Recently I was selected to be the full-time additional duty first sergeant of my unit.  This is a special position that carries a huge amount of responsibility. In the Air Force, the first sergeant is a special duty within a unit and is responsible for enhancing mission effectiveness by direct interaction with unit members (primarily enlisted) by addressing their needs so they are able to support the mission (U.S. Air Force, 2018).  First sergeants also advise the unit’s senior leaders on issues of “morale, discipline, mentoring, well-being, recognition, and professional development” (U.S. Air Force, 2018, p. 20). Examples of such issues include: suicide, family emergencies, sexual and non-sexual misconduct, domestic issues, criminal activity, health and wellness, physical fitness, etc. The duties of a first sergeant are so extensive, the Air Force has published an entire instruction publication for this specific duty, Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2113.  An additional duty first sergeant is not the same an officially designated ‘diamond wearing’ first sergeant, but their role and responsibility in the unit is the same (U.S. Air Force, 2014).  Therefore, in addition to my responsibilities as the additional duty first sergeant, I am also responsible for my primary duty as the non-commission officer in charge of the weather branch for my unit.  In examining the responsibilities surrounding my new role, I believe the authentic leadership approach will be the most effective leadership style to adopt.

Authentic leaders have an overall goal to be moral and honest in their actions (Northouse, 2016). In doing so, they are able to have a positive effect on the organization by modeling ethical behavior, which can influence followers from making unethical decisions (Northouse, 2016). This is clearly in line with the Air Force’s expectations of their first sergeants.  AFI 36-2113 states, “First sergeants are expected to epitomize the highest qualities of Air Force SNCOs. These qualities require the first sergeant to always remain perceptive and credible, and to exemplify the core values of the United States Air Force” (p. 5). It goes on to add, “First sergeants must be cognizant of their actions, to include the mere appearance of impropriety, as it relates to their position, unit and the Air Force” (U.S. Air Force, 2014, pp. 5-6).  The emphasis on first sergeant’s credibility, values, and ethics indicates to me why authentic leadership is an appropriate leadership style for this position.

When authentic leadership is viewed from a developmental perspective, it can be described as a series of learned behaviors that are reflective of the “leader’s positive psychological qualities and strong ethics” (Northouse, 2016, p. 196). This supports both a theoretical and a practical approach to authentic leadership (Northouse, 2016). In the theoretical approach, there are four main components from which to measure authentic leadership: (1) self-awareness, (2) internalized moral perspective, (3) balanced processing, and (4) relational transparency (Northouse, 2016). As indicated above, first sergeants must be aware of how their actions are perceived by others in the unit. By holding the responsibility to “epitomize the highest qualities of [an] Air Force SNCO” (U.S. Air Force, 2014, p. 5), they must understand their position as a first sergeant inherently makes them a model for others to follow. Therefore, we see how self-awareness would be an important characteristic for first sergeants to have. The next component, internalized moral perspective, “refers to a self-regulatory process whereby individuals use their internal moral standards and values to guide their behavior rather than allow outside pressures to control them” (Northouse, 2016, p. 203). This is a critical component for first sergeants because they are typically not the highest-ranking enlisted member in the unit and also function outside of the operational chain of command. This means, there could be times where the commander and/or the unit superintendent (typically the highest ranking enlisted member in the unit) will disagree with a recommended course of action from the first sergeant. An example could be where disciple or punishment is required for unit member and the superintendent wants to administer the harshest action in order to set an example to others. This is where a first sergeant’s internalized moral perspective will drive them to act morally and advocate the disciplinary action be determined based on member’s indiscretion and background alone. Balanced processing is another important component for first sergeants to have. Balanced processing is a self-regulatory behavior that describes the ability to objectively view situations, overcome biases in judgment, and includes perspective seeking behaviors (Northouse, 2016). When leaders are perceived to have balanced processing they are seen as authentic (Northouse, 2016). This is a reason why the Air Force instructs “first sergeants can neither maintain friendships or unprofessional relationships with any member of the unit, which could be perceived as showing or having any particular favoritism to an individual or portion of a unit to include both military and civilian members” (U.S. Air Force, 2014, p. 5). By strictly maintaining only professional relationships with unit members, first sergeants will be more effective in their balanced processing when making decisions that impact members. Finally, relational transparency is the component of authentic leadership that addresses the ability control how much of their true thoughts and feelings they communicate and show others (Northouse, 2016). This is vital for a first sergeant to have as they will occasionally have to deal with situations that will enrage them with emotion. I’ll share an example of a story another first sergeant once told me. He told me of a situation where he had to escort a unit member that had been accused of possessing child pornography, which included photos of another unit member’s toddler daughter that were taken while the accused member babysat her. The first sergeant said it was one of the toughest things he had to do, because his emotions were full of disgust and anger but he had to treat the accused member appropriately. This was also challenging for the first sergeant because at the same time, he had to provide support to the other member of the unit whose daughter was involved. The first sergeant had to balance his relational transparency in a radically different way between the two individuals. As we can see the four main components of authentic leadership are highly applicable to the roles and responsibilities of a first sergeant. It is important to note however, these components are affected by factors that also influence authentic leadership.

