military

The Leadership Driven Culture: Servant Leadership in the United States Army

April 4, 2022 by asy5095

The United States Army has a long-standing disposition toward every soldier being a leader. I was not alone in previous sentiments that not everyone is built to be a leader, has leadership potential, or ought to be put in leadership positions. I was falling into the rank and position versus leadership trap. Not every soldier is cut out to be a leader of other soldiers, just as unfortunately not every senior ranking member of the military is necessarily a leader beyond the assertion their rank or position implies. Though one does not need title or position to be a leader. Rather, the Army developed a culture of leadership geared toward developing leaders as they progress, and forging the next new crop of leaders, for the betterment and survival of its personnel the organization alike.

Context and culture being one of three antecedent conditions of servant leadership (Northouse, 2021, p. 462), the Army finds itself in no short supply of reasons for its existence, that its strength is in the fighting will and resolve of soldiers, and a culture whose operative norm is elevating and holding itself to a higher standard than the populace it defends. The Army has become an organization so adapt to surviving the combat and attritional loss of leaders that the branch’s official song, “The Army Goes Rolling Along,” is a fit reminder that every member is replaceable, and the organization will continue with its mission as another leader picks up the baton. While this is not the actual context toward the songs meaning, it fits with the ever-changing personnel landscape of the force. Whether gaps occur due to deaths, retirement, end of contractual obligations, congressional downsizing, or transfers, the Army emphasizes the building and growth of leaders because the organization and its individuals are always only moments away from human capital changes, or unexpectedly eliciting ordinary men and women to respond to extraordinary circumstances in the bravest of ways.

While the organization and its leaders exhibit the full range of leadership models and theories, its real need to continuously plant the next crop of leaders, heavily emphasizes the servant leadership model to its personnel, stating specifically in its Professional Leadership Policy that, “a trusted Army professional must be an honorable servant, Army expert, and steward of the profession,” (AR 600-100). The very word “Sergeant,” used to identify its noncommissioned officers (NCO), “comes from the French word for servant” (Mattson, n.d.). Those Army Sergeants even have a creed that testifies they “not to use their position to attain pleasure, profit, or personal safety,” reminds them that the “welfare of their followers is one of two basic responsibilities they are charged with,” and that they are to be “loyal to those with whom they serve, seniors, peers, and subordinates alike,” (as cited in Elder, 2020). These words are without a doubt celebrates the spirit of servant leadership and is echoed as an expectation for all NCOs to live up to.

Originated in the writings of Greenleaf (1970, 1972, 1977), servant leadership emphasizes that leaders should be attentive to the needs of followers, empathize with their situations, empower their being, and help followers develop their full human capacities. (Northouse, 2021, p. 452).

The Army’s culture of leadership is characteristic of servant leadership, inherent in the words of, again, the NCO Creed. Focusing specifically on the Sergeants professional relationship with his followers, the creed proclaims of the servant leader and follower relationship:

All soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership. I know my soldiers and I will always place their needs above my own. I will communicate consistently with my soldiers and never leave them uninformed. I will be fair and impartial when recommending both rewards and punishment. (as cited in Elder, 2020)

That paragraph exemplifies the servant leadership characteristics of stewardship and foresight through “accepting the trust and responsibility of, and accountability toward, their role” (Northouse, 2021, pp. 457). Listening, awareness, healing, and persuasion in “understanding and communicating with their soldiers, training and developing, and the reinforcement or correction of their followers’ behaviors.” (pp. 456-457). I believe the paragraph is also reflective of commitment to the growth of people, “through knowing each follower as an individual and recognizing their personal value and building community” (p. 457), and building community through the “shared interest in the values and ideals that go into choosing the profession” (p.458), and the charge toward safeguarding the welfare of those willing to fight beside another to protect them.

Graham (1991) reflected on Greenleaf’s writings that “servant leaders have an inherent social responsibility toward the marginalized and those less privileged or fortunate, and that a servant leader attempts to correct any existence of inequalities or injustices within their purview.” (as cited in Northouse, 2021, p. 455). Though portrayed in a different service uniform, the fictional film A Few Good Men (Reiner & Sorkin, 1992), depicted two United States Marines on trial for the murder of a fellow Marine they had inadvertently killed while hazing him, at the order of their commanding officer, for deficient performance, reminds me of this sentiment of servant leadership looking out for the welfare of followers. At the end of the film, the senior of the two marines remarked to his junior (and follower) that, as Marines, they were “supposed to fight for the people who couldn’t fight for themselves. Supposed to fight for [their fellow Marine]” (Reiner, Sorkin, 1992).

Strengthened by its emphasis on service leadership, looking out for the welfare of followers and the underdog, leaders and soldiers in general look out for one another in the generalist everyday mundane sense, to hostile environments where they could find themselves in a situation where the few soldiers beside them and the leader making decisions can influence whether they ever return home under their own power or live to see another day. To quote another military film that echoes the truest sense of why soldiers fight, one that I learned myself on the streets of Baghdad 15 years ago, a Special Forces operator in the 1991 film Black Hawk Down nonchalantly explains how he responds to inquiries from civilians as to why he fights, stating, “they won’t understand. They won’t understand why we do it. They won’t understand that it’s about the men next to you, and that’s it. That’s all it is” (Scott & Nolan, 2001).

