The critical meaning of leadership has not changed since time immemorial. Leadership in all of the recorded history has always involved the person in charge of a group. Being a leader today still means having influence and authority to make decisions for the group. The United States military has been developing leaders since independence. Taking into context the extreme events U.S. troops frequently find themselves, leadership and management are crucial (Gallagher, 2016). When leadership is ineffective, the consequences are not only revenue or economic catastrophe. Within the army context, both leadership and manage combine into one concept.
According to Simons (2017), the military leadership has experienced tremendous transformation since the time soldiers went into the battlefield. Throughout history, individuals who were lucky enough to have great army leaders have succeeded by controlling their territory and prevailing over their neighbors and those civilizations without strategic military leaders got defeated and destroyed (Simons, 2017). To have a strong army calls for a good leader. The current leadership styles in the military are less effective and efficient owing to technology and changing dynamic within the socio-economic spectrum (Simons, 2017) Leaders, irrespective of their skills and experience grapple with challenges. Nonetheless, noncommissioned soldiers might view these challenges as a way to develop and grow their leadership skills. As such, contemporary times hold many drawbacks to leadership in the army point of view (Gallagher, 2016). To adjust to environmental changing aspects, many commanders require to foster competing demands. They strive for encouraging independence and control, supporting individuality and teamwork, and ensuring flexibility and efficiency. The context that influences the army leadership and management is the core function of the military organization, which is maintaining security. In this way, soldiers have been authorized to use force whenever necessary.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ford (2015) comments that communications play an integral part in the interaction between leaders and their juniors. It is a collaborative endeavor. However, poor communication regularly leads to problems for the subordinates. As a noncommissioned officer (NCO), I often saw a bulk of challenges that senior NCOs faced, which revolved around communication. For example, some leaders in charge refuse to listen to the advice offered based on experiences and training. For the most part, this often led to failure. It is noteworthy to mention that communication does not merely entail day-to-day interactions with soldiers, but email messages, frequent phone calls, counseling, among other things. Before, I thought senior NCOs communication methods were effective because of their efforts to treat everyone the same. However, as I grew and developed, it dawned upon me every person is different and unique and that every technique of communication is ineffective and can result in more issues in professional relationships. Poor communication is also a challenge for subordinates because they are the last recipient of information as it filters through multiple levels of leadership (Ford, 2015). When this occurs, the details often change and turn out to be inaccurate.
Another problem that can be seen in the military leadership is when the army appears to be stuck relieving ineffective commanders. In large part, there is just a high-profile relief of some type. For example, some commanders hurl insults and sexist remarks, and other inappropriate comments about subordinates who work for them (Whitlock, 2014). As such, this too often creates a toxic work environment. By contrast, Gallagher (2016) opines that the lack of discipline is associated with similarities to the definition used to describe management.
The building of social leadership distance between leaders and juniors is another modern challenge witnessed in military leadership, and the management via relationships with the fraternity, friendships between high ranking military leaders and their juniors (Kark, Karazi-Presler, Tubi, 2016). While leadership in the military is marked by “distance”, which is used as a strategy in controlling and displacing, distance in military context refers to the mechanism in which commanders and subordinates influence and implement their distances from their followers to have a management role and have the capacity to influence others (Kark et al., 2016). The lack of distance makes it impossible for commanders to control and displace their juniors. For the most part, this reveals the ongoing tension between closeness and distances within the army command. As such, commanders are unable to make forge exchange interactions and close-emotional bonds, which play a critical role in creating intimate and mentoring relationships with members of the armed forces and colleagues (Kark et al., 2016). Besides, close-bonds and distance improve the effectiveness and efficiency of soldieries in an ever-changing military environment.
In summary, while it is mandatory to possess both technical and tactical competency, those skills are inadequate for shaping an effective leader in the long run. What is vital is developing interpersonal skills, as well as technical and strategic competence. Interpersonal skills comprise fostering integrity and building teams. Commanders also need training in order to create an exhaustive knowledge of strategic management and leadership that will promote better understanding and help to bring fresh and transformative ideas to their role in the military. Commanders also have to more communication today. There are many leaders who just are not sitting down and taking subordinates, not only just interacting with their soldiers but contact with their chain of command.
References
Simons, A. (2017). 21st-Century Challenges of Command: A View From the Field. Retrieved from https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2017/ssi_simons_170531.pdf
Ford, C.M. (2015). Army Leadership and the Communication Paradox. Military Review. Retrieved from https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military- review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20150831_art014.pdf
Kark, R., Karazi-Presler, T., & Tubi, S. (2016). Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership. Leadership Lessons from Compelling Contexts , 157–187.
Whitlock, C. (2014, January 28). Pentagon investigations point to military system that promotes abusive leaders. The Washington Post . Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-investigations-point- to-military-system-that-promotes-abusive-leaders/2014/01/28/3e1be1f0-8799-11e3-916e- e01534b1e132_story.html?utm_term=.c2c8134625fa
Gallagher, C.R. (2016, August 12). Muddling Leadership and Management in the United States Army. Retrieved from https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military- Review/Online-Exclusive/2016-Online-Exclusive-Articles/Muddling-Leadership-and- Management/
