The ability to lead is an important trait in the organizational world today. With organizations encountering increasingly complex situations, leaders have a role to successfully steer their organizations through those situations. They must properly influence and guide their followers in the achievement of organizational goals and objectives (Bateman, Snell & Konopaske, 2016). Leadership ability is particularly important in military organizations. The security environment has become ever more challenging, warranting even more effective leadership (Laver, 2008). Military organizations now grapple with challenges such as craftier enemies, international terrorism, increased incidence of natural disasters, and reduced budgetary allocations. Internally, military organizations face challenges relating to issues such as personnel motivation and retention, capacity building, and veteran welfare. Yet, military organizations must constantly ensure national security. Navigating the increasingly complex security environment requires military leaders to have certain qualities. This paper discusses these qualities. Attention is particularly paid to situational leadership, integrity, people skills, effective communication, time management skills, teamwork, coping with stress, succession planning, and service leadership.
It may not necessarily be a prerequisite for success, but lack of it exposes the leader and the organization to a great deal of danger.
Integrity is particularly important in military leadership. In fact, integrity is explicitly articulated as one of the most important values of military officers (Laver, 2008). They are obligated to do what is right, legally and morally. Lying and taking shortcuts can have grave consequences on the military and the public at large. For instance, failing to take the relevant disciplinary action on defiant officers can hamper the achievement of military objectives in one way or another. It may result in a pool of officers without regard for ethics and the law, which may tarnish the image of the military. Dishonesty on the part of a military leader can also result in the loss of lives or give adversaries an advantage.
For a leader in the military, integrity is crucial for building the trust their followers place in them (Taylor, Rosenbach & Rosenbach, 2009). A leader who demonstrates integrity in their behavior and decision making influences their relationship with their subordinates. Subordinates not only increase their trust in the leader, but also view integrity as a core value of their own work. This is because subordinates are always watching the leader -- they observe every move or decision their leader makes. In essence, a leader serves as a role model to their followers, and must constantly demonstrate the highest standards of character possible, whether on or off duty. This is vital for breeding a culture of honesty, transparency, and accountability in the military.
However, achieving perfect integrity is not an easy endeavor as human beings are inherently selfish. In addition to innate selfishness, some situations may compel a leader to surrender their integrity. During combat, for instance, it may not be in the interest of the leader to tell the absolute truth as the consequences may far outweigh the outcomes of not telling the truth. The military may also lie about nuclear tests or use corrupt means to achieve certain ends. This is, however, not unusual as every profession presents ethical or moral dilemmas. Even so, the importance of integrity cannot be overemphasized. Military leaders must constantly portray integrity.
And members of the military who contemplate suicide should be helped by their fellow members, health professionals, military leaders and others in their community. Conclusion Problems affecting the physical and mental health of the members of the military beset its management. Causes may be known or unknown but they are not without solutions. These can range from the introduction of appropriate training programs, the application of new tools or procedures, a
Military Ops Military-Led Reconstruction and Fiedler's Contingency Theory In light of the unfolding instability, violence and difficulty that characterized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States military must reexamine its approach to the strategic invasion, occupation, reconstruction and power-handover that have evolved into a war-making template for the nation. Accordingly, the research conducted hereafter considers the need for a change in leadership orientation, using Fiedler's Contingency Theory as the lens
Military Management and the Agency Problem Agency theory can be helpful for understanding any organizational conflict or behavior, and applies equally as well to the private and public sector. Applied to the military organization, agency theory "offers insight into how military strategies relate to political objectives," an important consideration (Petrina, 2005, p. v). When it is applied to the corporate world, agency theory also offers insight into how executive decisions are
Organizations The Structure of the British Army Compared to a Civilian Business Organization Military life, especially during combat situations, is difficult for the individual who has always been a civilian to imagine. The structure of the organization is rigid, strict control is maintained of all personnel, the management style is historically largely authoritarian, and conditions can be harsh. However, there are always people who volunteer for this service for many reasons.
Organizations in the perspective of political systems: in organizations, influence and power are derived from various sources and could be vested in teams of people more than in individuals. Sometimes, teams with a common interest form an alliance and become a coalition to exert a further influence. For example, individuals asserting civic rights by the power of majority used labor unions as traditional approaches. Nevertheless, influential teams are a source
Military Spending In today's society, military spending is on the minds of American citizens more than ever. With the constant threat of terrorism and imminent war on the horizon, the United States government is spending billions of dollars on drastic measures to fight a large-scale war as well as to continue to combat terrorism. Critics against increased military spending argue that the funds set aside for such defense measures could be