Antecedent factors that influence the components of authentic leadership are still being determined, however three have been identified so far (Northouse, 2016). The first such factor is positive psychological attributes (Northouse, 2016). There are four key positive attributes that impact authentic leadership: (1) confidence, (2) hope, (3) optimism, and (4) resilience (Northouse, 2016). These attributes support the components of authentic leadership through the leaders actions (Northouse, 2016). For example, a leader with a high degree of confidence will be able to make morally right decisions regardless of its popularity, which is reflective of the internalized moral perspective component of authentic leadership. Having a high degree of positive psychological attributes is also important for first sergeants as they are charged with helping the unit maintain the highest level of esprit de corps (U.S. Air Force, 2018). Another important factor that influences authentic leadership is moral reasoning (Northouse, 2016). Moral reasoning “enable[s] leaders to be selfless and make judgments that serve the greater good of the group, organization, or community” (Northouse, 2016, pp. 204-205). This is of obvious importance given the responsibility of the first sergeant in advising the commander and supporting the unit’s enlisted members. Finally, the last factor to consider is critical life events (Northouse, 2016). Critical life events help leaders to grow by giving them a deeper understanding of who they are, helping them to become more confident leaders (Northouse, 2016). Often first sergeants have to deal with irregular situations that few people have dealt with before. In order to help first sergeants gain their confidence, the Air Force requires that all installation first sergeants attend a weekly meeting that provides a community of support (U.S. Air Force, 2014). I’ve had the opportunity to attend 3 of these meetings, during which there is a portion dedicated to sharing with the group the issues each first sergeant is addressing in their unit. The purpose of this is to share with other first sergeants the lessons learned from addressing unique situations and for other first sergeants to offer advice based on their experience and knowledge. This act of sharing experiences allows the first sergeants to “gain greater self-knowledge, more clarity about who they are, and a better understanding of their role” (Northouse, 2016, p. 205). This creates a community of authentic leaders that are not only able to grow from their own critical life events but also from that of others.

Clearly, the theoretical approach to authentic leadership helps to validate how it can appropriately be applied to the first sergeant position. It might also be the case for the practical approach to be applied. Bill George presents one such approach (Northouse, 2016). George identified five dimensions that are demonstrated by authentic leaders through five corresponding characteristics (Northouse, 2016; PSU WC 2019). The first dimension is purpose, which is demonstrated by the leader’s passion (Northouse, 2016). First sergeants demonstrate their passion by being “proactive in the performance of their duties, demonstrating initiative, innovation and character” (U.S. Air Force, 2014, p. 5). First sergeants that do this indicate they possess a strong awareness of purpose and are intrinsically motivated by their goals (Northouse, 2016). The next dimension of values is demonstrated through the leader’s behavior (Northouse, 2016). Leaders that hold steadfast to a set values and refuse to compromise even in tough situations demonstrate this dimension (Northouse, 2016). This is similar to the internalized moral perspective component of the theoretical approach to authentic leadership discussed earlier. As indicated earlier, the Air Force expects their first sergeants to epitomize and exemplify the core values which are (1) integrity first, (2) service before self, and (3) excellence in all we do. First sergeants demonstrate the adherence of these values through all of their actions and behaviors. The third dimension of relationships is demonstrated through the leader’s connectedness (Northouse, 2016). This is also similar to the theoretical approach’s component of relational transparency. When leaders open up and share personal stories with others, they are demonstrating their ability to connect with others on a level that transcends leader-follower relationships (Northouse, 2016). First sergeants need to demonstrate this ability to establish trust with unit members, allowing him or her to be more effective in maintaining awareness of “issues that, left unchecked, would adversely impact readiness” (U.S Air Force, 2014, p. 15). This of course must be balanced with the need to maintain professional relationships. The fourth dimension of authentic leadership is self-discipline demonstrated through the leader’s consistency (Northouse, 2016). “When leaders establish objective and standards of excellence, self-discipline helps them to reach these goals and to keep everyone accountable” (Northouse, 2016, p. 199). First sergeants are expected to maintain the highest level of fitness, mission readiness, and appearance. As stated earlier, first sergeants set the highest standards for others to follow. This can only be accomplished if the first sergeant has a very high degree of self-discipline that is consistently demonstrated by exceeding Air Force standards. The final dimension of the practical approach to authentic leadership is heart, which is demonstrated through acts of compassion (Northouse, 2016). “Compassion refers to being sensitive to the plight of others, opening one’s self to others, and being willing to help them” (Northouse, 2016, p. 200). In accordance with AFI 36-2113 (2014), first sergeants demonstrate their compassion by knowing the enlisted members of their unit and being fully aware of their needs. This may require first sergeants to mentor or council individuals who are struggling or are seeking guidance with anything from their career to personal issues. By being attuned to their needs, first sergeants demonstrate a deeper level of care for their unit members. Clearly, the authentic leadership style is appropriately applicable to the first sergeant position from both the practical and theoretical approaches.

