How the army can benefit from servant leadership

The subject is on Army Followership and Servant Leadership. Compare and Contrast, and how they both apply to the Army.

The military is one of the most important institutions that rely heavily on strong leadership characteristics. Here, coordination, discipline, and respect for authority all allow the military to not only achieve their desired goals, but to do so as efficiently as possible. The military requires strong leadership as failure to do so will often lead to mission failure and in extreme circumstances, the loss of life. As a result, strong leadership qualities must be developed throughout the tenure of the personnel. One such leadership style is that of servant leadership (Choudhary, 2013)

Servant leadership is a form of leadership in which the focus is growing personnel within the military. Here, servant leaders look to “serve” their respective departments through various tactics aimed at uplifting the entire unit. In this manner, all members of the unit are engaged in their own unique way. This ultimately manifests itself is strong team coordination, a much more engaged workforce, and highly motivate workforce. Servant leadership is a heavy departure from traditional leadership theories which tend to emphasize a pyramid structure, where power is concentrated at the top. With servant leadership, the leader’s priority is to make sure other people’s higher priority needs are being served. To accomplish this, servant leaders often look to mimic the actions and desired behaviors they would like subordinates to utilize. They communicate often looking to ensure they understand the desires of each member on the team. Here, if all the needs of the team members are being met, they will perform better. This directly applies to the Army which needs to constantly improve relative to the forces attempting to harm the United States. Unfortunately, many of the enemies now can not be seen. Deadly viruses, chemical warfare, and cyber security all must be combated in very different ways than traditional enemies were. As a result soldiers in the army must have the skills needed to combat these every-changing threats. Servant leadership ultimately allows this to be accomplished (Letizia, 2018).

The Army Followership is design to maintain lines of authority but also allows individuals to pursue their passions within the military. Here, followership allows lower level members to properly learn and study under established leaders in the organization. This will allow them to better take leadership positions within the organization as they progress in their careers. Here, having an expertise or exposure to servant leadership is important as it can be leveraged in the transition process. The primary difference however is that the leadership styles, rigidity, and clear demarcations of authority may be different in these circumstances. For example, small departments may not have a clear organizations chart or clear leadership structure. In addition, some areas of the Army may not respond well to servant leadership and may instead have a much more antiquated organizational structure that is not conducive to servant leadership benefits. As a result, it will take a strong commitment from entire organizations to make servant leadership work. Here, leaders must have a certain level of autonomy to make decisions that can benefit their department or unit in the long run. However, top management must be able to provide this autonomy while still having the structure that the military is know for. This delicate balance is what makes the dynamic between followership and servant leadership difficult to implement (Letizia, 2018).