The success of the army essentially depends on the extent to which fruitful army leadership is formed. A leader acts in the interests of ensuring the organization of joint, collective activities of people. Their main purpose is the most rapid and successful achievement of a common goal (Walker & Bonnot, 2016). Thus, army leadership presupposes both specific group dynamics in the army and the personal qualities of a leader. This paper analyzes the foundational features of individual and group leadership in the military. It demonstrates that army leadership depends on the army tasks and structures and the unofficial authority and power of the leader.
Definition of Individual Leadership
The basis of leadership is the process of interpersonal influence, which unfolds between the leader and followers, in which the former is the initiating party of group actions. A leader is a member of a group whose authority, power, and jurisdiction are unconditionally recognized by the rest of the group, ready to follow them (Allen, 2015). The leader must be able to make an objective analysis of the situation, which allows them to form a line of behavior, a program of action, and make informed decisions. This provides possibility to start mobilizing forces and resources promptly. Having received full or majority support, the leader can organize the process of implementing decisions made according to the plan. They include the selection and placement of performers, communicating decisions to them, and clarifying and adapting decisions concerning the place of execution (Allen, 2015). Moreover, they should be able to sum up and analyze results. A leader also should create external and internal conditions for performance and coordinate the activities of performers.
The Shifts in Modern Army Structure and Tasks
In recent history, the armies of the world have increasingly begun to face new challenges: small wars, information operations, non-military operations, low-intensity conflicts, hybrid wars, and internal political crises. Moskos (2017) developed a theory of the transition to the postmodern army. Distinctive features of the postmodern army are a decrease in its size and an increase in professionalism. It also demonstrates a growth in the role of female military personnel and civilian personnel in ensuring military security. Private military organizations are also becoming non-traditional participants in modern military operations, giving rise to a new phenomenon of military security outsourcing (Moskos, 2017). The turn to the “post-heroic” military ideology in developed countries is caused by two factors: a development in the share of low-intensity conflicts that do not pose a real threat to the physical existence of the state and the increasing complexity of military equipment and technologies. Modern military equipment makes it possible to conduct non-contact operations, automate command and control of troops, and replace people with drones and other robotic equipment in especially dangerous areas of work (Moskos, 2017). These changes influence the style of the army leadership, making it subtler and more sophisticated.
Group Army Leadership
Intergroup relations that arise in subunits characterize servicemen groups’ position in the informal structure of a military subunit. Intergroup differences lead to their hierarchy. Some groups become a leadership group, others take on the role of subordinates. Thus, the function of leaders is performed not only by individual military personnel but also by self-organized groups of soldiers (leading groups). The influence of the “leadership core” on the choice of the strategy of the group’s behavior in direct intergroup interaction is carried out in two directions. The first direction is the management of the actions of their group to fulfill a specific group task. The second direction is the creation and regulation of communications and joint actions with the interacting group. The most effective means of forming positive group leadership is through a comprehensive program, which involves the use of active forms of learning in the course of social and psychological training, modeling real-life situations, as well as the formation of a developing environment (Allen, 2015). Thus, leadership qualities are rather acquired in the process than innate.
Conclusion
The army type is shifting globally towards a postmodern one. The kind of leadership required changes simultaneously with army tasks and structure. It does not depend on existing heroic qualities but becomes post-heroic and subtler. It acquires more similarities with organizational leadership. The commander is one part of the service, but there is also an informal one – the officer must be a recognized leader in terms of their qualities, which ensures the success of the actions of subordinate military personnel. Leadership in the army can be both individual and group-based. In the former case, personal qualities play a crucial role. In the latter case, intergroup relations form leadership. Creating a positive orientation of group leadership is ensured by appropriate influences on the organizational activity, socio-psychological, and personal determinants of military personnel and military units. Both individual and group kinds of leadership presuppose close trust-based relationships with subordinates built on authority. To provide successful army performance, a leader must be able to analyze a situation objectively in order to form an adequate line of subordinates’ behavior.
References
Allen, C. D. (2015). Ethics and army leadership: Climate matters. Parameters, 45(1), 69-83.
Moskos, C. C. (2017). The postmodern military. In J. Burk (Ed.) The adaptive military (pp. 173-192). Routledge.
Walker, C., & Bonnot, M. (2016). A better approach to developing leaders. [PDF document] Web.