After determining the appropriateness of the authentic leadership approach to my new role as the full-time additional duty first sergeant for my unit, I now have a greater sense of how I can more effectively carry out my responsibilities. By maintaining awareness of the dimensions of authentic leadership presented in the practical approach, and the components and factors of authentic leadership presented in the theoretical approach, I can have a greater understanding and awareness of how my actions and behavior as an additional duty first sergeant will affect my effectiveness as an authentic leader.

 

References

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2019). Lesson 12: Authentic Leadership. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa19/21981–15196/content/12_lesson/printlesson.html

U.S. Air Force. (2014, November 18). Air Force Instruction 36-2113: The First Sergeant. Retrieved from https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cv/publication/afi36-2113/afi36-2113.pdf

U.S. Air Force. (2018, July 5). Air Force Handbook 36-2618: The Enlisted Force Structure. Retrieved from https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afh36-2618/afh36-2618.pdf

In the summer of 2017, I arrived to my current military duty assignment.  The group to which I was assigned was a toxic work environment where distain for each other was open and apparent.  The assigned leader was viewed as lazy and incompetent by each of the group members and they would flagrantly voice their distain for him and others they disliked to the other members of the group.  Despite my best efforts to diagnose and resolve the underlying issues, I was limited by my formal position, lack of organizational knowledge, and experience.  Then, in the summer of 2018 the group leader was replaced and within 2 months, the toxicity of the group drastically improved.  Our new Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) had a noticeably different leadership style than the previous leader, engaging members by asking them what they needed and following through on the support he offered.  He displayed an overly caring style of leadership to which I was not accustom in the military, where he seemed to genuinely care about the wellbeing of each member of the group.  That is not to say that most military leaders don’t care about their subordinates; most do at least some extent.  However, his caring seemed absolutely genuine and it was supported by his repeated demonstration of selfless communications and actions.  His style of leadership reflects many of the characteristics of the servant leadership style.

Servant leadership originated from Robert Greenleaf and is described as a style of leadership that focuses on the leader’s genuine, empathetic, and altruistic concern for their follower’s needs, development, and wellbeing (Northouse, 2016).  In other words, “servant leaders place the good of the followers over their own self-interests and emphasize follower development” (Northouse, 2016, p. 226).  This certainly describes my perception of the leadership style of the Lt Col.  As an example, he will often ask me how I am doing and if I need help with anything, whether I’m at work or not.  I have seen him provide this level of care and concern not just for me, but also with each group member.  However, there are many other behaviors more specific than this example, which indicate to me the Lt Col follows the servant leadership approach.

