Canadian Military and Leadership Defining Leadership Issues

Canadian Military and Leadership

Defining Leadership

Issues in Military Leadership

Canadian Military

Situational Leadership Theory

Canadian Military and Situational Leadership

The military organizations have developed a culture that has set standards of increased productivity with declining resources as regards money, workforce and other resources (Towell, 1998). Despite the fact that there have been reductions in the expenditure of military yet there seen an increased in the expectations from military leaders to complete successfully the assigned tasks apart from of limited sources (Fogleman, 1995). These expectations of achieving goals completely with fewer resources have put a significant toll on military leaders (Towell, 1998).

The Canadian Force (CF) is currently undergoing a change and "have already begun a long-term transformation process," (Department of National Defense, 2005, p.2) which will lead Canada's military into the future. In 2005, the DND (Department of National Defense) published Canada's International Policy Statement. The policy statement outlines how the "policy is about change, and providing our military with a bold new vision to deal with an increasingly uncertain world" (DND, 2005, p.2). The Chief of Defense Staff (CNDS), created a vision that "included changing the way the Canadian Forces is structured, equipped, trained and educated" (Edwards, Bentley, & Walker, 2006, p.6) With transformation comes the task of reforming of the CF's philosophy and culture. As values change within society, it is important that they also change within the culture of the CF. Most importantly the CF is evolving from a rules-based organization to a values-based organization. The values-based model is creating a change within traditional CF culture.

A facet of CF transformation requires a change in the values and beliefs of not only the organization, but of the people who make up the organization. "Leaders and employees must change their mindset to implement and function in the organization's new design and strategy successfully" (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson, 2001, p.19). The current essay is aimed at exploring the situational leadership theory in the context of its implication for Canadian military. The author has discussed in detail the current situation of leadership and its requirement in the Canadian Forces as regards the changing warfare, terrorism, inclusion of technology in the military organizations and the changing culture and values of the forces. The author has also discussed in detail the theory of situational leadership and whether it is sufficient in the current situation for Canadian Forces.

Defining Leadership

Van Vugt, Hogan, and Kaiser (2008) stated, "Leadership is crucial, but often misunderstood topic" (p. 193). Although all the definitions of leadership vary in some way or other yet one thing is common in all that is all the definition stress on the importance of task completion (Mohr, 2000). Although a general and fundamental concept of leadership is clear yet the term has been defined in different way by different individuals (Northouse, 2004). Burns (1978) stated, "Leadership is leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and motivations -- the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations -- of both leaders and followers" (p. 19). Humphreys (2001) contended, "Leadership is an exchange between the leader and the follower" (p. 150). Robbins (2003) asserted, "Leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals and the ability to influence others determined how effective you were as a leader" (p. 314). Northouse (2004) defined leadership as "A process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (p. 3). Phillips (1992) defined leadership in his book, Lincoln on Leadership as:

"Leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivations; the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations of both leaders and followers. And the genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their own terms and their followers' values and motivations." (p. 3)

These were the early definitions and concepts of leadership but as time passed the scholars continued their efforts to understand the basic essence of leadership. Burns (1978) stated, "If we know all too much about our leaders, we know too little about leadership. We fail to grasp the essence of leadership that is relevant to the modern age and hence we cannot agree even on the standards by which to measure, recruit, and reject it." (p. 2). Then Robbins (2003) stated, "The search for personality, social, physical, or intellectual attributes that would describe leaders and differentiate them from non-leaders goes back to 1930s" (p. 314).

Northouse (2004) expressed, "We have heard statements such as 'He is a born leader' or 'she is a natural leader.' These statements are commonly expressed by people who take a trait perspective toward leadership" (p. 4). However no consistent and universal characteristics of leadership have been defined by scholars no matter whatever organization is (Robbins, 2003). In due course, the leadership research approach shifted from trait specific to attributes specific such as functions of leaders and leadership styles (Northouse, 2004). This shift from trait to leadership styles and leader's functions forced the leader to focus on how to maximize the follower influence

Modern organizations want leaders to appeal to change by highlighting commonplace processes and attitudes to open up a culture which is able to achieve most favorable efficiency (Robbins, 2003). Robbins (2003) further stated, "Overall, the cumulative findings from more than half a century of research lead us to conclude that some traits increase the likelihood of success as a leader, but none of the traits guarantee success" (p. 315). With the aforementioned, Robbins (2003) acknowledged the subsequent limits that are present along with the personal characteristics and traits differentiating leaders from non-leaders: "No universal traits that predicts leadership in all situations; traits predict behavior more in 'weak' situations than in 'strong' situations; The evidence in unclear in separating cause from effect; Traits do a better job at predicting the appearance of leadership" (p. 315).

