Introduction
Leadership theories, roles, and principles are essential in public and private administrations. Leaders also play critical roles in economic, political, social, educational, military, and human aspects that describe daily human activities. In military science and studies, students and professionals need to understand the different leadership skills, traits, roles, theories, principles, and applications. Therefore, the purpose of the literature review will be to assess the recommended and unrecommended theories and models of leadership, as well as their application in military and normal life situations.
In this sense, the research will demonstrate why professionals and scholars discourage the implementation of destructive, directive, traditional military, hierarchical strategic, and passive leadership approaches in military administration. In addition, the study will decipher why successful military leadership incorporates participatory, shared, interactive, follower-centric, emergence, situational, indirect, complex adaptive system (CAS), and transformational models.
Unrecommended Leadership Styles and Approaches in Military
Destructive leadership
The destructive leadership style is unrecommended in the administration of military operations. Reed and Bullis (2009) surveyed senior service college class members to examine the effect of destructive leadership on their job satisfaction. Reed and Bullis’s (2009) study also examined the effects of the destructive leadership design on the level of contact between employees and their administrators. In addition, Reed and Bullis (2009) examined how destructive leadership influences employee turnover among senior professionals in the service college. In this case, Reed and Bullis’s (2009) research showed that destructive leadership leads to negative job satisfaction among senior service members.
Similarly, Reed and Bullis’s (2009) findings demonstrate that the destructive leadership style also reduces the direct contact or interaction between the senior servicemen and their leaders. Destructive leadership also reduces the urge for senior military professionals to remain in service for long periods (Reed & Bullis, 2009). As a result, one can conclude that voiding destructive and toxic leadership approaches is essential to enhance employee retention, satisfaction, and the relationship between military officers and their leaders.
Directive leadership
The directive leadership model is also unrecommended in the military world. To prove the negative impacts of directive leadership in military administration, Arnold and Loughlin (2013) studied the theory using male and female leaders across Canada as participants of the research. The primary purpose of Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) research was to examine the impact of directive leadership on transformational headship behaviors among female and male leaders. The study also assessed the impact of directive leadership on the behaviors of leaders in the public, military, and corporate administration (Arnold & Loughlin, 2013).
In this case, the research results indicate that directive leadership hinders transformational behaviors among male and female leaders in the military and public administration sectors. The research also confirmed that directive approaches prevent intellectual stimulation among administrators in the military (Arnold & Loughlin, 2013). Similarly, Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) results illustrate that the directive style of administration affects the ability to report and describe their thoughts and ideas to one another. Therefore, the directive method prevents military leaders from incorporating transformational, expressive, and integrative behaviors among themselves and their followers.
done in as little as 1 hour
Traditional Military Leadership
Leadership studies also discourage traditional military thinking and administration strategies. The primary weakness of the traditional military style of administration is that it incorporates the tenets of authoritarian and autocratic models. Therefore, leaders undermine collective and participatory decision-making among themselves and their followers through traditional military thinking. In explaining the disadvantages of traditional military thinking, Kallberg and Cook (2017) examined the impacts of the leadership style on strategic planning and success when managing cyber-security issues in the military.
In this case, Kallberg and Cook (2017) found that military thinking and administration styles trigger path-dependent behaviors among leaders. In the end, the style negatively impacts the cognitive, critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills of leaders in the military sector. Kallberg and Cook’s (2017) result also found that traditional military thinking affects the skills of leaders to formulate and implement strategic plans before, during, and after conflicts. Therefore, to enhance conflict resolution as well as strategic planning and management, military leaders should avoid traditional thinking and administration strategies.
Hierarchical Strategic Leadership
In military administration, hierarchical leadership also prevents the effective implementation of management strategies. Paparone et al. (2008) indicates that conventionally, military administrators incorporated hierarchical strategic leadership in operations management. In these periods, the heads developed organizational hierarchies and reporting channels that governed decision-making in the sector. The military had top-middle-and-bottom level managers to create and implement strategic policies. This decision-making and management approach depended on the supervisors to directly interact and oversee the operations of juniors and subordinates in the military. As a result, the technique affected organizational relations and rapport between leaders and followers in complex situations, such as during conflicts (Paparone et al., 2008).
Therefore, based on Paparone et al. (2008) findings, hierarchical strategies hinder effective leadership when there are numerous organizational complexities and uncertainties in military operations. These weaknesses of the hierarchical model exist because the approach allows leaders to pre-determine, define, simplify, and standardize roles for the service men (Paparone et al., 2008). The technique also gave the leaders the power to control, direct, and command their juniors during military operations.
according to your instructions
Passive leadership
In military operations, passive leadership may also lead to negative management outcomes. While assessing the weaknesses of passive leadership in military operations, Luria (2008) studied the effect of the management technique on climate strength and organizational relations. Similarly, Luria (2008) research assessed the effects of the passive leadership approach on the cohesion and transformational characteristics of team members. In Luria’s (2008) research, the findings showed that passive leadership negatively impacts military heads’ organizational and leadership behaviors. Luria (2008) research found that passive leadership affects climate strength and awareness among military leaders and followers.
