Collective Leadership in the U.S. Army: Shared Command
This paper examines the concept of collective leadership and its growing relevance to the United States Army in the era of asymmetric warfare. Beginning with a critique of traditional, centralized command structures, the paper explores how distributed and shared leadership models offer greater adaptability in the face of decentralized threats such as modern terrorism. Drawing on transformational leadership theory and frameworks specific to military contexts, the paper argues that no single leader can possess the full range of skills required by today's complex operational environments. It concludes that building diverse teams capable of sharing leadership functions represents one of the most promising directions for future military leadership research.
- Introduction: Leadership Beyond the Individual: Introduces collective leadership and Army context
- What Is Collective Leadership?: Defines collective leadership and links to transformational theory
- Asymmetric Warfare and the Need for Decentralized Command: Explains how modern threats demand decentralized structures
- Why No Single Leader Is Enough: Argues no individual leader covers all situational demands
- Building Diverse Teams Through Collective Leadership: Proposes diverse teams as collective leadership solution
- Conclusion: Summarizes argument and acknowledges remaining limitations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds an abstract leadership concept — collective leadership — in a concrete operational context (U.S. Army asymmetric warfare), making the argument immediately relevant and purposeful.
- It builds logically from a problem (no single leader can master all situations) to a solution (collective, distributed structures), giving the essay a clear argumentative arc.
- The author appropriately connects collective leadership to the established transformational leadership literature, demonstrating awareness of the broader theoretical field.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a problem–solution argumentative structure supported by cited scholarly and government sources. By first establishing the limitations of individual leadership in dynamic environments, the author creates the intellectual space for the collective leadership model to emerge as a logical and evidence-backed response. This technique — identifying a gap and then proposing a framework to fill it — is a foundational move in applied leadership writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by situating collective leadership within broader leadership research trends. It then defines the concept and links it to transformational theory before narrowing to the Army's specific operational challenges. Two central paragraphs argue why individual leaders are insufficient and why diverse collective structures are preferable. The conclusion honestly acknowledges remaining limitations, adding intellectual balance to what is otherwise a straightforwardly persuasive paper.
Introduction: Leadership Beyond the Individual
Many people believe that the leader in any group or organization is one of the most important factors necessary to achieve the group's objectives. As a result of the perceived importance of formal leadership, this role receives a great deal of attention, and a plethora of research has been conducted to better understand the qualities and actions of leaders that can make them successful across a range of different situations. However, other aspects of leadership are beginning to attract more attention, extending the focus of leadership beyond the leader themselves. For instance, some research has focused on shared and distributed leadership as well as related theories. As the Army continues to evolve into a new generation of warfare, the need for decentralized command structures has grown more salient, and leadership research has consequently broadened its focus from its traditional scope. Collective leadership has been identified as one of the possible functions that can increase the adaptability of the Army and help it meet the challenges it now faces.
What Is Collective Leadership?
Collective leadership is a concept that has been steadily receiving increased attention as modern organizations, institutions, and communities face new challenges emerging in the 21st century. It is in this environment that leaders must be capable of crossing many boundaries, which can sometimes require that traditional assumptions be unlearned and new practices relearned (Martin, 2007). The rigid command structures of previous generations are being challenged as the importance of teamwork and distributed leadership usher in new paradigms that are more responsive and adaptable.
There are a range of different ideas about exactly what the collective leadership model does, or should, entail, but there are some basic underlying principles that seem to be consistently shared. These principles view the role of leadership as more of a relational model in which the group as a whole shares in the leadership function, and as such, collective leadership transfers leadership and decision-making in a fluid manner (Martin, 2007). Many aspects of this perspective are consistent with more traditional leadership models, such as the transformational model. Transformational leadership is defined as a leadership style in which leaders are able to influence their subordinates to achieve higher levels of performance (Bass, 1999). The leader sets an inspiring vision for the organization and empowers the collective unit to fully devote themselves to meeting their shared objectives.
Asymmetric Warfare and the Need for Decentralized Command
In the context of the United States Military, the era of asymmetric warfare has been quickly ushered in (Friedrich, Vessey, Schuelke, Ruark, & Mumford, 2009). This era can be defined as one in which there is no "enemy" in the traditional sense — one that is centrally organized with a structured command channel. The challenges that the military now faces are largely decentralized and often consist of various loosely affiliated networks or cells. With challenges such as modern terrorism emerging, the entire leadership structure needed to face these challenges effectively has been called into question. Furthermore, meeting such challenges requires that an organization be adaptable, flexible, and dynamic so that decisions can be made quickly on the spot rather than consistently being relayed through a central command post.
Conclusion
After many generations of leadership research, no single model has emerged that can be considered the best approach for all situations. Leadership is a complex topic with many dynamic components that are unique to different circumstances. Furthermore, the asymmetric nature of modern warfare has complicated the ability of leadership models to encompass all of the considerations that lie within sets of challenges that are often dynamic and shifting. Therefore, shifting the focus from a single leader to a collective leadership structure has been identified as a way in which teams can expand their leadership assets to meet a more diverse set of challenges. However, there are still many limitations to this approach, since it adds considerable layers of complexity to a field of research that was already complex to begin with.
References
Bass, B. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9–32.
Friedrich, T., Vessey, W., Schuelke, M., Ruark, G., & Mumford, M. (2009). A framework for collective leadership. Retrieved from U.S. Army Research Institute: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a544438.pdf
Martin, D. (2007). The collective leadership framework. Retrieved from Ethical Leadership: http://www.ethicalleadership.org/uploads/2/6/2/6/26265761/collective_leadership_framework_workbook.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.