All of that said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and words, creeds, and doctrine are all just lip service if not backed by the actions of leaders within the organization serving their followers. Servant leadership and the community’s propensity toward ensuring that the needs of followers are being met” (Greenleaf, 1970, as cited in Northouse, p. 453) can be witnessed in the actions of leaders daily at Army posts and military installations throughout the world. Leaders serve the newest followers when they welcome them to the installation, driving them to where they will work, introducing them to the other soldiers in the unit, helping them move their personal belongings into their barracks room, and showing them around the installation and surrounding towns. Servant leadership is displayed in teaching followers how to conduct Army business; conducting physical training alongside them during off-duty hours, for the second time in a day, to help followers reach their physical performance goals, despite the leaders own needs and personal responsibilities; in knowing their followers, their strengths, their weaknesses, their personal and professional goals; in knowing their followers’ families, because the Army is a family, transcending a community, as the ties run much deeper than business hours and greeting card signed by everyone in the office when someone leaves. families know each other and are all stakeholders in the micro-activities, conduct, and decisions of leadership and one another. Servant leadership is reinforced every time a leader invites single soldiers over to their families holiday meal so that they would not be alone, helps a follower with financial advice, trains them how to employ a machine gun more proficiently, drives them to the airport so that they can fly home from leave, help them navigate their civilian education benefits, help them navigate their retirement, help them navigate their life!

Servant leadership, driven by their sense of community and a deeply seated and intrinsic desire to ensure that their followers needs are met, they are developing into their best self, and that they are successful is evident every time a leader considers the possible outcomes for their soldiers at a tactical decision point. Most remarkably, servant leadership is typified when a leader makes the split-second decision to lay his body down on an enemy grenade so that his followers have an opportunity to succeed. This is the legacy of the servant leadership driven culture of the United States Army. From the mundane and inconsequential and unimpactful acts, to selfless acts of courage and sacrifice, the disposition of the United States Army toward servant leadership ensures that the seeds of future leaders are continuously planted, and existing leaders developed, for the benefit of its followers, the organization and its community, the republic, and its people.

“If serving is below you, leadership is beyond you” (Anonymous, n.d, as cited in Lord, 2019)

References

Elder, D. (2020). History of the NCO Creed. The NCO Historical Society. Retrieved from https://ncohistory.com/history-of-the-nco-creed/

Headquarters Department of the Army (2017). Army Regulation 600-100. Army Professional Leadership Policy. Washington, D.C.. Retrieved from https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN3758_AR_600-100_FINAL_WEB_.pdf

Northouse, P.G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 9th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Mattson, J. (n.d.). ‘Sergeant’ means ‘servant’: How NCOs typify the servant leader. NCO Journal. Citadel. Retrieved from https://www.citadel.edu/root/images/commandant/assistant-commandant-leadership/ld-3-1-sergeant-means-servant-article.pdf

Lord, W. [@MGWaltLord]. (2019, Sep 10). If serving is beneath you, leadership is beyond you [Tweet]. Twitter. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/MGWaltLord/status/1171518131925209090/photo/1

Reiner, R., Sorkin, A. (1992). A Few Good Men [Film]. Castle Rock Entertainment

Scott, R., Nolan, K. (2001). Black Hawk Down [Film]. Columbia Pictures

Skills Approach Theory – Military

May 28, 2017 by Cotton

While reading through the skills approach theory in Northouse I couldn’t help but think of how familiar it all sounded. I kept racking my brain on why it sounded so familiar but it didn’t click until I got to the end of chapter three in the criticisms portion. “The skills model was constructed by using a large sample of military personnel and observing their performance in the armed services,” (Northouse, p. 59), and immediately said ‘bingo, Air Force leadership doctrine.’ In the military we are required to go to Professional Military Education (PME) courses at different stages of our careers. I started my career as a 2nd Lieutenant by attending Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, AL and taking a very basic leadership course called; Air and Space Basic Course (ASBC). It was required for 2nd Lieutenants and the first PME of our careers. We learned how to work as a team, learned a little bit of Air Force doctrine, and a little bit about leadership. However, it was just a refresher course of all the things we had learned in ROTC, Officer Training School (OTS) or at the Air Force Academy.

Further into our careers, sometime after an officer becomes a Captain, we attend another PME course called Squadron Officer School (SOS) in which we dive a little deeper into Air Force doctrine and leadership. You may be saying ‘Ok, cool Cotton, but how does this relate to the skills approach theory?’ The three-skill approach directly relates to how Air Force leadership doctrine was written. Air Force leadership doctrine looks a lot like the components of the skills model. Attached on this link is model that shows leadership levels and institutional competencies according to the Air Force, https://www.scribd.com/document/82751360/Doctrine-Update-for-AFDD-1-1, it also looks very similar to Figure 3.1 in Northouse. The three levels that you see are Tactical Expertise, Operational Competence, and Strategic vision. They all tie into the individual competencies of Personal, People/Team, and Organizational which I will explain next.