Compared to the accepting the emergence of leadership as well as the idea of influence, the behavioral or process occurrence assessed effective leaders' behaviors (Robbins, 2003). Robbins further stated, "If behavioral studies were to turn up critical behavioral determinants of leadership, we could train people to be leaders" (p. 316). From the process or behavioral viewpoint it is possible that there is possibility for everyone to learn leadership devoid of having definite physical traits (Northouse, 2004).

Canadian Military Leadership

"Warfare has changed over the last several decades and so has the need to accomplish the defense mission and vision in a modernized and professional manner. The Cold War and the fight against communism is no longer the threat to security. Canada knew who and where the enemy was. Terrorism has brought about a "new world order" (CDA, 2005a, p.2) where the security environment is unpredictable and constantly changing, as the treat can no longer be seen. Part of the modernization process (CDA, 2005a) is the transformation of the CF as an institution to adapt to the changing security climate and challenges of modern warfare.

As described by in the Department of National Defense, "the mission of the Canadian Forces is to defend Canada and Canadian interests while contributing to international peace and security" (DND, 2005b, p.xi) and the vision is as follows: "The CF will continue to maintain modern, combat-capable forces that will become more effective, relevant and responsive, with an increasing ability to provide leadership at home and abroad" (DND, 2005, p.1).

Research has shown that leadership challenges in the 21st century in Canadian Forces were inimitable to the challenges in the 20th century (Fix & Wyly, 2004; Weidman, 2002). As described by Covey (2004), "The challenges and complexities we face in our personal lives and relationships, in our families, in our professional lives, and in our organizations are of a different order of magnitude" (p. 3). Similarly Fiol, Harris and House (1999) pointed out that "we know that charismatic leaders can generate radical social changes and that the performance of charismatic leaders and their followers tends to exceed that of their no charismatic counterparts" (p. 449).

From overarching Canadian Forces perspective, the army, navy and air force have been working to describe and acquire the personnel and equipment capabilities they will require to meet the challenges and demands of the ballet-space in year 2020 in their most recent doctrinal guidance. The CF guidance can be found in Shaping the Future of the Canadian Forces: A Strategy 2020, and is intended to ready a force structure that will provide Canada with a task-tailored military organization that will be prepared to respond to domestic and international events (Department of National Defense/Assistant Deputy Minister Human Resources Military (ADM (HR), n.d). The Navy's blueprint for future operations is found in Navy Landmark -- the Navy's Strategy for 2020 (Department of National Defense Headquarters/Chief of the Maritime Staff, 2001). The Air Force's future organization is outlined in Security above All, Strategic Vector and the Aerospace Capability Framework (Department of National Defense/Air Force Public Affairs).

This new focus by all branches is in response to the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and is being addressed by the CF in order for it to remain a relevant military organization. RMA has been driven by the application of new technologies and this in turn is changing the nature of warfare and how battles will be fought in the future. All branches of the CF have been radically changing their military doctrine and their military operations in order to keep pace with the rapid changes in war fighting operations (Department of National Defense / Director General Strategic Planning, 1999, p.7). According to Wenek (2002), key issues that affect the development of CF leadership doctrine include the following; the rapidly increasing numbers and types of operational since the end of the Cold War, CF branch efforts to rejuvenate professionalism at all levels, the relationships between increased military presences and Non-Governmental Agencies in the same geographic location, the role of technology in maximizing access to communication and technology for commanders at all levels through digitization of the battle-space, the perception that world is more unpredictable and that Canadian society and CF culture have drastically changed in the last decade.

The relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate within the CF is a complex system of rank structure, protocol, duty and task. Since the Canadian Navy's inception in 1910 (Milner, 1999), it has been utilizing a hierarchical system of communication and interaction between senior and junior personal for both officers and NCMs termed: The Divisional System. "The Divisional System encompasses the administrative organization from the Commanding Officer to the Ordinary Seaman" (CMS, 2004). The Divisional System is a hierarchical model with both upward and downward influences to ensure supervisors, through powers of command and leadership, empower, develop, and manage those within their divisional responsibility. The Guide to the Divisional System fully explains the complexities of the importance of leading, but it does not tell a leader how to lead or mentor with values-based leadership qualities.

As the CF transforms to adapt to emerging operational requirements, leaders within the CF must also adapt to the changing social values and attitudes that are now a part of the new recruits entering into the CF. This is an essential element to investing more in the men and women who are the foundation of success for the CF. The population of the CF is a reflection of the diversity within Canadian Society. CF members are recruited from all walks of life within Canada and those members contribute their culture and values into the population of the CF. "Because the profession is not an entity unto itself and military members come from and return to civilian life, the values of the profession must be in harmony with the values of its parent community" (CDA, 2003, p.28). It only makes sense that the changing values within society would also be mirrored with CF culture. Leaders across the rank structure need to learn and demonstrate the skills required in order to adapt to the changing cultural environment.

The majority of new recruits entering into the CF today are predominantly 18 to 25 years old. This group is a part of Generation Y (Foster, 2006), and is described as "technology savvy, but also cynical and distrustful" (Times Colonist, 2005); they are becoming know for questioning authority and demanding explanations. The remaining majority of the military population belongs to the Baby Boomers generation and Generation X (Foster, 2005). Between the generations are attitudes and differences that result in the beliefs that "the Boomers see the youngest generation as lazy. Generation X thinks that members of the youngest generation are spoiled brats. Generation X wants the Boomers to quit because they think the Boomers are impeding their career progress" (Foster, 2005). The cultural differences between generations are apparent in how the different generations lead. The Baby Boomers and Generation X lead with a rule base style while Generation Y will gravitate towards a more values-based system. Because of their differences in societal values and beliefs, Generation Ys "want an opportunity to learn and mentor, not just a blunt, in-your-face boss who tells them what to do" (Foster, 2005).

Canadian values are the fundamental values that create the very heart of our society. These values are expressed in the Constitution Act of 1982 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Military ethos consists of the values and beliefs that reflect core Canadian values and beliefs and is basis for leading within the CF. A key function of military ethos is to "create and shape the desired military culture of the Canadian Forces" (CDA, 2003, p.25). Canadian military values consist of duty, loyalty, integrity, and courage (CDA, 2003). These values are a part of military ethos and are the personal qualities that military leaders must possess. Military values and Canadian values must coincide together. A balance must be achieved between the changing socio-cultural changes in Canadian society; values, on one hand, and military ethos, on the other, to ensure the CF's ability to effectively perform its function as Canada's profession of arms.

Situational Leadership Theory

Situational Leadership Theory "Stresses that leadership is composed of both a directive and supportive dimension, and each has to be applied appropriately in a given situation" (Northouse, 2004, p. 87). Northouse (2004) further described the fundamental nature of situational leadership theory as the following:

"Leadership is composed of both directional and supportive dimension, and each has to be applied appropriately in a given situation. To determine what is needed in a particular situation, a leader must evaluate her or his employees and assess how competent and committed they are to perform a given task." (p. 87)

According to Robbins (2003), "Situational leadership theory is a contingency theory that focuses on the followers" (p. 323) while Bons, Bass, and Komorita (1970) stated, "Considerable effort has been expended in recent years to establish usable predictors of leadership effectiveness" (p. 551). Through employing situational leadership theory leaders avail an opportunity to work out different behaviors keeping in mind the maturity level of the follower to complete organizational goals and objectives (Hersey, Blanchard, & Natemeyer, 1979; Graeff, 1983). Thus the focus point of situational leadership is follower who controls the level of function of a situational leader in achieving organizational goals (Robbins, 2003).

