Leadership Styles of Sam Damon and Courtney Massengale: Military

¶ … Leadership Styles of Sam Damon and Courtney Massengale

In the military setting, it is very common to hear statements like 'you are acting like a Courtney (Sam) on that issue'. Courtney Massengale and Sam Damon are the two main characters in the novel, Once an Eagle by Anton Myrer. The two are portrayed as significantly different army officers in a story that revolves around the key themes of unchecked ambition, devotion to country, career over family, corruption of power, ethics and morality, good vs. evil, and heroism. Both are portrayed as ambitious, dedicated, and aggressive men dedicated to the service of their country and its people; however, whereas Sam acts as a selfless, caring, and kind commander, Courtney presents himself as his exact opposite -- a charming professional out to portray a can-do image at whatever cost, even if it means stepping on his subordinate's toes just to get things moving. This text compares the leadership approaches adopted by both characters and assesses i) their relevance in the military today, and ii) the extent to which either is used.

Leadership: Leadership Styles

Simply stated, leadership style refers to the manner in which a leader motivates his followers, gives direction, and implements plans (Walker and Miller 15). In other words, it refers to the way a leader administers leadership and control, how they give instructions to subordinates, and how they offer coaching to ensure that the instructions given are carried out effectively. In the book, Sam Damon is seen as exercising the democratic style of leadership, where the leader appreciates the role played by subordinates in the organization, and as such, he goes out of his way to not only solicit their participation in decision-making, but also ensure that their needs and welfare are properly taken care of. He sets high performance standards for his team, but he does not rely on sycophantic behavior or taking advantage of his subordinates to achieve success. Moreover, he does not put so much emphasis on his success as an individual; rather, he strives for team participation, and is keen on achieving success by getting himself as well as members of his unit adequately-prepared.

Massengale, however, adopts a different approach to leadership -- he takes on the impersonal, aristocratic leadership style, where decisions are made and orders given without input from subordinates (Walker and Miller 15). He gives instructions and orders without defense or explanation, and his main focus is on achieving goals, as opposed to ensuring that employees are kept satisfied. To him, the needs and welfare of staff come second to goal achievement (Walker and Miller 15). His major focus is on pleasing his superiors and gaining a reputation for himself, and he strives to achieve that even if it means stepping on those below him in the hierarchical structure. The potential implications of each leader's approach, and a statement on which of the two approaches works best in the context of the modern-day military have been discussed in the next subsection.

Potential Issues of Concern arising from:

Massengale's Leadership

Massengale's autocratic approach may work effectively in some environments, especially where large sums of money are involved and the work done is repetitive in nature. In the context of the military, however, it could cause staff to be over dependent on their supervisors for instructions, and therefore unable to devise creative and innovative solutions on their own. Autocratic leadership has no place, particularly in today's military, because creativity and innovation are crucial for combat success. Security threats are evolving dynamically, and new threats are emerging on an almost daily basis; the degree of creativity at the military is expected to evolve at the same rate if the unit is to combat the same effectively. Having a unit that cannot adjust itself flexibly to changing threats and that cannot innovate successfully would be disastrous, to say the least. It would be prudent to cultivate a culture whereby staff feel like they are part of the greater combat team, and where they feel like they are being valued and appreciated as they deserve. This can only be achieved through participative (democratic) leadership, where the needs of staff are placed above combat objectives, and staff are treated more as participants and less as subordinates.

Besides rigidness and lack of creativity, there is also the issue of staff losing drive, initiative, and esprit de corps as a result of feeling like they are not being valued and appreciated. An autocratic leader would require even the simplest of decisions to receive his approval before they can be executed (Slim 36). In the same way, he would require subordinates to provide back briefs on the status of every decision they choose to undertake (Slim 36). Guided by this type of culture, subordinates would eventually be disempowered from making decisions in the fear that they may be seen to have overstepped their mandate and disrespected their leader (Slim 36). This would make the status quo a more or less permanent arrangement amidst rapidly changing security threats.

A third possible issue that could arise in the case of an aristocratic leader is that of delays. If subordinates will be required to obtain the leader's approval before making decisions on even the most routine of activities, then delays associated with bureaucracy will be almost inevitable. The situation is worse if the leader is impersonal as was the case with Massengale -- out to create a name for himself with no room for mistakes -- because then, he would be keen to ensure that he sweeps blame as far away from himself as possible and that he is not held personally accountable for any mess thereof. The subordinates would, therefore, often find themselves having to pay for the mistakes of their leader. This, from a different perspective, increases the risk of ethical dilemmas -- subordinates and junior leaders may find themselves in a situation where they are tied between waiting for the leader's approval and moving forward without the same (and then perhaps not disclosing it to the leader) just to avoid delays and its associated costs.

