumental tool for analyzing qualitative data acquired through the use of questionnaires. It is designed in the form of a symmetric disagree-agree scale, thereby making it easier for respondents to offer their inputs. To complete the suggested research study, the Likert scales would be considered to ensure that the collected information is timely and capable of supporting or rejecting the outlined hypotheses (Kilicoglu, 2018). Its implementation for this study will make it possible for the research to collect and analyze the qualitative data based on the perception of the identified high-ranking marine officers.
Time Plan for the Study
The completed Gantt chart indicates that five months would be adequate to complete this research study. The first month would be considered to complete the research proposal, gather adequate information on the current literature and identify key gaps (see Table 2). The second month would be used to develop and issue the completed questionnaire to the targeted respondents. Such marines would be required to offer their inputs and preferences for the presented leadership styles. The third month would be important to undertake the relevant activities and procedures needed to have quality research. The last two months would be considered to analyze the collected data and write the final report.
Reference List
Alder, A.B. et al. (2021) ‘Sleep leadership in the army: a group randomized trial’, Sleep Health, 7(1), pp. 24-30. Web.
Bikescene, S., Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I. and Hošková-Mayerová, Š. (2021) ‘Military leader behavior formation for sustainable country security’, Sustainability, 13(8), pp. 4521-4542. Web.
Bunin, J.L., Chung, K.K. and Mount, C.A. (2021) ‘Ten leadership principles from the military applied to critical care’, ATS Scholar, 2(3), pp. 317-326. Web.
Burns, W.A. (2017) ‘A descriptive literature review of harmful leadership styles: Definitions, commonalities, measurements, negative impacts, and ways to improve these harmful leadership styles’, Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 3(1), pp. 33-52. Web.
Caza, B.B., Vough, H. and Puranik, H. (2018) ‘Identity work in organizations and occupations: definitions, theories, and pathways forward’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), pp. 889-910. Web.
Dyczkowska, J. and Dyczkowski, T. (2018) ‘Democratic or autocratic leadership style? Participative management and its links to rewarding strategies and job satisfaction in SMEs’, Athens Journal of Business & Economics, 4(2), pp. 193-218. Web.
Fosse, T.H. et al. (2019) ‘Active and passive forms of destructive leadership in a military context: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(5), pp. 708-722. Web.
Guzman, R. et al. (2022). Military experience and school leadership development in North Carolina. Journal of Veterans Studies, 8(1), 98–109. Web.
Haymaker, J.N. (2019) ‘Transitioning military leadership into a civilian setting’, The Journal of Student Leadership, 2(2), pp. 27-34. Web.
Hinen, A.L. (2020) ‘Toxic leadership in the military’, Muma Business Review, 4(1), pp. 65-79. Web.
Jansen, M.M. and Delahaji, R. (2020) ‘Leadership acceptance through the lens of social identity theory: a case study of military leadership in Afghanistan’, Armed Forces & Society, 46(4), pp. 657-676. Web.
Kilicoglu, D. (2018) ‘Understanding democratic and distributed leadership: how democratic leadership of school principals relates to distributed leadership in schools?’, Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(3), pp. 6-23. Web.
Liggett, R. (2020) ‘Toward a conceptualization of democratic leadership in a professional context’, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 193(1), pp. 115-127. Web.
Madjan, N. and Jayasingam, S. (2019) ‘Military leaders’ leadership styles and subordinates’ hardiness level: can transformational and transactional leadership influence soldier’s hardiness?’, International Journal of Business and Management, 3(3), pp. 26-36. Web.
Mujib, H. (2017) ‘Organizational identity: an ambiguous concept in practical terms’, Administrative Sciences, 7(3), pp. 28-57. Web.
Nazri, M. and Rudi, M. (2019) ‘Military leadership: a systematic literature review of current research’, International Journal of Business and Management, 2(2), pp. 1-15. Web.
Pasovska, S. and Miceski, T. (2018) ‘The impact of transformational leadership in improvement of the organizational capability’, International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 6(2), pp. 235–246. Web.
Reiter, D. and Wagstaff, W.A. (2017) ‘Leadership and military effectiveness’, Foreign Policy Affairs, 14(4), pp. 490-511. Web.
Šimanauskienė, V., Giedraitytė, V. and Navickienė, O. (2021) ‘The role of military leadership in shaping innovative personnel behavior: the case of the Lithuanian armed forces’, Sustainability, 13(16), pp. 9283-9299. Web.
Sujarwo, B., Sanusi, A. and Firdiansjah, A. (2020) ‘Influence of leadership, military education and experience of duties on performance’,IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 22(8), pp. 17-23. Web.
Veliu, L. et al. (2017) ‘The influence of leadership styles on employee’s performance’,Vadyba Journal of Management, 2(31), pp. 59-69. Web.
Warrick, D.D. (2017) ‘What leaders need to know about organizational culture’, Business Horizons, 60(3), pp. 395-404. Web.
Warsono, H.Y., Budiyanto and Riduwan, A. (2019) ‘The effect of autocratic, participative, and delegation leadership on work motivation of Indonesian navy personnel’, International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 7(5), pp. 475-482. Web.
Yuniati, E. et al. (2021) ‘Talent management and organizational performance: the mediating role of employee engagement’, Management Science Letters, 11(9), pp. 1-6. Web.
Zaman, Z., Alwi, S.K.K. and Shaiq, M. (2019) ‘Relationship of leadership style of school principal with teachers’ job satisfaction: as perceived by secondary school teachers’, Global Social Sciences Review, 4(1), pp. 344-353. Web.