Trust and Leadership in the Military Environment
Literature Review
The role of leadership in the military has been changing. Military leaders are continually called upon to have specific skills and abilities that will not only ensure success but which will ensure cohesiveness of the team during missions. The success of such missions is critically underpinned on the level of trust that such leaders instill in the members of their team. The area of confidence and leadership has been explored extensively both from a business standpoint and a military perspective. This literature review analyzes how the concept of trust and leadership in the forces has been brought out in research.
The foundation of this analysis is Bishop and Ross (2018)’s paper, where they highlight trust and leadership being the bedrock of organizational success even in the military. They highlight the fact that leaders who strive to build good relationships at the military units and a positive environment have a higher likelihood of growing trust from their juniors. They consider a critical review of leadership through various contexts of military leadership and demonstrate that the life of service people in the forces is a risky one, and leadership can boost morale and confidence hence addressing the risk. When at the battlefront, for instance, the service people want to have total trust in the commanders that they will help them navigate danger. Finally, they demonstrate that trust is a concept that is of more significance in military leadership than even business leadership.
In furtherance of that, Shamir and Ben-Ari (2000) contends that modern militaries have to consistently evolve if they want to effectively tackle modern challenges. The future wars will be fought differently as compared to traditional warfare. Due to technology, there will be better organization and new ‘forms’ of battles, including cyber warfare. According to Shamir and Ben-Ari (2000), while technology may disrupt the very role of leadership in future militaries, elements like emotional bonds, encouraging loyalty, and commitment of the forces remain pertinent as the pursuit into the future continues. They further hold that in the changing times, military leaders have a duty of instilling trust and leadership by ensuring that the armies are transformed to represent the future scenarios. Future organizations will be characterized by greater demographic diversity of the military, a working environment that is technology-centered, and influenced by external occurrences like shifts in power, among other outcomes, as demonstrated by Boyce and Herd (2003).
As noted from the beginning, various studies have indicated that many service members do not have confidence in their leaders. According to Ulmer, (2011) successful military leaders are those who strive to develop trust, inspire confidence in the team, build and nurture relationships, and those who strive to help the team to harness their full potential. The forces usually undergo training in severe conditions and are further subjected to an even stricter battleground during missions. During these processes, the likelihood of negative energy setting in is high, and loss of morale is a common challenge. 21st century military leaders, according to Ulmer, (2011), are those who understand cognitive complexity, are intellectually flexible, have a high degree of self-awareness, and can build strong bonds and relationships within the team. It also implies that effective military leadership is a learnable process that such leaders can learn and which has the most impactful impact on the service people.
There has been much debate regarding the influence of charismatic leadership in the military. One of the most excellent examples of charismatic leadership is exhibited by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. In the comprehensive set of essays compiled by Striner (2014), it is demonstrated that he was both a transformational and charismatic leader, able to emotionally appeal to the forces under him. While he faced many setbacks during the war, he demonstrated his charisma by not letting his mistakes to should his vision of the future. His primary focus was to win the war. On the contrary, however, research has also demonstrated that the charismatic type of leadership in the military context is deeply flawed.
In their paper titled “A charismatic dimension of military leadership?” Tritten and Keithly (1995) explain that while charismatic leadership has played an influential role in the manner in which combat troops are organized to execute their mandate, it has several grey areas that complicate its effectiveness. They argue that their visions of the future can easily be blinded by sheer personal ambition rather than the collective good. Such leaders like Lincoln enjoy building a hero-like following where their followers are expected to respond to their authority. Tritten and Keithly (1995) argue that such leaders can quickly lose touch of their followers, and fail to recognize their flaws which could be affecting the battle process negatively. Furthermore, such leaders have a high propensity to manipulate groups and organizations, with the focus on controlling them. Their autocratic, impulsive, and inattentive feel can likely create hostile working environments, encourage rivalries, and overall instability. In considering charismatic leadership in the military situation, it should be noted that it is servicemen, not the military leaders, who are determinants of success.
A similar study conducted by Gibson, (2005) corroborates Tritten and Keithly, (1995)’s ideas of leadership in changing times. Gibson, (2005) seeks to find out the specific factors that yield competitive advantage for leadership in the modern fast-paced organizations. He argues that the success of the military unit is dependent on the leadership’s ability to creating an environment that nurtures and instills confidence among the junior staff. In a survey conducted among 176 U.S. Marines, it was demonstrated that the officers have specific traits and characteristics they desire from the leaders. While the studies yielded various perceptions regarding the ideal leadership, there was consensus that the units generally preferred an understanding and strong leadership that could steer them to success, as demonstrated by Shernock (2016). The efficacy of the team is based on specific traits and behaviors that the leaders wield. In this regard, military leaders are called upon to invest in particular habits, skills, and practices that will make them even more effective in the increasingly unpredictable future.
Research has also firmly pointed out the negative role that toxic leadership plays in the military and why it is not sufficient. According to Reed (2015), toxic leadership has been characteristic of the military over the years, and there has been little effort to measure its impact on the servicemen. He argues that destructive culture, use of degrading, abusive, and disrespectful leadership approaches and supervision has been a critical demerit of the military. Such toxic environments degrade the trust that the forces have in their leaders and can undermine their efficacy on the battlefront. Reed (2015) demonstrates that people tend to perform lesser than their potential when under toxic leadership. It can also be argued that leadership that tolerates indiscipline can also undermine the forces. In their study, Sadler & Mengeling, et al., (2017) demonstrated that leaders shape the organizational climate as dictated by the practices, behaviors, and procedures adopted. In their study, they explain that leaders’ toleration of sexual harassment can lead to its entrenchment within the service. For many years, sexual harassment has been normalized within the military, with senior officers being accused of consistently sexually harassing the junior officers. Through creation of an environment that encourages such forms of harassment, the officers’ trust in the senior leadership is eroded. The harassed junior officers will find it hard taking instruction from the seniors who harassed them.
References
Bishop, R., & Ross, S. (2018). Trust and leadership in the military environment. E – Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 9(1), 76-83.
Boyce, L. A. & Herd, A. M. (2003). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles, 49(7-8), 365-378.
Gibson, S. G. (2005). Perceptions of US military leadership: are all leaders created equally?. Equal Opportunities International, 24(2), 1-18.
Keithly, D. M. & Tritten, J. J. (1997). A charismatic dimension of military leadership?. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 25(1), 131.
Reed, G. E. (2015). Tarnished: toxic leadership in the US military. U of Nebraska Press.
Sadler, A. G., Mengeling, M. A., Booth, B. M., O’Shea, A. M., & Torner, J. C. (2017). The relationship between US military officer leadership behaviors and risk of sexual assault of Reserve, National Guard, and active component servicewomen in nondeployed locations. American journal of public health, 107(1), 147-155.
Shamir, B., & Ben-Ari, E. (2000). Challenges of military leadership in changing armies. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 28(1), 43.
Shernock, S. (2016). Conflict and compatibility: Perspectives of police officers with and without military service on the military model of policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(4), 740-755.
Striner, R. (2014). Lincoln and Leadership: Military, Political, and Religious Decision Making. The Journal of Southern History, 80(1), 194.
Ulmer Jr, W. F. (2011). Military leadership into the 21st century: another” bridge too far?”. Parameters, 40(4), 135-156.
