My experience with leaders and leadership has been an interesting one. In the military, as an intelligence analyst, there were a lot of different leaders I interacted with on a daily basis. Commanders and chiefs held rank that is to be respected, in Northouse’s terms they held a “positional power” or a “legitimate power” while they may or may not have been the expert, or have been well-liked by the troops, their status, and assigned leadership role gave them the authority and power to make important decisions and influence change (2016). At the same time, those high-ranking members were not always there on a day to day basis, working on the Ops floor beside us.
It then fell to a different person, maybe still someone who outranks you, but potentially not. The next leader would be a subject matter expert, someone who knows the ins and outs of whatever your question might be. These people held expert power. What I think is very interesting, especially in the intel world specifically, is that the experts would often have more knowledge or experience than the Commander, so it was our job to keep them up to speed on anything and everything. This lack of expertise was not by fault of the Commander, they just didn’t always come from an intelligence background. So it was very interesting to see and be in a position where someone could hold a very high authority as a leader, who would also defer to an expert to guide his own decisions. In this way, the concept of leadership being a process is made very clear to me.
In instances where I had to explain complicated intel which was to be used in a much greater decision, it took teams to gather the data, interpret it, brief the commander, and have the commander implement change. No one part of the operation could work effectively on its own, but together amazing things could be accomplished. For that reason, early in my military career, I learned not to discount anyone due to their rank. Some of the smartest people I encountered had less rank than I did, but they were experts. Maybe they will go on to be great leaders someday, but from the newbies straight out of boot camp to the commander with twenty-five years in service, there are different leadership traits or styles found in them all, both individually, and collectively.
My final thoughts on this topic, specifically pertaining to military and leadership is the ideas from early researchers said that leaders were born, and not made (Penn State University, 2018). When we promoted to Sergeant in the Air Force, we go to a special training called ” Airmen Leadership School”. People do not necessarily come out of the program inspiring every person they come in contact with, but it does make a difference, especially for those who leadership does not come as naturally to. I think rather than being a natural born leader, there are people who naturally pick up or learn the skills or traits quickly, and those who need more time and practice to get to the same level. I think everyone has the potential to be a great leader in some capacity.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Penn State University. (2018). Psych 485: Leadership in work settings. Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1925331/modules/items/23786480
jks5571 says
Matt-
Thank you for your reply. I think there has been a lot of improvement on leadership in the military, even just during the six years I served. While there are always going to be differences of opinion, the ability to recognize intelligence and skill regardless of rank is an important step in the right direction. The tension that I witnessed between the “old school” military and the newer generation was very interesting, and I think each side has some legitimate points. Some of the newer leaders appear more lackadaisical in their power, maybe they are just more personable, or sensitive, but that is not what the military is traditionally about. The acceptance and encouragement to seek mental health, for instance, is a strange territory for these traditional leaders, but second nature to the newer generation. I think the situation will slowly transform into a compromise, there is certainly room for improvement, as there always will be.
jks5571 says
Thank you both for your replies.
In response to Matt, I completely agree that there is a new dynamic with leadership in the military. Overall I think the “old school” methods have worked for a reason, there are a lot of new ideas that strike me as absurd (i.e. phones at basic?!) but times change and we have to change and adapt with it. I think simply due to the consistent influx of this new generation will force the change to happen, and the issues will have to be ironed out over time.
In response to Jessica, the military has given me a lot of new insight into what leadership means. Sometimes it aligns with my ideas, and sometimes it doesn’t. I think you are right about the strategy being to train for all possible situations. In any event, they do seem to focus more on the trait or skill approach versus the process in that respect.
Jessica Marie Boulton says
I really enjoyed reading your blog post for this lesson. I enjoyed your personal story and the connection you made between the process of leadership and a personal experience. I too agree with the idea that leadership is a process. One idea on leadership I have discovered from my own background and knowledge is that the ability to lead has a lot to do with surrounding yourself with the right people, otherwise known as experts. When you mentioned your personal experience of interacting with Generals who were no smarter than the next guy, but also sought out knowledge from the experts, it reminded me of this theory; surrounding yourself with experts.
A possible reason for why an expert in the military, who has more knowledge or experience than a Commander is not in a position of leadership, because maybe they have never taken the time to develop those characteristics. Of course some personalities are more type A personalities and tend to take initiative and speak up, but if the ability to lead is a process, than to gain the characteristics to lead is also a process. Which means anyone can develop the capacity to be a leader.
Your blog post mentions a training that Sergeant’s in the Air Force go to after being promoted. This is, in my opinion, the military’s idea of leadership training. Since different types of leadership require different types of situational training. They split military personnel into groups for different jobs and give each group different hypothetical work environments that they have the possibility of encountering in their real jobs. Thus, training members of the military to become leader’s at their assigned job.
Let me know your thoughts on the comments I added. Your story was very interesting, thanks again for sharing.
mbm47 says
Great job on your blog post this week. As an active military member as well, who is majoring in Organizational Leadership, I am always fascinated by how some of these advanced leadership theories fit into a military environment. Personally, I’ve found a lot of difference between the “old school”, traditional military leadership organization and the newer leadership theories that have developed over the last hundred years.
I think the situation you mentioned highlights the difference. Officers and commanders in the chain of command have “legitimate power” based on their rank and position while the working non-commissioned officers have the “expert power” by holding a large amount of skill and knowledge in that particular area (Northouse, 2016). This difference seems magnified in specialized areas (like intel) where there is a large expertise gap between the workers and the leadership.
I think a traditional military leadership dynamic usually assumes that the commanders maintain all types of power over their subordinates. I have seen many situations where commanders are given too much authority and an abuse of power occurs. However, in your situation it sounds like your leadership has gotten past this archaic view. I have found that the new generation of officers seem more willing to engage with their NCOs and trust what they produce.
I sometimes wonder if this difference in philosophy is ever going to cause an actual end of the officer/NCO breakdown. It does seem like an outdated system. What are your thoughts on the military system in light of newer leadership theories? Have you also noticed this difference between the traditional military leadership style and the newer generation?
Great work again. I look forward to reading more of your blog posts in the future.
-Matt Murray
Reference
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.