It would be prudent to mention that there are a number of benefits that could be derived from the use of the aristocratic approach to leadership. To begin with, it would ensure that the chain of command is adhered to and that, hence, leaders are held accountable for any decisions made in their units. Moreover, it could help in ensuring consistency in operations given that all decisions are made by the same entity. However, the issues presented earlier overshadow these benefits, denying this leadership style a place in the modern-day military.

Damon's Leadership

Damon's democratic approach to leadership obviously presents better chances of success in the military than that adopted by Massengale. This is because by showing his desire to look out for the needs and welfare of members of his team, the leader gets his subordinates to feel like they are more than just tools in the organization. Damon listens to and displays a caring attitude towards his subordinates, and in as much as he yearns to achieve success, he does not encourage sycophancy and neither does he take advantage of his subordinates to realize desired outcomes. This results in high levels of motivation among staff and increased opportunities for innovation and creativity, given that input is taken from all members of the team.

However, it is also not without its share of issues. To begin with, the approach could prove costly if the labor characterizing the division is disorganized and illiterate. Corruption is rampant in the modern-day society, and it is now relatively easy for an unqualified person to find their way into the military, just because they have links and connections to influential people inside and outside the institution. It is possible, therefore, that not all staff members may be literate enough or genuinely interested in the operations of the military, and their personal goals may not align effectively with those of the organization. Obtaining input from such members could be disastrous, as the views they give may not be in the best interest of the institution.

Moreover, given the tension that usually characterizes the relationship between line officers and staff officers, attempts by a line officer such as Damon to look out for the needs and welfare of staff members, and involve them in democratic decision-making, could be interpreted as a way to manipulate them and reduce their loyalty to their staff superiors. This could result in staff being unreceptive and unwilling to offer their cooperation to the leader, giving rise to stagnation.

Nonetheless, this approach to leadership is relevant to the modern-day military because of its openness to innovation and new ideas. With security threats changing rapidly on a daily basis, there is an open need for creativity and innovation. It is only through innovation that the military can be able to remain at par with evolving threats. Any leadership approach, therefore, that increases opportunities for innovation would have a place in the military. Leaders should, however, be keen to keep the personal goals of the organization aligned to the overall goals of the institution to minimize the risk of having conflicts of interest.

Transformational Leadership in the Military

Whilst not disputing the relevance of Damon's approach to leadership (democratic leadership), I think I would upgrade it a bit to the transformational platform if I were given an opportunity to serve as a leader in the military. The transformational approach to leadership, as Walker and Miller point out, is about "gaining performance above expectations by inspiring employees to reach beyond themselves and do more than they originally thought possible" (Walker and Miller 20). This would involve combining Damon's democratic approach and the transactional approach to leadership, where the leader offers rewards and punishments in exchange for good performance. However, rather than use rewards and incentives that appeal to the lower-order (monetary) needs of staff, the leader strives to appeal to their higher-order (career) needs by assigning them challenging, yet meaningful tasks and acting as a mentor and coach in their professional development (Walker and Miller 20). Transformational leadership, therefore, is about creating an environment for democratic decision-making, and at the same time keeping the personal goals of staff members aligned to those of the institution by guiding staff to reach the apex of their careers and achieve their maximum performance. It is about motivating and inspiring subordinates to commit to the unit's goals and shared vision, challenging them to be innovative in decision-making and problem-solving, and developing their leadership capacity through provision of challenges, support, mentoring, and coaching (Bass and Riggio).

As a transformational leader, I would lead my followers guided by the following best practices (Walker and Miller 20):

i) Seeking their views in the decision-making process and giving them opportunities to solve problems, make decisions, and establish goals - although I would still retain the final say

ii) Assigning them challenging, yet interesting and meaningful tasks that make full use of their potential and abilities

iii) Acting as a mentor and coach to empower, develop, and support them

iv) Leading by example

We have had multiple examples of transformational leaders in other industries including Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Horst Schulze in the hospitality industry, who were able to communicate with their followers so well that they went beyond their way to increase their own success as well as that of their respective institutions (Walker and Miller 20). The military, however, still remains one of those institutions where autocratic and democratic techniques rule. The command-obey method and the carrot-and-stick approach to rewards and punishment are the order of the day. Leaders tend to rely upon the use of the carrot (money) and the stick (punishment) to induce performance among their followers (Walker and Miller 19). The most common manner of direction is by threatening, cursing, and shouting at staff to arouse fear that would propel them to doing the right thing. This breeds adversary relationships, low morale, and resentment among employees. Transformational leadership, which relies on inspiration to motivate staff, is, therefore, highly necessary in the context of the military.

