The military environment requires a well-coordinated hierarchy since a clear achievement of goals would not be possible without it. Many people think the army is not a place for creativity and theatrical heroism. People there obey clear orders from above, and the responsibility for the success or lack thereof will also not lie with everyone. Army leaders with a heightened sense of justice and duty are always respected. They have their ideals, which they unquestioningly follow with unique methods. Modern researchers identify the concept of five styles or levels of leadership that differ in behavior and goals that need to be achieved when managing.
Transactional or organizational leadership is focused on clearly following orders and speaking out about army duties. Such leaders precisely formulate plans and expectations from the soldiers. Even though such leaders are usually good at motivating soldiers, this level is not emotional enough. Without emotions, it is impossible to impress young soldiers, inspire them, and contribute to the task’s speedy and successful completion. Brænder and Holsting state: “For those who know the system from within, however, the choice of leadership values is not a question of idealistic either-or, but of pragmatic both-and” (90). A transactional leader is an extremely pragmatic person who motivates with rewards and scares with punishments and penalties (Mastering the Art). Such leaders make good manipulators but lack the creativity to work with enterprising and courageous soldiers. Usually, they like to speak to the public and have a well-delivered speech. Still, these leaders always look severe and even intimidating to young soldiers.
The following leadership level is transformational leadership, an army tradition of impression by example. This leadership works well with the emotions and ideals of people who want autonomy and independence in decision-making. This type of leadership is believed to be good in extraordinary circumstances where soldiers must show their resolve. However, spontaneity is not a panacea for such leaders; they are usually specialists in a narrow field (radio engineering, chemical protection), but cannot take responsibility globally. The third leadership level is based on other people’s development and constant support. Such leaders are called servants, and there are usually many of them among young sergeants who live by the ideals of trust between teammates and comrades. There is truth in this because it is in difficult situations that soldiers are sometimes required to show confidence in their superiors or comrades (Kirchner and Akdere 157). The timidity in this can turn into a failed task for the team. Leaders like these help soldiers understand the value of teamwork (Duran-Stanton). Usually, they are good psychologists who are willing and able to listen; they are good at managing conflicts within the group.
History shows that autocratic leaders are good at their job, especially in a debilitating war. Such challenging leaders include “Gen. George S. Patton, former commander of the Third Army during WWII” (Mastering the Art). Such leaders are good at tasks in borderline situations between life and death or with very high risks and danger. The secret of such leaders lies in the fact that they competently listen to their subordinates and associates. Many never underestimate their opponents and respect them, remembering their weaknesses and not squeamish about using them. The last level of leadership considered here is followership, a combination of leadership and cooperation. Such leaders quickly and successfully go beyond the instructions and can act in unpredictable circumstances since they have someone to share responsibility with. Followers are not usually leaders directly but may act as assistants or informal leaders. Sometimes they are the team’s talismans, which both ordinary young soldiers and leaders appreciate. Like servants, followers understand human psychology well and can anticipate people’s actions and needs. They are good parliamentarians, for which they are also valued on both sides of the hierarchy.
The levels of leadership described are appropriate for different circumstances, periods, and teams. Transformational leadership best fits specialized units renowned for their skills and only handling particular tasks. For beginners, a servant leader is likely an excellent option, as he will be able to familiarize them with the basic rules and resolve possible conflicts without discomfort. For life-threatening military operations, autocratic leadership is suitable, although, in everyday situations, such leaders can alienate young soldiers. Transactional leadership, pragmatic and based on strict adherence to rules and a system of rewards and punishments, is suitable for formal military training without the influence of wars and shocks. The last level described here is the following leader; usually, such people are informal leaders trusted by others whose opinions are considered. This level of leadership combines the above leadership models while remaining comfortable for subordinates. The follower is charged like a servant yet is as severe and attentive to others as an autocrat. The follower knows the plans and can predict them like a transactional leader, and also sets an example for other soldiers on an equal footing like a transformational leader.
Works Cited
“Mastering the Art of Dynamic Leadership.” Army University Press, 2018.
Brænder, Morten, and Vilhelm Stefan Holsting. “The Power of Experience? Innovative and Authoritative Leadership Values Among Danish Army Cadets.” Armed Forces & Society, vol. 48, no. 1, 2020, pp. 70–91. Crossref, doi:10.1177/0095327×20951435.
Duran-Stanton, Amelia. “The Art and Science of Leadership and Management.” AUSA, 2021.
Kirchner, Michael J., and Mesut Akdere. “Exploring Inclusion of Leadership Development Into New Employee Orientations: A Proposed Approach From Army Leader Development.” Organization Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 3, 2019, pp. 156–166. Crossref, doi:10.1080/15416518.2019.1618694.