So we remember from our reading that the three-skill approach encompasses Technical Skill, Human Skill, and Conceptual Skill. As a young 2nd Lieutenant through a junior Captain you master the technical skill in your profession which for me was learning the ins and outs of the B-52, learning to employ weapons, and becoming a tactical warrior. I spent many hours in the weapons systems book and tactics books to try and become the best tactician I could. During this time I did not lead a lot of people but the human skill was there because I also needed to work as a B-52 crew member and be able to communicate effectively during training and combat sorties. All this ties into the Air Force leadership doctrine model as to be a tactical expert, have a sense of leading and being a follower, but not focusing on being a strategic thinker in the organization, or for me my bomb squadron.

Next is human skill which “is the knowledge about and ability to work with people,” (Northouse, p. 44). This become increasingly important as you move from to a senior Captain to a Lieutenant Colonel. You should have mastered that tactical skill by now and now you move on to taking larger leadership roles. For me I was the flight commander of our scheduling shop in my bomb squadron. I had build relationships with maintenance personnel and higher ranking officers for them to trust me I could lead my people/team to get our job done. I also had to understand the bomb wing’s vision to understand organizational competence, for example knowing how my bomb squadron would fight against a near peer threat. In keeping with the Air Force doctrine model that example opened more of the door to strategic thinking and the bigger picture Air Force organization.

Next we have the conceptual skill where you are meshing that technical and human skill as a leader of many people. Also important to note is that “conceptual skills are central to creating vision and strategic plan for an organization,” (Northouse, p. 45). In Air Force doctrine this is where as a Colonel and into the General Officer ranks you are in the strategic vision portion in the Air Force. You now focus on little of the technical skill, less on the human skill, and way more on the organizational skill. You become and expert in knowing how to employ all Air Force weapon systems to achieve the a common Air Force goal whatever it may be.

A leader also needs individual competencies as seen in the skills model on figure 3.2 in Northouse and relate to the institutional competencies of Air Force leadership doctrine. We need these problem-solving skills, social judgement skills, and knowledge to put all those levels of leadership together. As I finished up chapter three I see so much of what was taught in my leadership classes at the PME courses I attended. While this research and theory was built off military members I believe that it still relates to the civilian world as well. The three-skill approach I believe is part of stepping stone that will make a great leader, it just takes time.

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Defining Military Leadership

September 28, 2014 by August Miriah Bruce

What does one think of when the subject of military leadership comes up? For me, when I think of military leadership I get images of Full Metal Jacket’s Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (played by R. Lee Ermey) yelling insults at a group of marine recruits. This leadership approach is confrontational, abusive and in the end, doesn’t end too well for Gny. Sgt. Hartman (Kubrick, 1987). For someone who has not been in the military, this type of portrayal has been the typical stereotype of a military leader. However, in doing research, I have learned that this is not necessarily the case; modern military leadership reflects both the style theory of leadership and the situational theory of leadership, depending on where the leader falls in the military hierarchy.

Individuals who study leadership theory might immediately assume that military leadership falls directly under the situational theory of leadership. There is after all a distinct directive behavior common to all branches of the military. This low supportive behavior focuses on achieving goals and doesn’t spend much time considering individual’s needs (Northouse, 2013). For those of higher rank that would be true; higher levels of leadership (rank) have broader missions and cannot always consider the individuals in each squad or platoon as mission tasking is less specific (Waddell III, 1994). Higher ranking individuals delegate mission specifics down to lower ranking individuals which is a low support, low directive style of leadership (Northouse, 2013).

At the unit level it is the lower ranking non-commissioned and commissioned officers who must use a multifaceted approach when it comes to leadership, from boot camp to active war or peace time. Social support is more important for successful and effective leadership at lower ranks than at higher rank. They must foster training and coaching as well as looking for additional subordinate leaders (Yeakley, 2002); this style approach to leadership begins early in boot camp. Drill sergeants not only enforce discipline but also engage in mentoring, coaching and building camaraderie and respect between recruits (Lapidos, 2009). This initiating of tasks, such as obeying orders and defining roles which are combined with the consideration aspect are the defining roles in the style theory of leadership.

Military leadership is full of complexities, especially during a more chaotic war time environment, but when examined using both the style and situational approaches to leadership, it can be better understood. As you can see, higher ranking individuals rely more on the situational approach to leadership while their subordinates rely increasingly on the style approach to leadership.
References

Kubrick, S. (Producer), Hasford, G., Kubrick, S., Herr, M. (Writers), & Kubrick, S. (Director). (1987). Ful Metal Jacket [Motion Picture]. United States: Warner Brothers.

Lapidos, J. (2009, September 22). How Mean Are Drill Sergeants? Retrieved from Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/09/how_mean_are_drill_sergeants.html

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Waddell III, D. E. (1994). A Situational Leadership Model for Military Leaders. Airpower, 3(3).

Yeakley, G. W. (2002). Army Leadership. Washington D.C.: US Government Printing Office .