Military Leader? Despite the Fact

¶ … military leader?

Despite the fact that the word 'leadership' is often used relatively generically to describe a variety of styles and approaches, the characteristics of what we would call a 'great leader' is often quite variable. Some leaders are praised for their adaptability to different circumstances; other leaders are praised for being stalwart and unyielding. This largely has to do with the circumstances under which the leader operates: the leadership demands placed upon a military general are very different than those of someone trying to rally support to begin a new, creative project at work. The types of nonhierarchical, participatory and democratic styles of leadership embraced at technology companies like Google are simply not feasible in the military.

However, even though leading a military campaign demands a level of command and control that might not be expected or accepted in other contexts, there still is variation between the styles of different military leaders. Hermann (1998) has noted that responsiveness to constraints, openness to information, and the motivation of the leader are all determinants of how a political leader approaches his followers. Fundamentally, a military leader must be adaptable and willing to change with circumstances, even though the safety and security of the nation he or she is defending is always the ultimate priority. One common criticism is that nations are always fighting the 'last war' they fought and "military capabilities rarely evolve faster than the threats to which they must respond."[footnoteRef:1] [1: T. Pfaff, "Resolving ethical challenges in an era of persistent conflict," SSI, 1]

Although there may be limits upon how much input a military leader can offer to change a decision by the nation's chief executive, the leader can and should use his or her influence to ensure that military capabilities are kept modernized and functional and that the leaders of the nation understand the degree to which a certain level of military readiness is required to realistically fight the proposed war. A military leader does not have the power to determine if a war is fought, but can exert his or her influence to ensure that it is fought correctly, in a manner best to assume victory, and in an ethical fashion according to the rules of war.

Strong military leaders are willing to challenge apparently limiting constraints and have a strong belief in their ability to control circumstances. "For the political leader who does not believe he can control what happens, fear of failure may supersede and crowd out sense of timing."[footnoteRef:2] This underlines the fact that a good military leader cannot be egotistical and place his own needs above those of the mission. When faced with adversary, he cannot be fearful of losing face or seeming disloyal but instead must ask 'what actions are necessary to take for the greater good?' Even when a military leader disciplines a subordinate for disobedience, these actions are because of the requirements of safety and the need for adherence to institutional rules, not because of personal anger. Military officers must hold fast to an "objective professional ethic" of responsibilities owed to themselves, to the institution, to their leaders, and to the American public.[footnoteRef:3] When personal and individual obligations conflict with those of the collective ethos, the need to preserve institutional authority must be upheld. For example, "where it would be improper for a manager at IBM to invade the privacy of her employees, the officer is morally obligated to do so" rather than place others in the service at risk.[footnoteRef:4] [2: Margaret Hermann, "Assessing leadership constraints: A trait analysis," Social Science Leadership Automation, 1998, 15] [3: Snider, D., Nagl, J. & Pfaff, T. "Army professionalism, the military ethic, and officership in the 21st century." Strategic Studies Institute, 1999, 8] [4: Snider et al., 1999, 8.]