Despite its inherent benefits to military effectiveness, transformational leadership is not without its share of issues for concern. To begin with, there is the risk of leaders developing a culture of accepting ideas without merit now that they commit themselves to helping their followers generate complex ideas. Since employee development, in terms of creativity and intellectual curiosity, is the primary focus of transformational leadership, there is the possibility that the leader could accept ideas that are not supported by merit, just so those generating them feel inspired and motivated. Secondly, there is the risk of staff members misinterpreting the leader's style of leadership for weakness, and taking advantage of it by not performing as expected because after all, no punishment will be administered. To prevent this from happening with my subordinates, I will be keen to explain to them from the very onset why I chose the transformational approach to leadership, and how they stand to benefit from my use of the same.

Military Leaders' Values, Attributes, Skills, and Actions: Sam vs. Massengale

Military leadership can be defined simply as the process of influencing one's subordinates to work towards the accomplishment of the goals of the military by providing motivation, direction, and purpose. A leader has a responsibility to guide his unit towards mission accomplishment, and protect the welfare of soldiers working under his leadership. They are guided by a number of values, attributes, skills/competencies, and actions in their fulfillment of these responsibilities. One is judged as a good leader based on how well they are able to demonstrate the values, attributes, and competencies expected of them.

Values: a military leader is governed by a set of core values, one of which is selfless service -- putting the goals and needs of the nation, your soldiers, and your unit above your own personal interests. In addition, they are required to demonstrate candor -- being open, honest, frank and sincere with one's subordinates; competence -- proficiency required in judgment and professional knowledge; commitment -- dedication to serve the values of the country and the mission of the military and the army; personal courage; integrity; honor; respect; and loyalty. In the book, Damon is portrayed as a leader who serves his country selflessly, putting the needs of his soldiers and the country's welfare before his own. At one point, he is called upon to lead a fact-finding mission in southwest Pacific, and despite the fact that he is well-retired, Damon still obliges to offering service to his country. Massengale, on the other hand, is the exact opposite -- he is more interested in advancing his own self-interests than he is in looking out for the needs of his country and followers. In one instance, he commits resources meant to be used by Damon's division in a combat mission elsewhere, causing Damon and his team to be destroyed by their enemies, all because he had a personal vendetta against Damon.

Attributes, Competencies and Actions: attributes describe exactly what a leader in the military is -- he is a leader of character, a leader with intellectual capacity, and a leader with presence. His core competencies are to achieve, to develop, and to lead. His primary actions can be divided into three -- i) influencing people and motivating them to do the right thing, ii) operating the actions taken to motivate subordinates to accomplish unit and military missions, and iii) improving the status of military operations. Damon is portrayed as a leader committed to develop his subordinates and see them succeed professionally. Massengale, however, does not share the same vision -- as a leader, he is concerned with nothing but his own self, and how to make the maximum possible gain from his position.

Principles of an Army Leader: besides the above values, attributes, competencies, and actions, military leaders are governed by a set of core principles by which they are supposed to abide in the provision of leadership to other soldiers, multinational partners, and army civilians. These include:

i) Being technically and tactically professional

Leaders must increase their ability and qualification to lead through a well-rounded education and sound management and leadership techniques (JROTC 56). Both Damon and Massengale are educated professionals running successful careers - meaning that they are well-versed with the operations of the military, and hence, better-placed to make the right decisions.

ii) Knowing oneself and seeking self-improvement

Knowing oneself entails understanding one's interests, talents, special skills, faults, limitations, and capabilities (JROTC 56). It is only through understanding oneself that a leader would be able to devise effective ways of capitalizing on their strengths, minimizing their weaknesses, and enhancing their attributes. This would increase one's competency level and raise the level of trust that subordinates have in them. When Damon, for instance, loses his battle in a counter-attack by Japanese enemies, he takes time to contemplate what may have gone wrong, and what could be done to improve preparedness and readiness and prevent a repeat of the same in future.

iii) Knowing one's soldiers, understanding their needs, and looking out for their welfare

A leader ought to understand the attitudes, values, and interests of his followers; only then will they be able to develop effective strategies for enhancing their strengths and, hence, aligning their personal goals with the greater goals of the unit (JROTC 58). By interacting at a more personal level with his subordinates, Damon is able to understand the professional and personal needs of his subordinates, and to consequently devise effective strategies for responding to the same.