I’ve tried to pay close attention to the Lt Col’s daily behavior and found he reflects many of the 10 characteristics of servant leadership that were identified by Larry Spears (Northouse, 2016).  These characteristics are: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Spears, 2010).  Although the Lt Col’s behaviors are to some degree reflective of each of these characteristics, I have found him to be mostly reflective of listening, empathy, and stewardship.  Spears (2010) suggests effective servant leaders should reinforce their communication and decision-making skills with “a deep commitment to listening intently to others” (para. 9).  When the Lt Col is communicating, I notice how he attentively listens not just to his followers, but to anyone he interacts.  Many times I have seen a person with whom he is speaking repeatedly interrupt him.  The Lt Col will immediately stop talking and listen to what the other person is saying.  I cannot recall a single time I’ve seen him interrupt anyone else or stopped someone from interrupting him.  It shows he spends more of his cognitive ability to think about what others are saying (i.e. active listening), than thinking about what he will say or simply waiting for his turn to speak.  In his conversations with others I’ve also seen how he often reflects empathetic behaviors.  When leaders demonstrate empathy, they are validating the feelings and thoughts of the follower, helping them to feel more special and unique (Northouse, 2016).  “The most successful servant leaders are those who have become skilled empathetic listeners” (Spears, 2010, para. 10).  I’ve seen the Lt Col demonstrate these behaviors by how he shows sympathy and empathy in his responses to those who communicating their frustration or difficulty.  He often will start his responses by stating how he is sorry to hear about the issue the person is experiencing, demonstrating sympathy.  The Lt Col will then provide an empathetic response by describing how he understands how the person might feel, helping to validate the person’s feelings and thoughts.  The final characteristic I’ve seen the Lt Col most demonstrate has been stewardship for the group.  Stewardship addresses the ownership of the leadership role and fully accepting the responsibility it carries to manage the people and organization with the utmost care and consideration (Northouse, 2016).  The Lt Col spoke to me about this a few weeks ago while we were participating in a military exercise.  He told me how he worries how some of his responsibilities to the organization as a whole will cause him to neglect his subordinates and their needs.  By saying this to me, the Lt Col demonstrated how he gives careful consideration to balance his responsibilities to the organization and the people that count on him to lead the way for our group.  Clearly, the Lt Col’s behaviors have been consistent with Spears’ model and first conceptualization of servant leadership (Northouse, 2016), and have lead to a more effective and productive group interaction.  Because of his behaviors, our group began to function more like a team and became more supportive of each other.  We also began to communicate more productively, sharing information and ideas, and drastically reduced voicing negative comments about other group members.  It was quite astonishing to see how the behaviors of a single individual could have such an impact on a group.  All that said, I wonder could or should servant leadership be more widely considered throughout the Air Force.

An important aspect of servant leadership is that it requires certain conditions to be present in order to be effective (Northouse, 2016).  If those conditions are not present, other styles of leadership may be more effective (Northouse, 2016).  This idea is supportive of the servant leadership model that is based on the contributions of Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008) as well as those of Liden, Panaccio, Hu, and Muser (2014) (Northouse, 2016).  In this model, there are three main components, which are (1) antecedent conditions, (2) servant leader behaviors, and (3) leadership outcomes (Northouse, 2016).  As we can see, this model considers the pre-conditions that contribute to the success of the servant style of leadership.

Of the antecedent conditions considered, one is the context and culture of the organization (Northouse, 2016).  Military organizations are deeply rooted in organizational culture, arguably more so than any other organization.  They have their own customs and courtesies, they wear uniforms, and they have established unique organizational structures.  One of the cultural dimensions in the military that needs to be considered is that followers are to obey the orders of those appointed over them. This means consideration for the follower’s needs are not required when a leader tells them to accomplish a task.  This makes sense because an underlying premise of the military is that followers can be ordered to perform dangerous and life-risking tasks to accomplish their mission.  Therefore, when the context of a situation is such that the importance of mission success is vital or the risk to safety is high, the cultural dimension of the military indicates servant leadership would not be effective because the needs of the followers are not a priority.   That said, another military cultural dimension is that its leaders come from within the organization with exception to few top-level civilian leaders such as the President and Secretary of Defense.  Therefore, it is important that the military make the development of their followers a top priority, since they will form the pool of candidates from which leaders are selected and promoted.  Therefore, it would seem that given the appropriate situational context, the cultural dimension of the military would be supportive for a servant leadership approach and application.

