Sam Damon vs. Courtney Massengale: Military Leadership Styles

Introduction

In the military setting, it is very common to hear statements like "you are acting like a Courtney" or "you are acting like a 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 devoted to the service of their country and its people. However, whereas Sam acts as a selfless, caring, and kind commander, Courtney presents himself as the exact opposite — a charming professional intent on portraying a can-do image at whatever cost, even if it means stepping on his subordinates' toes just to get things done. This paper compares the leadership approaches adopted by both characters and assesses (i) their relevance in the military today and (ii) the extent to which either approach is used.

Leadership Styles of Damon and Massengale

Simply stated, a leadership style refers to the manner in which a leader motivates followers, gives direction, and implements plans (Walker and Miller 15). In other words, it refers to how a leader administers leadership and control, how they give instructions to subordinates, and how they offer coaching to ensure that instructions are carried out effectively. In the book, Sam Damon exercises the democratic style of leadership, in which the leader appreciates the role played by subordinates in the organization. As such, he goes out of his way not only to solicit their participation in decision-making, but also to 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 exploitation of his subordinates to achieve success. Moreover, he does not place excessive emphasis on his own personal success; rather, he strives for team participation and is keen on achieving success by ensuring that both he and the members of his unit are adequately prepared.

Massengale, however, adopts a different approach — the impersonal, autocratic leadership style, in which decisions are made and orders given without input from subordinates (Walker and Miller 15). He gives instructions without defense or explanation, and his main focus is on achieving goals rather than keeping his people satisfied. To him, the needs and welfare of his staff come second to goal achievement (Walker and Miller 15). His primary focus is on pleasing his superiors and gaining a personal reputation, and he strives to achieve this even if it means stepping on those below him in the hierarchical structure.

Potential Issues Arising from Each Leadership Approach

Massengale's autocratic approach may work effectively in some environments, especially where large sums of money are involved and the work performed is repetitive in nature. In the context of the military, however, it could cause staff to become overly dependent on their supervisors for instructions, and therefore unable to devise creative and innovative solutions on their own. Autocratic leadership has little place in today's military, because creativity and innovation are crucial for combat success. Security threats are evolving dynamically, and new threats emerge on an almost daily basis; the degree of creativity within a military unit must evolve at the same rate if it is to combat those threats effectively. Having a unit that cannot adjust flexibly to changing threats and cannot innovate successfully would be disastrous. It would be prudent to cultivate a culture in which staff feel like part of the greater combat team — valued and appreciated. This can only be achieved through participative, democratic leadership, where the needs of staff are placed alongside combat objectives and soldiers are treated as participants rather than mere subordinates.

Beyond rigidness and lack of creativity, there is also the issue of staff losing drive, initiative, and esprit de corps as a result of feeling undervalued. An autocratic leader would require even the simplest decisions to receive his approval before they can be executed (Slim 36). Similarly, he would require subordinates to provide back briefs on the status of every decision they undertake (Slim 36). Guided by this type of culture, subordinates would eventually be disempowered from making decisions, fearing 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 even amid rapidly changing security threats.

A third possible issue is that of delays. If subordinates must obtain the leader's approval before making decisions on even the most routine activities, bureaucratic delays become nearly inevitable. The situation is worse when the leader is impersonal — as was the case with Massengale — and intent on creating a name for himself with no room for mistakes. Such a leader would be keen to sweep blame as far away from himself as possible and to avoid personal accountability for any failures. Subordinates would therefore often find themselves paying for the mistakes of their leader. This also increases the risk of ethical dilemmas, as junior leaders may find themselves torn between waiting for approval and moving forward independently — perhaps without disclosing it to the leader — simply to avoid costly delays.

It should be noted that there are some benefits to the autocratic approach. It tends to ensure that the chain of command is adhered to and that leaders are held accountable for decisions made within their units. It can also promote consistency in operations, since all decisions flow through the same authority. However, the issues outlined above outweigh these benefits, denying this leadership style a practical place in the modern military.

Damon's democratic approach to leadership clearly presents better chances of success in the military than Massengale's autocratic model. By genuinely looking out for the needs and welfare of his team members, Damon makes his subordinates feel like more than mere tools in the organization. He listens to and displays a caring attitude toward his soldiers, and while he yearns for success, he does not encourage sycophancy or exploit his subordinates to achieve desired outcomes. The result is high levels of motivation and increased opportunities for innovation and creativity, given that input is drawn from all members of the team.

However, the democratic approach is not without its own challenges. It could prove costly if the unit's personnel are disorganized or lacking in genuine commitment. Corruption is prevalent in modern society, and it is possible for unqualified individuals to find their way into the military through personal connections. Their personal goals may not align with those of the organization, and obtaining input from such members could prove harmful rather than helpful.

Moreover, given the tension that often characterizes the relationship between line officers and staff officers, attempts by a line officer such as Damon to look out for the needs of staff members and involve them in democratic decision-making could be misinterpreted as a manipulation tactic designed to reduce their loyalty to their staff superiors. This could cause staff to be unreceptive and unwilling to cooperate, giving rise to stagnation.

Nonetheless, Damon's approach remains highly relevant to the modern military because of its openness to innovation and new ideas. With security threats changing rapidly, creativity and innovation are essential. Leaders should, however, be careful to keep the personal goals of individuals aligned with the overall goals of the institution in order to minimize conflicts of interest.