The leadership approach reduces the abilities of leaders and juniors to understand each other, the people around them, the environment, as well as needs of other stakeholders in the military. Luria (2008) also concluded that passive leadership in the military leads to negative organizational relations. Additionally, Luria’s (2008) study also affirmed that passive leadership destroys unity and cohesion among military leaders and group members because of the poor organizational relations that the technique promotes. Therefore, the passive technique creates unconducive and unsupportive environments for juniors or followers in military camps, leading to poor performance and management results.
Recommended Leadership Styles and Approaches in Military
Participatory Leadership
Studies recommend participatory leadership to enhance administrative success in the military sector. Arnold and Loughlin (2013) study examined the benefits of participatory leadership for Canadian business, government, and military leaders. The results of Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) research showed that participatory leadership is essential in stimulating male and male leaders’ intellectual and cognitive performances. Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) findings also showed that even though participatory leadership improves managers’ problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, male leaders implement this technique more than females in the military.
Therefore, concerning Arnold and Loughlin (2013), female service leaders should adopt the participatory style to enhance their intellectual skills and outcome when solving leadership issues in the forces. In addition, Arnold and Loughlin’s (2013) findings established that participatory leadership increases the abilities of leaders to develop and implement transformational behaviors for better organizational outcomes. Hence, the technique increases leaders’ chances of implementing inclusive and consensus-based decision-making approaches. The approach is also essential for military leaders who want to convince their followers to support positive organizational changes easily.
Shared Leadership
Another leadership approach that studies recommend to improve the management of military operations is the shared strategy. This leadership approach supports the successful administration of military affairs because it requires managers and followers to interact and share ideas with one another. The approach involves continuous communication and interaction between juniors, seniors, and other stakeholders in the military world before the development and implementation of corporate strategies that affect the operations of one another. In understanding the benefits of shared leadership in the military, Lindsay et al. (2011) and Offord et al. (2017) studies administrative studies are essential.
For example, Lindsay et al. (2011) show that shared strategy is essential in military leadership since it supports team leadership and management. The approach helps leaders build cohesive working teams that easily support strategy and change implementations. Similarly, Offord et al. (2017) research indicates that in the military, shared leadership encourages team interaction and positive organizational relations. The approach reduces resistance and friction between leaders and their followers during decision-making.
Interactive Leadership
The interactive administration model is also relevant in managing military organizations. This leadership technique is beneficial in government and defense administrations because it incorporates the principles of collaborative, interactive, follower centric, and shared models based on Offord et al. (2017) and Lindsay et al. (2011) findings. According to Lindsay et al. (2011), interactive leadership requires continuous communication between leaders and their followers before, during, and after policy creation and implementation. The approach allows military heads to use consensus-based and information-based ideas to implement organizational changes.
In relation to Offord et al. (2017) research, an interactive administration model encourages engagement and positive relationships between leaders and followers in military entities. This form of leadership is essential when managing uncertainties and complexities in the continuously changing and robust missions of military heads, forces, as well as service men and women. Based on the description and results of Offord et al. (2017) research, service men and women can incorporate shared and interactive leadership to build functional teams at work. These strategies will also be key in developing supportive workplace teams to successfully implement military objectives based on continuously changing organizational objectives and expectations.
Follower Centric Leadership
The follower-centric management is also vital in successful military administration. Offord et al. (2017) support the use of the follower-centric approach in the military because it coincides with the interactive model, where both entail leaders listening to the needs and contributions of followers during decision-making. Likewise, Lindsay et al. (2011) findings support the introduction of follower-centric leadership in the military management of teams and human resources. The descriptions and principles of the shared administrative strategy presented by Lindsay et al. (2011) coincide with the tenets of the follower-centric approach.
These tenets include empowering junior staff with ideas and allowing them to participate in military decision-making. In addition, shared leadership encourages follower-centric administration since it involves delegating authority and roles to junior and subordinate staff as the first line of defense in military management (Lindsay et al., 2011). Ramthun and Matkin’s (2014) case study also implies that follower centric approach with shared leadership principles may be relevant to military leadership during emergencies and life-threatening situations. Therefore, the follower-centric administration in the military helps build trust and cohesion between leaders and followers because of seniors entrust juniors with managerial roles as well as decisions.
