Strategic leadership refers to the making of conclusions across divergent beliefs, agencies, schedules, characters, and desires. It involves formulating plans that are realistic, desirable, and suitable to the institute and its associates; whether dual, interagency or transnational ( Martínez-Córcoles, & Stephanou, 2017) . Tactical leadership styles in the military refer to the methods employed by the leader in the making and implementing decisions. With its deferent ranks and levels, the military leadership calls for thorough training in the styles of leadership to have the desired goals met ( Martínez-Córcoles & Stephanou, 2017) . Therefore, every leader at each level, division or rank has a different style of leadership which suits the position and the team or company under him. Despite the ranks, army leadership does not differ much from the typical organization leadership. The five most suitable leadership styles in the army include; directing, participating, delegating, transformative, and transitional leadership styles.
The directive style centers the leader in decision making and implementation. Not only does the leader implore involvement from the subordinates, but also gives thorough commands on how, when, and where the mission takes place. The leader in this style will oversee every action closely. This style is suitable when operating in a combat state or with untested junior officers ( Stănciulescu & Beldiman, 2019) . The directive style is considerably useful, especially when the leader has developed a high level of trust and teamwork in the unit. Therefore, switching from collaboration to the directive will make the team understand that it is situational, and hence, the leader, faces less resistance from the team. On the contrary, in the participatory approach, the leader and the subordinate are at the center of decision making and the implementation. The head is required to consult the subordinates for inputs, recommendation and other useful information regarding a situation and incidence. Participatory style is most effective when there is time for the exchange, although the final decision has to be made by the leader. This approach is beneficial, for instance, by allowing the subordinates to assist in the planning, they own the plan, which creates a considerable incentive to complete the mission ( Byrd, 2019) . However, the leader must remember to oversee the planning, take it as advice, with no obligation to follow. Besides, the leader is personally responsible for any decisions and plans, and hence the necessity to make clear decisions from the start.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another effective style of management for the army leader is a transformational approach. The approach seeks to trigger modification by sanctioning the different individuals in a group with the tools essential to accomplish their roles better. The leader employing this approach must empower and motivate the soldiers, first individually then as a team. Besides, the leader has to converse elaborately the motives behind the decisions ( Byrd, 2019) . Through this approach, the officers will apprehend their creativity when action needed. Also, this approach is effective when the leader has soldiers with excellent skills, information, and ideas on how to undertake the operation. Leaders using transformative styles understands that, individuals, when correctly sanctioned, have a distinct tendency to proclaim themselves and work consequently to bring about anticipated outcomes.
In the delegating style, the leader gives the subordinates the ability to solve issues and make decisions on their own. This approach works best with the leader of a team made up of the seasoned, experienced subordinates. For instance, the teams deployed on special rescue missions or investigative missions. The delegating approach also suits leaders working with senior NCOs, whereby they only get provided with essential resources and vibrant understanding of the task. However, the leader remains responsible for what happens, and the subordinates are to be held accountable for their decisions and actions when entrusted with duties. In this case, the leader has to ensure the aides have a full understanding of the task delegated to them. Finally, transitional leadership style involves inspiring soldiers to toil by either proposing rewards or harsh sentence ( Martínez-Córcoles & Stephanou, 2017) . From the logical stance, this approach tends to believe inward necessities and desires inspire subordinates. The main focus of this style is frequently to reserve a status quo, and leaders using this approach lack many relationships with their assistants. This approach has both pros and cons and is only applied depending on the situation. Besides, if the leader utilizes this style, it becomes rare to achieve obligation outside the short-term or definite range of intent. Therefore, it necessitates the leader to ensure it does not form a routine to have incentives always.
In conclusion, the particular approach of leadership that is most efficient for an institute differs conferring to the talent and intentions. Culturally, implied management is convenient across various cultural restrictions, whereas transactional leadership model aids to conserve the status quo juniors. Therefore, leaders must figure out what their soldiers desire and what they are capable of doing to achieve the best performance out of subordinates.
References
Stănciulescu, R., & Beldiman, E. (2019). The Issue of Leadership Styles in the Military Organization. Land Forces Academy Review , 24 (1), 54-60.
Byrd, V. D. (2019). Leadership Practice and Organizational Culture in the US Military: A Qualitative Study Investigating the Perception of Preferred Leadership Styles and Organizational Culture in the US Military (Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University).
Martínez-Córcoles, M., & Stephanou, K. (2017). Linking active transactional leadership and safety performance in military operations. Safety science , 96 , 93-101.