Another antecedent condition to consider is the receptivity of the follower (Northouse, 2016).  The impact of servant leadership on organizational performance is dependent on whether followers are receptive to this style of leadership (Northouse, 2016).  This seems rather intuitive for any style of leadership, but it means that servant leadership cannot be universally applied to all followers without a better understanding of their leadership expectations.  In the military, there are members that prefer to keep their personal life separate from their military life, and go to considerable lengths to do so.  For example, one of my subordinates once told me how he likes to compartmentalize his life to keep his military related stress from affecting his off-duty time.  He also did not want issues in his personal life to affect his performance at work.  This mindset, kept him from wanting share his personal goals and ambitions with me, and left me unsure of how to support him.  After he declined a number of opportunities for him to increase his roles and responsibilities, I determined he just wanted to be left alone for the most part.  Clearly, servant leadership would not have been effective on improving his performance and would have taken valuable time away from the development of other subordinates who were more receptive to that leadership style.  This is why it is important to consider the receptivity of the follower in order to enhance the overall effectiveness of servant leadership on the organization and the follower.

As we’ve seen from the previously mentioned examples, servant leader behaviors are the focal point to the servant leadership approach (PSU WC, 2019).  These are the behaviors that ultimately drive the servant leadership principle of addressing the needs of the followers and their overall development (Northouse, 2016).  There are seven behaviors proposed by Liden, Wayne, et al. (2008), which are vital to servant leadership effectiveness.  They are (1) conceptualizing, (2) emotional healing, (3) putting followers first, (4) helping followers grow and succeed, (5) behaving ethically, (6) empowering, and (7) creating value for the community.  As mentioned previously, one of the cultural dimensions of the military is that its leaders are developed and come from within the organization.  It is such a priority for the Department of Defense, that each military department (Army, Navy, Air Force) has their own academy to train and develop future leaders.  We can see how most of these behaviors would be supportive of the military’s need to develop leaders.  Putting followers first might be a behavior that seems counterintuitive for the military.  However, this is exactly how the military trains its leaders.  In the book, Leaders Eat Last by Simon Sinek (2014), Lieutenant General George Flynn explains in the book’s forward why Marine Corps leaders only eat after their marines eat.  He posits, “Great leaders truly care about those they are privileged to lead and understand that the true cost of leadership privilege comes at the expense of self-interest” (Sinek, 2014, p. xii).  By developing a culture of leadership behaviors that puts the needs of their followers first, the Marine Corps demonstrates how servant leadership can be a force-multiplier for the military.

If the antecedent conditions are right, and the servant leadership behaviors have been effectively demonstrated, then the leadership outcomes should have a positive impact on followers and the organization (PSU WC, 2019; Northouse, 2016).  These outcomes include follower performance and growth, organizational performance, and societal impact (Northouse, 2016).  This of course makes sense when we look at the overall intent of this style of leadership.  By making the growth and development of the follower the priority, this should be the first thing to measure regarding the effectiveness of the leadership style.  If follower performance were improved, it would be important to also consider whether it has improved the performance of the organization.  Finally, if both the follower and the organization have improved their performance, it would be important to consider the overall impact to the community or society as a whole.  This was one of the benefits that Robert Greenleaf visualized in the conception of the servant leadership model (Northouse, 2016).  In the Air Force, annual enlisted performance evaluations consider these factors of outcomes on their leaders and their followers.  This includes the overall performance in primary duties in relation to meeting organizational goals, and also how the member demonstrates community involvement.  Additionally, as members increase in rank, leadership effectiveness is determined by the performance and development of followers.  For example, while I am working towards my degree in organizational leadership, the accomplishment will not be considered as significant unless I apply what I’ve learned to improve my organization and my subordinates.  It is clear that the performance evaluations in the Air Force are already measuring the leadership outcomes that benefit from the servant leadership approach.

After consideration of these models of servant leadership, I’ve concluded that servant leadership can be, and in many ways already is, an effective leadership approach for military leaders.  What is interesting for me to discover is that throughout my 17 years in the Air Force, none of my professional military education has promoted servant leadership as an option.  The leadership style most promoted in those courses has been almost exclusively the transformational and full-range leadership approaches.  After witnessing first-hand how effective servant leadership can improve follower and organizational performance in a military organization, and examining how many aspects of antecedent conditions, servant leader behaviors, and leadership outcomes are conducive for successful application for military leaders, I’ve concluded it would be of significant benefit for the military to develop and promote this leadership approach.  “Greenleaf’s conceptualization of servant leadership hypothesizes that when followers receive caring and empowerment from ethical leaders they, in turn will likely begin treating others in this way” (Northouse, 2016, p. 237).  If I am able to understand when and how to effectively apply this approach, the cascading effects will not only benefit my team or group, but also my organization and community.

