The existence and position of leadership in organizational structures differs throughout the type and purpose of the organization—as Stogdill (1948) stated,
A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of the followers. (p. 64)
To this degree, the selection, identification, and progression of promotions is vital to the operation of any organization. However, as Stogdill alluded to, identifying the overarching goal of the organization is paramount in identify and positioning leadership appropriately. This instigation of leadership, though generalized, is markedly different in organizational military structures. As such, the process of promoting, identifying, and positioning is vastly different in military instances than corporate structures that in turn dynamically change the utilization of authority, power, and influence.
The hierarchical structure of the military does, to some degree, mimic that of larger public civilian organizations. This often resembles the pyramid shape, where there is a leader at the top, middle management in the middle and common workers at the base. Leadership in the military, from the bottom ranks up, is driven by timelines, experience, mission accomplishment, and organizational needs. This, in no way, sounds unfamiliar to everyday corporate America. However, the place of authority—marked by obedience and discipline, influence—by persuasion, and power—by position, has little correlation.
The definition of authority differs from that of power in that it identifies legitimacy, justification, and right to exercise power (Gregory, 1955). This right–authority, in speaking of corporate settings, is generated from position, title, experience, and popularity. This is often the same in the military, however, rank often, if not completely, overshadows that of all other factors because military members are held by law to obey and follow such orders from those appointed to ranks above them—regardless of their experience, popularity, or efficacy of leadership. This dynamic surely changes how authority imparts power and influence to service members as compared to existing structures in civilian settings. I have personally experienced this numerous times where the custom and requirement of respecting rank was the only avenue of respect and obedience the person brought as a leader. I had a direct supervisor that was quickly promoted assume command of 45 others and myself. His lack of leadership, newer placement of authority, and illogical use of power resulted in well below average mission accomplishment. This, as would be hypothesized, resulted in decreased troop moral and very little respect and will to follow towards that individual. Come to find out, his use of power was only in support of his own personal goals. This personalized use of power clearly prevented the concentration of effort to be on our organizational goals and thus prevented our success as a unit.
This instance, though somewhat uncommon, can largely be contributed to poor leadership identification (bulk, illogical, and systematic promotions) and development (poor preparation from promotion, leadership positions, and authority). More specifically, there are general guidelines and requirements for promotion throughout the ranks that very seldom, if not at all, require leadership ability and performance. The military, at least in particular branches, hold things such as: marksmanship, physical test performance, qualifications, and martial arts degrees to the same if not higher weight in criteria for promotion. This clearly marginalizes leadership as a prerequisite for greater responsibility, authority, and opportunities.
In sum, the congressional requirement and culture of rank, for which demands respect and harnesses all authority, nullifies the typical definition of power—in that it does not require a capacity to produce behavior changes in others and it demands obedience that circumvents influence (Bass, 1990). However, as French and Raven (1959) explained power in terms of influence and is identified as the “relationship” between a social agent and a person (leader and follower) and has a unique “source” of power. Utilizing this perspective of analysis, military power is primarily sourced through coercive power—as any failure to influence or obey is met with punishment by law (French and Raven, 1959). Additionally, referent power is sourced, as group identity, especially in combat military units, is, as researchers have found, to be one of the most powerful leadership resources (French and Raven, 1959; Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011). This is also supported by Lippitt’s (1952) research in that more often than not, leaders will utilize more than one avenue to source their influence among subordinates.
In conclusion, the military does often correlate structurally to their civilian counterparts, however, the methods for which leaders are chosen and positioned is vastly different and shifts the definition of power, instance of authority, and method of influence. As we’ve seen, this shift is mainly due to the process for which leaders are selected and the unique criteria for which power, authority, and influence is used—as we’ve all seen the negative side such power, authority, and influence can take on women in the military, prisoner abuse, and hazing. To these degrees, though extreme, the unique place of both referent and coercive power dynamically changes how leaders and followers interact in the military and stands to redefine and highlight the importance of leadership identification and development.
Written by: Morgan DeBusk-Lane
References
Bass, B. M., (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.
French, J., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Gregory, W. E. (1955). “Authoritarianism” and authority. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 641-643. doi:10.1037/h0048733
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S., & Platow, M. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence, and power. New York; Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Lippitt, R. (1952). The dynamics of power. Human Relations, 5(1), 37.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.