There are two dimensions of Situational leadership theory, i.e., directive and supportive, and it is the obligation of the leader to decode as which dimension is required to apply in a specific situation (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990; Northouse, 2004). Graeff (1997) stated, "Since its inception in 1969, the model has undergone a number of cosmetic and substantive changes" (p. 153). Figure 1 demonstrate a behavior image of the situational leadership theory

Figure 1-Behavior illustration of the situational leadership theory

Although situational leadership was initially considered best for military organizations but with the passage of time there has been criticism on this theory as regards is capability to influence organizational behaviors (Irgens, 1995). There have been several changes and modifications all through its existence that reflect the level of uncertainty restricting effectual organizational implication (Graeff, 1997). The first criticism on situational leadership theory is that it reflects an unequal attitude behavior towards task, relationship and maturity. A second criticism is that there is confusion as regards the arrangement of manifold continual that reveals the job maturity, and readiness or psychological ripeness (Graeff).

Situational leadership theory is not only implied in military organizations but research revealed that it is included in the training programs of organizational leadership as well as implied by more than one million managers in Fortune 500 companies (Robbins, 2003). This civilian-based leadership model practiced unambiguous achievement in the public sector; hence, the anticipation of the forces to practice this level of achievement in their exclusive culture (Yeakey, 2002). Hence the success of this theory in public sector reflects the fact that the success of situational leadership theory depends on the follower who may accept or reject the leader (Robbins, 2003). Robbins (2003) continued, "This is an important dimension that has been overlooked or underemphasized in most leadership theories" (p. 324).

In the situational leadership theory the concept of 'maturity' was confusing as regards its meaning in the organizational setting. In many instances, this term was used as an alternate to the readiness of follower (Hersey, Blanchard, & Natemeyer, 1979; Yeakey, 2002). According to Waddell (1994), as compared to the private sector organizations, military organizations have tinted substantial boundaries with the situational leadership model. Particularly, Air Force recognized limitations that show a negative impact to the effectiveness of their mission (Waddell, 1994). Waddell (1994) described that the level of efficiencies within the military platform is composed of; "The level at which leadership is exercised; different styles that may be required because of the demands of combat; Staff vs. operational leadership; Differing styles appropriate to service, joint, or combined leadership" (p. 30)

"The development of the situational leadership theory concluded that not one leadership methodology would effectively support the organizational continuum; however, the diversification of the situational leadership theory model still exposed gaps within the military culture" (Waddell, 1994, p. 44). Robbins (2003) articulated that leaders can recompense for deficits that are present in the followers if they are not able or not willing to participate. The empirical research show that this leadership model uncertain and inconsistent (Robbins, 2003).

Implication of Situational Leadership for CF

For several years the situational leadership is recommended and practiced in military organizations (Yeakey, 2002). According to Shamir and Ben-Ari (2000), "An appropriate theory or model of leadership for the emerging military organization has not been developed yet" (p. 55). There is a need of an alternative leadership theory that may fulfill the present and future requirements of the military organizations while balancing the deficits recognized within the situational leadership theory (Waddell, 1994). According to Burns (1978), "One of the most serious failures in the study of leadership has been the bifurcation between the literature on leadership and the literature of followership" (p. 3). Hence there are deviation in the literature on leadership and followership and it not easy to decide a specific leadership theory for military organizations.

As regards military organization, the culture of military demands clearly the effective leadership that may influence people to accomplish the required outcomes. Research suggests that military organizations and forces require motivational leaders with charismatic characteristics. "Motivation and inspiration are well-understood military leadership facets. Research into military charisma periodically makes reference to combat and noncombat leaders. Most literature in the field lists Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon and George S. Patton Jr. As charismatic leaders. Their extraordinary ability to inspire others, and faith in themselves as the sole sources of legitimacy are charismatic leadership traits." (p. 84). It is also evident from the Air Force Pamphlet 35-49 (1985), Air Force Leadership defines leadership as, "The art of influencing and directing people to accomplish the mission" (p. 1). The military stands by its belief that leadership effectiveness is due to proper training (Berg, 2006; Fogleman, 1995).