Emergence leadership Model
Successful military management also requires the implementation of emergency leadership techniques. According to Vogelaar (2007), the emergency administration model is essential during crisis management in military operations. The approach allows managers and leaders to integrate ideas and contributions to mitigate the negative impacts of natural or manmade disasters in service colleges. The model also helps managers in the forces implement leadership strategies to reduce a country’s exposure to disasters threatening national security. Ramthun and Matkin’s (2014) study also highlights the benefits of emergency management approaches of military leaders.
For example, Ramthun and Matkin (2014) show that the emergency leadership approach helps manage the perils of dangerous dynamism and uncertainties in the military world. Incident management demands that leaders provide followers with equal opportunities of proposing solutions to control the impacts of disastrous situations in the military. The approach encourages idea-sharing and mutual influence in military teams to improve situational awareness.
Situational Leadership
The situational leadership technique also improves the functionalities and success of military administration. According to Hollis (2014), the situational approach incorporates the philosophies of contingency leadership in military operations. The model allows heads to change, customize, and vary their administrative techniques based on current situations, tasks, and organizational needs in the military (Hollis, 2014). Hollis (2014) also reports that situational strategy allows military administrators to incorporate transformational and transactional leadership models for better organizational outcomes.
In most situations, situational leaders have traits, skills, and characteristics that resemble those of transformational and transactional leadership (Eid et al., 2004). These similarities allow military leaders to influence the attitude of followers towards proposed changes that support group success. Eid et al. (2004) and Vecchio et al. (2006) also indicate that situational leadership encourages status quo awareness among military managers. Therefore, the leadership model increases successful decision-making based on situation awareness in the military world with a high prevalence of uncertainties.
Indirect Leadership
Scholars and professionals also suggest that indirect leadership enhances positive results in military administration. Concerning the strengths of this model of administration, Larsson et al. (2005) as well as Charbonneau (2004) studied the benefits of indirect leadership in military operations. Charbonneau’s (2004) results showed that the indirect model encourages consultative, collaborative, and shared leadership among service men, women, and military organizations. Charbonneau’s (2004) findings also specify that the indirect approach enhances leaders’ inspirational and motivational skills.
In the same context, Larsson et al. (2005) results show that indirect leadership makes military heads image-oriented and action-oriented. These tactics enhance the ability of military heads to initiate and implement change among team members for better organizational images and brands. Generally, indirect leadership philosophies emphasize the importance of shaping the behaviors of leaders to match current organizational needs. This principle harmonizes with the tenets of the behavioral system proposed by Mattaini and Aspholm (2016). According to Mattaini and Aspholm (2016), leadership success depends on a set of universal personalities and skills. These competencies may include collaborative, resilience, transformational, transactional, and goal-oriented, among other personalities that support the successful administration of military operations.
Complex Adaptive System (CAS)
Successful military leaders also incorporate the CAS of administration in their roles. According to Paparone et al. (2008), the complex adaptive model requires leaders to implement contingency and non-traditional approaches to administration. Moreover, Paparone et al. (2008) show that CAS leaders are learners, improvisers, and emergent thinkers who promote organizational growth and changes for the best interests of stakeholders. Based on this, one can conclude that CAS managers have servant, democratic, and transactional leadership skills and competencies since they are patriots as well as nationalists. As active servant and transactional leaders, they enhance organizational agility and transformation based on current and future situations as well as organizational needs (Hollis, 2014; Ivey & Kline, 2010; Taylor et al., 2015; Kirchner & Akdere, 2017).
On the other hand, as patriots, nationalists, and democrats, CAS leaders support equality, inclusion, and shared decision-making in the military (Kirchner & Akdere, 2017; Solar, 2022; Griffith, 2010). Thus, the technique encourages leaders to have team and relationship-building skills. In addition, complex adaptive system leaders are also flexible, frequently incorporating ideas of other managers and followers at work.
Transformational Model
Fruitful military leadership incorporates transformational leadership philosophies. Ivey and Kline (2010) show that transformational strategy eliminates hierarchies in militaries, encouraging team, relationship, and contingent leadership. Transformational leaders are compassionate, empower subordinates, and apply sincerity in corporate leadership (Bangari, 2014). In addition, García-Guiu et al. (2016) indicate that the model allows military leaders such as cadets to incorporate laissez-faire, active, and transactional techniques in administration. Nissinen et al. (2022) report also suggest that transformational leadership improves collective or group efficiency that depends on cohesion and positive attitudes toward success.
