When it comes to discussing what the primary role of defense planning is, a reasonable suggestion would be that it is building and maintaining a military organization that protects and advances national security objectives. In addition to that, a national defense must be efficient, not only in terms of choosing proper end products and cost-effectively developing them but also in terms of the speed of decision-making and implementation. As a consequence, the need to develop the competencies and abilities of leaders in the field is not generally considered a military core activity. Smiljanić (2016) notes that traditional methods of command and control, while historically acceptable, will not be sufficient in an environment where a military organization needs to be able to adapt through change. However, contemporary leadership styles seem to be relevant in today’s military as they meet the requirements of the present times.
One historically acceptable form of management in a military organization is authoritarian leadership. Zhang and Xie (2017) state that it emphasizes complete power and control over subordinates and requires unconditional obedience from them. Authoritarian leaders are in charge of the hierarchical order that requires subordinates to be obedient and dependent: they enforce rules, designate rewards and penalties, and emphasize personal domination. In such hierarchical structures, subordinates view that they are to be subject to legitimate authority. Otherwise, they are to be punished. Accordingly, they feel anxious tense and tend to explode in negative social exchanges with their supervisors. Without any socio-emotional benefits, subordinates only do what is required of them to be considered good workers but are not motivated to perform beyond their responsibilities.
The changing of this organizational effectiveness orientation is inevitable as it does not suit the current extremely turbulent and extraordinarily interconnected environment. Paparone et al. (2008) note that, in such an environment, strategic leadership based on a hierarchy will become increasingly less sufficient due to failure to timely respond to changing circumstances. Therefore, hierarchical design, in which official authority is valued the most, is shifting to a complex adaptive organizational structure. In this structure, the sharing of knowledge, individual and collective competence, and ethical justification are the things valued the most. According to Paparone et al. (2008), one of the mental models of organization to adopt considering this structure is the model of organizations as complex adaptive systems (CASs). If the military is to be recognized as a CAS, then areas of focus and conclusions made will change drastically. They would differ from those that would occur if the military were to be thought of as professional bureaucrats, requesting more efficient and effective management in accordance with traditional rules of administrative conduct.
Moreover, in complex adaptive systems, any of the contemporary leadership styles can take place as all of them are aligned with the principles of such systems. For one, there is transformational leadership, which, as per Arnold and Loughlin (2013), is characterized by idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individual consideration. Then there is transactional leadership: according to Hollis (2014), leaders implementing this style negotiate with their followers to reward them for achieving certain goals or objectives and take into account their followers’ self-interests. Situational leadership’s focus is on adapting one’s management style depending on each task’s unique circumstances and the capabilities of a team. Each of these leadership styles takes precedence over authoritarian leadership in a variety of factors, but mainly, they all treat the human capital as one of the most valuable assets and not as consumables.
In conclusion, reconceptualizing the military as a complex adaptive system is a requirement of the current times. Gone are the days when traditional authoritarian leadership was considered the only possible management style in the structure of such a system. Today, it is a mere fact that an organization’s human capital is one of its biggest valuables and must be treated as such. Therefore, any of the contemporary leadership styles, among which are transformational, transactional, and situational leadership, is relevant in a modern military organization as all of them focus on treasuring employees, inspiring and rewarding them.
References
Arnold, K. A., & Loughlin, C. (2013). Integrating transformational and participative versus directive leadership theories: Examining intellectual stimulation in male and female leaders across three contexts.Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(1), 67-84. Web.
Hollis, E. T. (2014). Leadership styles: A phenomenological study of transformational, transactional, and situational leadership styles employed by CIOs at military
combatant commands (Publication No. 3620687) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest LLC.
Paparone, C. R., Anderson, R. A., & McDaniel Jr, R. R. (2008). Where military professionalism meets complexity science.Armed Forces & Society, 34(3), 433-449. Web.
Smiljanić, D. (2016). Transformational military leadership – requirements, characteristics and development.Vojenské Rozhledy, 25, 18-48. Web.
Zhang, Y., & Xie, Y. H. (2017). Authoritarian leadership and extra-role behaviors: A role-perception perspective.Management and Organization Review, 13(1), 147-166. Web.