iv) Keeping one's soldiers constantly informed

A leader is required to go out of his way to keep his subordinates informed at all times, and to give reasons and explanations for the orders they give (JROTC 56). This makes subordinates feel valued and appreciated, and creates an inner drive to work hard in facilitating the realization of unit goals. Damon is seen to train with his subordinates, and I suppose that he relied on these platforms to build and foster an environment of effective and constant communication. The same is not the case for Massengale -- the fact that he neither knows nor respects the needs of his subordinates shows his lack of interest in interacting with them and establishing an environment for effective and constant communication.

v) Leading by example

A leader should lead from the front; he should conduct himself exactly the way he expects his subordinates to conduct themselves, and should also do exactly what he requires of his subordinates (JROTC 59). We see Damon as a leader who leads from the front; he trains together with his employees as a way of showing them exactly what he expects them to do. The same can, however, not be said of Massengale, who makes his leadership more about issuing orders to be executed as opposed to showing exactly how those orders ought to be executed.

vi) Ensuring that staff understand the tasks properly and are adequately-supervised

A leader should strive to ensure that subordinates understand the tasks assigned to them, and what is required of them (JROTC 58). They must be keen to offer constant, positive supervision to keep employees in line in terms of doing the right thing. We only see this aspect of leadership in Damon -- he goes out of his way to offer supervision, even when he is called from retirement.

vii) Creating a suitable environment for teamwork

Teamwork is key in the military setting; most tasks require officers to collaborate their efforts in a team setting. For this reason, a leader should make it his responsibility to create an environment that fosters team work, and to ensure that his subordinates have the competency and skill required to work effectively as part of a team (JROTC 59).

viii) Instilling in one's subordinates a sense of responsibility

A leader could instill a sense of responsibility through coaching, mentoring, and delegation of duty (JROTC 60). We see Sam Damon act as a leader who looks out for the needs of his subordinates, and who goes out of his way to coach them and see them succeed. Massengale, however, is not as selfless -- goal achievement comes first for him, and he is portrayed a being more concerned about his own personal advancement than that of his subordinates.

ix) Being responsible and taking responsibility for one's actions

A leader should be ready to accept mistakes and take responsibility for actions carried out by their subordinates and for everything that their unit does or fails to do (JROTC 55). Massengale is notorious for shifting blame to his subordinates because to him, mistakes ruin his superiors' perceptions of him, and get in the way of the achievement of his personal goals. Damon, however, displays a tendency of taking responsibility for his mistakes -- for instance, when Massengale causes Damon's division to lose against their Japanese enemies, he sits to contemplate on how he would explain the same to his superiors, and what could be done to prevent a repeat of the same in subsequent missions.

x) Making timely and sound decisions

Leaders are supposed to make timely, yet accurate decisions. Delays in decision-making on the part of the leader could cause confusion, loss of hesitancy, and project failure (JROTC 59). Delays are more likely to occur in the case of Massengale owing to his autocratic style of leadership, which requires employees to seek the leader's approval and permission for all decisions, even the most routine of them. Damon, however, empowers his employees to make decisions and solve problems on their own, He delegates authority as a way of improving junior leaders' problem-solving and decision-making skills, and this makes delays in decision-making less likely to occur.

The Roles of Staff and Line Officers

The military, like any other organization, has line and staff officers responsible for carrying out line and staff functions respectively. Line functions are responsible for advancing the division and its core work. Staff functions, on the other hand, are concerned with offering support and advice to officers in the line function (Mayer 193). In a normal organization, line officers would be responsible for purchases, sales, marketing and so on, whereas staff officers would be responsible for support functions such as public relations, accounting and human resources. The same is the case in the military; line officers are concerned with organizing, coaching, and training units in the field to ensure that they are adequately prepared for combat missions (Mayer 193). Theirs is the role of command -- they give instructions and orders and get things moving in the field. Staff officers, on the hand, play a less hands-on role -- theirs is to sit in a cubicle or office at the headquarters and offer relevant advice and legal support to their line counterparts. Since staff officers play a rather secondary role in the military, success in combat operations is usually mainly attributed to line officers -- they receive the credit, and any major bonus thereof

In the book, Sam Damon plays the role of line officer -- he is called upon on several occasions to lead fact-finding missions on foreign soil for the U.S. Army. At one point, he is called from retirement to lead a core mission in Vietnam (referred to as Khotiane in the book), and is forced to meet with Massengale (a staff officer) whose role is mainly adversarial, and who at the time heads the military advisory group. Owing to his competence and success in combat operations, Damon quickly rises up the ranks in the line function; from an infantry squad leader to division command, and the fact that his superiors trust him so much as to recall him from retirement for a fact-finding mission does not go down so well with Massengale, who, filled with spite, moves to use his power and influence to derail Damon's success and win himself as much recognition. The author, in this case, vividly paints the image of the conflict between line and staff officers, which continues to be a major obstacle to performance today (Waddell 97).