One of the most prevalent and most studied contexts of leadership is that of the military. While growing up from a young age up until my mid-college career, I have often found myself in the company of enlisted personnel. It was not uncommon to hear tales of camaraderie in basic training and stories of triumph and laughter from exotic locations ranging all around the world. All of this information boils down to me wondering how a leader is made in the military. Why do my friends who were the same age and from the same basic backgrounds have different ranks, or more effectively, different ratings of leadership? Though Northouse (2013) criticizes the skills approach is being potentially unusable outside the military, it is my interest to investigate just how it may be applied. After all, that’s where it was developed, so just how effective is it?
Using Katz’s (1955) model on the three most important skills need, it seems that they apply very well to a military situation. For example, the low level management, whom are the guys I grew up knowing, seemed to demonstrate the highest levels of human and technical skills. These guys were capable of leading smalls groups of other personnel and certainly knew their way around a rifle. It could also be said that as far as conceptual skills go, they certainly did not know as much about the battlefield or ‘big picture’ concepts as their superiors. I presume that this could be attributed that it is their duty to primarily be in charge of people, not larger scale ideas.
I can personally attest to being familiar with lower level officers and enlisted personnel. However, I do not know anyone high enough in the ranks to be seen on Katz’s (1955) scale as “Top Management”. Therefore, I can only theorize what might be happening behind the scenes on the battlefield of the modern military. The highest-ranking officers would most certainly have to be skills in the conceptual area. After all, they’re the ones in charge of countless lives. It also occurs to me that we can theorize the leaders on the front lines have much better “hands-on skills” than the guys telling them what to do.
The military develops, trains, and finds leaders. While in the business world it might not be as clear who made the most sales last month or who solved a supply chain crisis; in the world of the military they literally wear it on their chest. Military personnel are constantly tested. They wear ribbons and receive awards for every skill that could provide useful in the field. Hours are spent evaluating potential officers in simulations and target practice. If a business had the time or money to spend evaluating and providing feedback to individuals like the military does on it’s simulation missions, the results could be substantial.
A perfect example of how the skills approach could be applied is The United States Airforce’s SERE program. The USAF(2013) accepts applicants for a 15 day training-evaluation, “… consists of learning to adapt to all biomes and their associated weather conditions, along with surviving various captivity situations. SERE Specialists operate in the field of Personnel Recovery (PR) by providing support to the five execution tasks; Report, Locate, Support, Recover, and Reintegrate.” (USAF, 2013) I think that this is a perfect example of the skills approach at work, and how it utilizes all of the domains that it prescribes. The program also puts an emphasis on the leadership qualities of individuals, “You will also be evaluated on your ability to speak by giving basic lessons, your ability to demonstrate basic leadership traits, your ability to complete basic tasks by following specific instructions, and your ability to learn through a ‘see then do’ method of instruction” (USAF, 2013). It can be said that the completion of tasks could be evaluated as a technical skill in the realm of the skills approach. However, it seems that the USAF puts emphasis on a trait approach as well.
While the skills approach sparks debate in it’s usefulness in places outside the military, it seems that the military is indeed the perfect place for this approach to be utilized. Perhaps with more research this approach could better be applied in the civilian world.
More info on SERE: http://www.gosere.com/index.html
References:
Katz, R. L. (1955) Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
USAF. (2013). About sere: Survival, evasion, resistance, escape. Retrieved from http://www.gosere.com/index.html