 

References

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2019). Lesson 11: ServantLeadership. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa19/21981–15196/content/11_lesson/printlesson.html

Sinek, S. (2014). Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don’t. New York, NY: Penguin Group LLC.

Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and Servant Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), pp. 25-30. Retrieved from https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/jvl/vol1_iss1/Spears_Final.pdf

Reading through the various theories and approaches of leadership in this course, I try to think of ways to apply them to my current leadership situation.  The trait, skills, psychodynamic, and behavioral approaches to leadership were all focused on the leader, with little to no consideration given to the followers or the situation (Northouse, 2016).  The situational approach and path-goal theory do give more consideration to the application of leadership styles and behaviors with regards to the situation and follower (Northouse, 2016).  Because of this, I’ve considered applying the more dynamic approaches (i.e. the situational and path-goal) to the leadership process in my current situation.

A brief description of my current leadership responsibility is that I manage a watch desk position that is manned 24-hours a day, 7-days a week.  I have 4 full-time personnel assigned to the position, and another 4 (including myself) that are available to fill in during manpower shortages.  Half of these 8 available positions are civilian government employees, each with decades of experience.  The other half is made up of active duty Air Force members, myself included.  My primary responsibility is to manage the watch desk, and directly supervise the 2 non-commissioned officers assigned to the watch desk.

In order for leaders to be effective with regards to the situational approach, “it is essential that they determine where followers are on the developmental continuum and adapt their leadership styles so they directly match their style to that development level” (Northouse, 2016, p. 97).  Therefore, one of the first things the leader must do is consider the goal of the followers, its complexity, and the followers’ skills, ability, and desires to achieve those goals (Northouse, 2016). This is necessary to determine the follower’s developmental level (Northouse, 2016).  Based on this determination, the leader can adapt their style (behavior) to be most effective, in accordance with the Situational Leadership II model (Northouse, 2016).

Applying the situational approach to my current leadership situation, I thought about the developmental levels of the 4 personnel assigned to the watch desk.  Two of these members are retired military members who are now government civilian employees working in the same field they did as military members.  When considering their goal abilities, they have a high degree of competence.  However, when considering their commitment, it seems to vary depending on the task.  Based on these simplified descriptions, the situational approach prescribes high supportive and low directive behavior for my leadership style (Northouse, 2016).  The two other members are military personnel and their competence is currently low because they are newly assigned and currently in training, but their commitment and motivation is currently high.  Under the situational approach to leadership, this description suggests I take a highly directive and low supportive behavior, however my directive behavior should decrease and my supportive behavior should increase as the competence of these two members increase (Northouse 2016).  Clearly, I will need to be flexible with my leadership style with two very different types of members to manage.

Both the path-goal theory and situational approaches describe adapting leadership styles to follower’s needs and abilities.  However, the path-goal theory expands a bit more with consideration to the situation and its effects on followers and leaders.  For example, both the path-goal and situational leadership theories address the need for a supportive leadership style depending on particular follower characteristics.  However, the path-goal theory also considers the nature of the task characteristics which would obviously affect the follower characteristics.  For example, when a follower is working to complete a task that is challenging or ambiguous, the path-goal theory does not recommend a supportive leadership style (Northouse, 2016).  Instead, the path-goal theory recommends the supportive leadership style when the tasks are unchallenging or repetitive (Northouse, 2016).  The situational approach on the other hand, does not address the task characteristics directly but suggests the follower’s abilities and commitment are not static and will change.  However, it fails to address the organizational circumstances or task characteristics that drive the change in follower’s abilities and commitment (Northouse, 2016).  Both the path-goal theory and situational approach suggests leaders need to be flexible in their leadership style in order to effectively address the considerations of follower characteristics.  When comparing the two, it would appear the situational approach is more reactive while the path-goal theory is more proactive in their leadership situation diagnosis.  In other words, a leader using the path-goal theory will consider how the task will affect the follower and adjust their leadership style accordingly, where as a leader using the situational approach will wait for the follower to be affected by the task before modifying their leadership style.

When I consider the path-goal theory with the follower and task characteristics involved with the watch desk position, I can gain a better understanding of when and how to adapt my leadership style.  Therefore, for my highly experienced members, I can utilize a supportive leadership style, as they find the tasks repetitive and unchallenging, then switch to a more participative role when the task become challenging or ambiguous.  For the less experienced members, I can start with a directive style of leadership when they are starting with training, then switch to a different style as they become more comfortable with the tasks and they indicate their desired goals and abilities to achieve them.  Now that I have determined my leadership style and approach, I will consider the specific actions I can take to reflect this style for my team.

