The performance of a leader in the garrison situation or environment cannot be a good determinant of how a leader will perform in combat. The differences between the garrison and combat environments have been evaluated since the era of the Roman Empire. In less dangerous and peaceful circumstances, their leader has fewer priorities that are different from the combat environment where death is a common occurrence. In a garrison, the key priority of the leader is to ensure that the troops' welfare is sustained ( McGurk et al., 2014) . Their leader must show great interest and takes care of all factors that support their welfare. The success of the garrison leader is determined by their ability to support the troops. The prestige and credibility of its leader are often under stake by the soldiers who serve under such leaders. The leader should ensure there is adequate training in the garrison environment so that their skills are properly honed.
On the other hand, in the combat environment, the priority of the leaders shifts drastically. The leaders are forced to focus on the tactical issues regarding the soldiers and how they can overcome the perceived foes. The combat leaders should prove to his soldiers or those who serve him that all their tactical problems in the field will be solved and their safety will be safeguarded. Such are the traits of the combat environment in comparison to the garrison environment ( Fisher & Robbins, 2015) . The best combat leaders make it a personal interest to solve all the tactical problems because the lives of the soldiers or troops are dependent on the correct decisions. It requires direct experience in combat to fully comprehend, appreciate, and apply the fundamental rules of human performance. It is quite often to see garrison leaders failing in the combat environment because they were unable to make a proper transition from garrison priorities to combat priorities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Most of the combat leaders insist that garrison leadership is far much tougher than combat leadership. Transitioning from a combat army to a peacetime army may be quite difficult for some members. The combat leaders experience more difficulties when they discipline their troops in the garrison. Some of the young soldiers may have survived countless encounters with death and multiple combat tours. The combat leaders explain that the young soldiers may have a sense of invincibility and the urge to rush out for war may give thrills similar to alcohol abuse and reckless driving ( McGurk et al., 2014) . There may be a honeymoon period after combat soldiers return to their families. However, the hustles of daily lives often start affecting the soldiers after six months, and the combat leaders have to pay special attention to the issues facing the soldiers who returned from battle.
There are concerns that among garrison leaders that they are properly equipped to effectively discipline, train, and lead soldiers in the garrison. The recurring and prolonged combat rotational needs may have produced leaders who may be highly skilled but are not used to taking care of soldiers’ welfare in the garrison. Due to the 9/11 changes that took place in the garrison environment, the appreciation and value for discipline practices and good order should be installed in all the officers ( Fisher & Robbins, 2015) . Proper training is vital to restoring stronger leadership units in the garrison. Garrisons should utilize leadership skills and effective training that are unique to the needs of the current global security concerns. The future security concerns of the country are dependent on proper training of soldiers in the garrison before they are deployed to combat. The future of the country’s army is dependent on faster and leaner units that can offer disaster relief, seize airfields, secure embassies, and are available for all small and large emergencies.
References
Fisher, K., & Robbins, C. R. (2015). Embodied leadership: Moving from leader competencies to leaderful practices. Leadership , 11 (3), 281-299.
McGurk, D., Sinclair, R. R., Thomas, J. L., Merrill, J. C., Bliese, P. D., & Castro, C. A. (2014). Destructive and supportive leadership in extremis: Relationships with post-traumatic stress during combat deployments. Military Behavioral Health , 2 (3), 240-256.
