Table of Contents
The military is viewed with high regard amongst most citizens of America. The hierarchical structure of the military is very similar to that of corporate America. They both use similar leadership styles and this paper will examine how it is applied to military group-dynamics. It will also acknowledge the lack of diversity in the military compared to that of some organizations in the civilian sector.
Keywords: democratic, authoritative, autocratic, member, diversity, civilian
Group Dynamics of The United States Military
The United States Armed Forces is the largest employer of the country. The hierarchical structure of the military mirrors that of a corporate business in the civilian sector. “In the basic structure and dynamics, they are similar, but in the enforcement, employment contract, and mission, they differ “ (Weber & Gerde 2011). For relativity purposes, this paper will focus on the group dynamics of the military at the company level. The membership numbers at this level can vary between 50-150. The military follows a unique code of core values embodied and instilled by every member of the military. These “rules” thus greatly affect the decision-making and group dynamics amongst the population. While most U.S. corporate businesses seem to adopt a democratic style of leadership; the military relies on both democratic and authoritarian leadership styles. The rate of success seems to rely on the capacity of a leader to navigate accordingly between the two leadership styles.
127 our experts are availableright now
Democratic and Autocratic Leadership Styles
The selected leader of a company does not come into this role naturally. He or she is selected based on trust and confidence, and then placed accordingly where there is an available space. Longevity in a particular position is dependent upon the service member’s time served and the amount of possible time left before said member is promoted to the next rank.
Viewed as a relatively high turnover rate in the civilian sector, finding an effective leadership style tends to be difficult. Military members take a distinct oath of loyalty extending beyond the scope of a civilian job (Weber & Gerde 2011). Thus norms and expectations of military personnel may be established without their input. This can also prove difficult for some leaders because they are forced by a higher authority to enforce norms they may not personally agree with.
Galanes (2013) and Adams (2013) defines democratic leaders as those who “ encourage members to participate in group decisions, including policy making”. Creating a cohesive and stable work environment falls upon the responsibility of a leader. Weber (2011) and Gerde (2011) states that an ethical work climate is a component of an organization’s culture that influences a member’s ability to recognize a problem, make a decision, and determine how to act appropriately. Even though leaders at this level may not have any input on norms; the way they are enforced is dependent upon their choice of leadership style.
Authoritative leaders ask for little to no input from group members and rely solely on their own influence to make decisions for a group. Autocratic leadership styles lead to a group think mentality which makes members believe agreeing with the leader will involve less confrontation and work. (Davis 2018) states the enemy of a group’s success is too much agreement and not enough discourse (Davis 2018). This is all to often a problem amongst companies in the military.
Members are often disgruntled but would rather complain amongst themselves instead of being forthcoming with their grievances. This creates a toxic relationship amongst members and leadership that can affect the success of a mission being completed. Authoritative characteristics can prove to be useful especially in a situation where timing is an issue. The ability to quickly come to a decision for a group is important in a cause of emergency; situations often placed upon military members. A healthy mix of both leadership styles can prove to be successful.
Diversity in Leadership
In terms of individualistic characteristics, the military is dominated by white male presence in both leadership and member roles (Redman & Hassan 2015). The lack of diversity in gender and race is very prevalent amongst members. Since membership seems to be homogenous, this can lead to lack of creative thought processes as well. One could say that the lack of diversity amongst members is an old established norm of military culture. The notion that a member is expected to conform to the military, and not the military to the individual can lead to groupthink outputs. When a group is dominated by one gender, the lack of representation of the non-dominant gender may result in perceived biases causing unnecessary conflict. (Galanes & Adams 2013)
Diversity is not completely absent, but rather stagnant in comparison to that of corporate America. (Winter, Neal, & Warner 2001) believes that groups can be effective with male or females leaders as long as the leader focuses on the task. He also goes on to state that type of task also determines which individual is seen most often as the leader. This can certainly prove to be true in military leadership. Perceived gender roles have significant influences in the jobs that males and females take on. Females tend to have more leadership roles in non-combat units, where as males dominate combat arms units.
Diversity can enhance a group’s importance if a group’s communication process allows members to integrate their diverse perspectives (Galanes & Adams 2013). People that come from different backgrounds and cultures can enhance a group and minimize the possibility of groupthink. Diversity of thought is an important asset to a leader. It helps to lead to better decision-making amongst members and builds trust amongst members. The capability of leader to acknowledge their lack of understanding amongst a group of diverse members can be very positive. Positive leaders are able to navigate through conflict effectively, which is essential when working with diverse groups.
Summary
I personally believe that the use of both leadership styles is needed to be successful in a military company. A leader is supposed to provide purpose, motivation, and direction for its members. They provide the opportunity for members to voice opinions and grievances without the fear of repercussions. An effective leader also knows when to step in and take an authoritative stance in regards to decision making. Sometimes a firm decision is needed when indecisiveness is rampant amongst members or there is a time crunch. Leaders who are open to change and actively engage with others who differ from their personal background tend to be the best well rounded.