Concerning Eid et al. (2008) study, transformational strategies support leadership learning, development, and corporate agility. Besides, through transformational model supports the development of patriotic and nationalist behaviors among soldiers and their heads (Griffith, 2010). The style of leadership also supports compliant and contingent behaviors as well as positive attitudes among the service men and women (Hardy et al., 2010). The model also supports independent decision-making among followers by providing them professional development opportunities (Kark et al., 2003). Thus, these findings show that the transformational model guarantees multifaceted solutions to traditional leadership problems in the military sector.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the study confirms that some leadership models are applicable in military leadership, while others result in negative administrative results. The research demonstrates that ineffective military administration may result from managers implementing destructive, directive, and traditional military thinking models. Further, the hierarchical strategic and passive leadership models also hinder effective leadership in the military. These unrecommended administration techniques prevent creativity, problem-solving, team-building, cohesion, and positive relationships between followers and heads in military organizations.
On the contrary, the best and most functional leadership models for military heads, as demonstrated by the study, include the share, emergence, situation, CAS, transformational, participatory, interactive, and indirect strategies. These approaches encourage collective decision-making and team leadership among service people because they are follower-centric. These models also enhance trust and positive relationships between solder and their leaders. The military managers that incorporate these strategies also promote situational awareness, organizational agility, employee empowerment, and consensus-based decision-making. For these reasons, one can conclude that the strengths of recommended leadership models complement one another. On the other hand, the weaknesses of the unrecommended approaches are counterbalanced by the advantages offered by transformational, follower-centric, non-conventional, hybrid, and CAS administrative models in the military.
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. Web.
Bangari, R. S. (2014). Establishing A Framework of Transformational Grassroots Military Leadership: Lessons from High-Intensity, High-Risk Operational Environments. Vikalpa, 39(3), 13–34. Web.
Charbonneau, D. (2004). Influence tactics and perceptions of transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.
Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C., Nyhus, J. K., & Larsson, G. (2004). Situation awareness and transformational leadership in senior military leaders: An exploratory study. Military Psychology, 16(3), 203-209. Web.
Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Bartone, P. T., & Nissestad, O. A. (2008). Growing transformational leaders: Exploring the role of personality hardiness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.
García-Guiu, C., Moya, M., Molero, F., & Moriano, J. A. (2016). Transformational leadership and group potency in small military units: The mediating role of group identification and cohesion. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 32(3), 145-152. Web.
Griffith, J. (2010). When does soldier patriotism or nationalism matter? The role of transformational small‐unit leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1235-1257. Web.
Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., Jones, G., Shariff, A., Munnoch, K., Isaacs, I., & Allsopp, A. J. (2010). The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors, psychological, and training outcomes in elite military recruits. The leadership quarterly, 21(1), 20-32. Web.
Hollis, E. T. (2014). Leadership styles: A phenomenological study of transformational, transactional, and situational leadership styles employed by CIOs at military combatant commands (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Web.
Ivey, G. W., & Kline, T. J. (2010). Transformational and active transactional leadership in the Canadian military. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.
Kallberg, J., & Cook, T. S. (2017). The unfitness of traditional military thinking in cyber. IEEE Access, 5, 8126-8130. Web.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 246. Web.
Kirchner, M., & Akdere, M. (2017). Military leadership development strategies: Implications for training in non-military organizations. Industrial and Commercial Training. Web.
Larsson, G., Sjöberg, M., Vrbanjac, A., & Björkman, T. (2005). Indirect leadership in a military context: A qualitative study on how to do it. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(3), 215-227. Web.
Lindsay, D. R., Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2011). Shared leadership in the military: Reality, possibility, or pipedream? Military Psychology, 23(5), 528-549. Web.
Luria, G. (2008). Climate strength–How leaders form consensus. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 42-53. Web.
Mattaini, M. A., & Aspholm, R. (2016). Contributions of behavioral systems science to leadership for a new progressive movement. The Behavior Analyst, 39(1), 109-121. Web.
Nissinen, V., Dormantaitė, A., & Dungveckis, L. (2022). Transformational leadership in military education: Lithuanian case study. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 44(1), 103-116. Web.
Offord, M., Gill, R., & Kendal, J. (2016). Leadership between decks: A synthesis and development of engagement and resistance theories of leadership based on evidence from practice in Royal Navy warships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.
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.
Ramthun, A. J., & Matkin, G. S. (2014). Leading dangerously: A case study of military teams and shared leadership in dangerous environments. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 244-256. Web.
Reed, G. E., & Bullis, R. C. (2009). The impact of destructive leadership on senior military officers and civilian employees. Armed Forces & Society, 36(1), 5-18. Web.
Solar, C. (2022). Trust in the military in post-authoritarian societies. Current Sociology, 70(3), 317-337. Web.
Taylor, T. Z., Psotka, J., & Legree, P. (2015). Relationships among applications of tacit knowledge and transformational/transactional leader styles: An exploratory comparison of the MLQ and TKML. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Web.
Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, R. C., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of situational leadership theory: A replication in a military setting. Small Group Research, 37(5), 407-424. Web.
Vogelaar, A. L. (2007). Leadership from the edge: A matter of balance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 27-42. Web.