Leadership

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm

Pubilius Syrus

What constitutes leadership is a matter of opinion, indeed the magnitude of leadership literature that is available today confirms that leadership continues to be one of the most talked about management functions. Historians over the centuries have utilised varying contexts to document examples of both good and bad leadership. Whilst it is true that some leaders are naturally gifted from birth, there are those with little natural ability who have mastered the art of leadership only through training and development. Much of leadership theory revolves around the art of influencing, guiding, mentoring or inspiring others. Effecting teamwork and staff cohesiveness are important factors for any organisational manager, none more so than the military commander.

In the profession of arms, leadership is a vital aspect of survival. An army is task orientated, therefore team cohesiveness is crucial to achieving set goals and objectives. Military commanders from the lowest level section commander through to the highest level battle commander must be capable of leading effectively. It stands to reason then, that military commanders when seeking guidance on staff cohesiveness should seek to review research findings on leadership.

Three key approaches to effective leadership focus on attempts to find universal

�traits’, �behavioural’ patterns, and various �contingency’ models that bring together a combination of findings from modern research. With an emphasis on aspects of these approaches, this essay will discuss research findings on leadership which may guide the military commander to improve staff cohesiveness.

Leadership

What is leadership? Robbins & Mukerji, (1994, p.364) define a leader as one who is able to influence others and who possesses managerial authority, whilst Bartol, Martin,Tein & Mathews, (1995, p.448) define leadership as the process of influencing others towards goal achievement. Within a military context, leadership is the art of influencing soldiers in units to accomplish their mission (de Czege, 1992, p.21). De Czege continues on to identify four primary functions of effective military leadership: provide and instill purpose, provide direction, provide motivation and sustain continued effectiveness. This in mind, military commanders must be able to obtain from their staff; willing obedience, confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in order to achieve stated or implied goals or objectives.

Bases of Power

Gilbert, Jones, Vitalis, Walker & Gilbertson, (1995, p.259) subscribe that a leaders ability to influence others is dependant upon the type of power base held, identifying six sources. Legitimate power is based on the formal authority of the position in the organisational hierarchy. Expert power is derived from the possession of skills, expertise or knowledge that other people do not have. Coercive power is present when one person can compel another into certain actions because of some threat they can enforce. Reward power needs little explanation as influence is exerted by offering an intrinsic reward. Referent power, sometimes referred to as personal power, is a result of being admired, recognised and liked by others. Information power is gained from access to and control over, the distribution of information within an organisation.

Within the military the primary base of power for leadership is predominantly legitimate power, given the hierarchical and structured nature of the organisation. However this does not preclude the use of any of the other bases of power in certain situations, although in the case of reward power, the degree of any such reward from a commander, particularly at lower level is limited. The training of potential military commanders in the New Zealand Army exposes personnel to the bases of power concentrating on that of legitimate power toward effecting staff cohesiveness.

Trait theory

Traditional thought prior to the twentieth century, assumed that leaders were born and not made, inherited through certain classes of society and that leadership was more about qualities than processes. One only needs to look at the British military officer selection process which up until the Second World War it would have been unlikely for anyone not from good middle or upper class families to have been selected for training as an officer, (Gilbert et al, 1995, p.263).

Early in the turn of the century, traits theorists attempted to define those �traits’ or characteristics that differentiated leaders from non-leaders. The development of the trait theory suggested that leadership could be developed amongst those not necessarily born as leaders through the analysis of the character and qualities of great leaders. To prove the validity of the traits research there would need to be a clear identification of a set of traits common to all leaders that would consistently distinguish them from the non-leader. Whilst common themes and traits amongst effective leaders could be identified, no one defined list clearly isolated leaders from non-leaders.

For the military commander today, traits theory continues to impact upon their selection and progression. The consistent displaying of certain personality traits is identified as improving personal and staff effectiveness. Traits such as integrity, loyalty, moral courage, responsibility, initiative and decisiveness are reinforced to every military leader and are likely to effect staff cohesiveness through gaining their respect, confidence, willing obedience and loyal cooperation, Leadership, (1973, p.xi.). The New Zealand Army promotes such traits throughout current doctrine, in training during promotion courses to its potential commanders and through the assessment process of personnel during annual reporting. Traits theory remains an essential ingredient in military leadership and the New Zealand Army ethos. Probably more so than when compared to other organisational managers, yet it forms only a part of the military leadership process.

Behavioural Approaches to leadership

As researchers were unable to identify consistent leadership traits, attention switched to the behaviour of leaders to determine effectiveness versus ineffectiveness. Two key principles were identified, �concern for people’ and �concern for production’. A