I know that this initial diagnosis of applying the leadership process is premature and incomplete.  For example, I haven’t considered how positional or personal power will affect my success in applying these leadership styles, such as the expert power my more experienced civilian members have over me and the other military members.  There are many more things to consider, so I will continue to review and adapt my behavior and style as appropriate as my leadership knowledge increases.  It is obvious that I will need an expansive understanding of the leadership process with developed skills to properly diagnose the multitude of aspects in consideration of the situation and follower characteristics, in order to adjust my leadership behavior and style accordingly.

References

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

My time in the military has given me countless opportunities and experiences.  A few years ago, I recognized one of these experiences that I had been overlooking since the beginning of my military service. This was the experience to lead and to follow.  When everyone first starts out in the military they must go through some form of initial training, where the main objective is for the member learn to be a follower.  This is relatively easy for most individuals since it’s simply a matter of doing what you’re told and recognizing when not to do what you’re told (as in the case of unlawful orders).  After consistently displaying the qualities of dedicated followership for a period of time, the member may be selected for initial promotion.  It is at this point the military begins to train the member to be a leader through a number of professional development courses.  This continues as they promote until they reach the top of their military grade scale, or show little potential to progress further and succumb to the Peter Principle (promoting to a level of incompetence).  No matter how far a person progresses in the military, they will always remain a follower to some extent.  There’s a great thing that comes with being a follower and it is the opportunity to witness and observe leadership first hand.  I’d like to share a bit about two leaders who were the very inspirational in my military career.

Sergeant S was the first inspirational leader for which I had ever followed.  He was my flight chief, which carried a responsibility for about 40 people, as well as the responsibility of the performance of the team. What I found most motivational in his leadership style was his ability to convey a genuine sense of dedication and care for everyone and everything.  I would attribute his effectiveness as a leader to a high degree of sociability.  “A person high in sociability tends to be outgoing and expressive, and is often seen as empathetic, warm, and giving” (Howell & Costley, 2006, p. 67). Seeing how Sergeant S’s leadership style was seemingly so effective, I attempted to emulate it when I had the opportunity to lead.  Unfortunately, I found myself struggling to deal with situations and scenarios that required a different style of leadership.  It exposed a weakness in my leadership abilities I didn’t know I had, and that was flexibility in leadership styles.  I realized that leadership was much more of a dynamic process than I had previously understood and it required more than displaying a high degree of sociability in order to be effective.

Another one of my inspiration leaders was my wing commander, Colonel A.  I did not directly work for him, as I was detached from his supervision by many levels.  However, I did get to witness his leadership first hand when I had the opportunity to attend his weekly staff meetings.  The staff meeting included all of the unit commanders and superintendents, and would start with a briefing from the intelligence community on regional threats. It was following one of these briefing that I began to notice something special about Colonel A.  He took the information he was just briefed and spoke on the second and third order effects from a regional and strategic perspective. Furthermore, he gave context to the information so it was easy to understand.  I was blown away at his ability to communicate very clearly without reservation or hesitation.  What was more impressive to me was that he spoke, not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of all the other commanders at the table.  Clearly, Colonel A possessed a high degree of intelligence, which is attributed to leadership (Northouse, 2016).  Yet while a high degree of intelligence may negatively affect a leader’s effectiveness (Northouse, 2016), this did not seem to affect Colonel A because he was able to effectively use communication in a manner that lifted other leaders to his level of understanding.  His example of leadership gave me the opportunity to think about the importance of communication on effective leadership.

With each leader I come across, I’ve been able to witness many aspects about their leadership styles and traits.  The leadership courses I have taken at Penn State have given me further insight to better understand why those leaders were or were not effective.  Furthermore, it has given me the opportunity to put much of what I’m learning into context from these previous experiences.  With those experiences to reflect on and the education I’m receiving, I hope one day my leadership example will inspire others to take a deeper look at their own leadership style in an desire to become more effective.

 

References

Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Peter principle. (2015). In J. Mcray (Ed.), Leadership glossary: Essential terms for the 21st century. Santa Barbara, CA: Mission Bell Media. Retrieved from https://search-credoreference-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/content/entry/mbmlg/peter_principle/0