How Can the Lessons Learned from U.S. Military Leadership Be Applied and Made Useful in Civilian Leadership and Management?

The success of any organization, regardless of which sector it operates in—private, public, or non-profit—relies on leadership values that effectively directs members of the organization in ways that allow the organization to accomplish its goals. Business and management literature has long focused on the importance of leadership qualities at the highest levels of an organization but in more recent years a greater emphasis is placed on hiring and training leaders at every level (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). Consequently, the concept of leadership is now viewed as important throughout an organization and the pursuit of leadership models that are easily applicable across all sectors is very active.

One of the more intriguing leadership models in recent years is the military model, which was long considered solely applicable to the specific and unique activities of the armed forces. However, the military model itself is evolving and the lessons learned from successful military leaders are now deemed appropriate for use in civilian organizations. While some still believe that the topic of military leadership is too broad for civilian application (see, e.g., Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio & Cavarretta, 2009), the recent application of this model has proven successful, as this paper will show. Some of the most common qualities embodied in military leadership—such as a drive for commitment, a desire to foster teamwork, and a transformational style—are all very well suited to many civilian organizations. Leaders and managers in private, public, and non-profit organizations can learn and benefit from military leadership methods. This paper will show that these concepts are applicable to civilian leadership and management positions as well, across a wide range of contexts. Specifically, seven types of civilian organizations that can benefit from the lessons from US military leadership models are considered.

Business Executives and Managers in Large, Medium, and Small Corporations

One of the best and most respected sources for training military personnel is the United States Army War College (USAWC), and one of its most successful lessons involves teaching students the importance of strategic thinking. According to the USAWC, the activity of thinking—especially for leaders—must include both analytic and creative thinking processes (Waters, 2011). Waters, a retired Faculty Instructor at the War College, further explained that creativity is vital and enables a leader to assess the key factors of an organization holistically, which is critical in strategic thinking. There is probably no greater attribute for a military leader to possess than critical thinking ability. But, Waters stressed the need for an effective leader to balance critical thinking with creativity and added that the creative leader utilizes a systems approach to be truly effective (2011).

These insights from a military leadership perspective are certainly applicable in the civilian world, especially within corporations—regardless of size. There is ample evidence of business leaders making decisions from a holistic perspective based on the complex nature of twenty-first-century business and the many choices available in the marketplace. Making critical decisions creatively and holistically indicates an understanding of the internal and external factors that affect the operations of any business and how these should influence strategic decisions (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). A systems approach—as recommended by Waters to military personnel—is also one of the primary tools used by business leaders to recognize and forecast how decisions (or potential decisions) may influence future results and business effectiveness (Kirby, 2011). Effective business leaders realize that a decision made regarding one aspect of their business will also impact other areas, either directly or indirectly, which is why it is critical to utilize a holistic approach to critical thinking.

Waters (2011) encouraged military leaders to adopt a more open-minded culture that is willing to listen to opposing thoughts and ideas that may not be in line with standard or accepted procedures. This also is applicable in the business world, as the most effective leaders in corporations realize that they will not always have all the answers but must also rely on suggestions and advice from others in the organization. In fact, it is now much more acceptable for subordinates within corporations to offer alternatives that are contrary to the initial ideas proposed by the leader. Indeed, strategic thinking requires a leader to consider every possible option before making a final decision. The motivation for the leader of a corporation (regardless of size) to encourage the submission of other ideas is quite simply to ensure that the final decision offers the best possible opportunity for ultimate success and competitive advantage.

Elected Officials

Military leaders are often forced to make decisions in an environment that is complex and where multiple possibilities are presented as options. Such a situation requires that a leader has specific skills designed to meet such a challenge. Linear thinking, while beneficial in some circumstances, is often impractical and limiting to a leader seeking options that are more innovative and adaptable. Historically, most leaders relied on a rational actor model, which simply requires a leader “to frame problems, formulate alternatives, collect data, and then evaluate options” (Bartholomees, Jr., 2010, p. 12). Conversely, Bartholomees, Jr. noted that such linear thinking is far too limited for decision-making in environments that are more complex. In most of these latter cases, programmed rules for response are simply inadequate.

The decisions made by elected officials can also be considered made within the confines of complex environments. Acting solely on experience, or simply conducting business as usual, will not allow an elected official to truly serve the needs of the citizens they are sworn to support. There is a growing need to be more proactive in political decision-making and address the needs of the public from a more decentralized viewpoint. Just as the military is becoming more adaptable and understanding the need for leaders to focus on trustworthiness, strategic thinking, and consideration of cultural diversity, elected officials can no longer rely simply on past experience as the basis for future decision-making.

Many elected officials are prone to make decisions (cast votes) based on the standard practices for their respective parties without taking a step back and thinking things through based on the current reality of the electorate. Too many politicians simply fall in line with the historical hierarchal thinking that causes gridlock and fails to accomplish anything positive. However, if elected officials adopt a non-linear model of thinking and decision-making, the results will be beneficial, since decisions will be made with an accurate understanding of the complex environment facing the country (or state, or locality). When elected officials accept the fact that there is nothing linear or well-ordered about political decision-making they are able to learn the processes involved with strategic decision-making. According to Kurtz and Snowden (2003), making decisions from a non-linear framework helps leaders understand patterns and “stabilize or disrupt them depending on their desirability, and seed desirable patterns by creating attraction points” (p. 481). The military is used to making effective decisions in contexts that are complex and muddled, so elected officials can certainly learn a lesson from the way such decisions are approached.

Government/Civil Service Managers

One of the common practices which exemplified the military for generations is an insistence on unquestioning compliance with commands given by leaders. This is certainly one way to accomplish tasks in an organization, but the results may only be temporary and not result in any type of long-term commitment from others. Still, if the goal of the leader of an organization, including civil service managers, is simply to accomplish tasks, insisting on compliance will Kiley accomplish that goal (Wittig, 2012). However, even the military is learning that mindless compliance is not always effective, especially if the ultimate goal is to allow members of the organization to understand and accept the organization’s vision or the mission. Especially in civilian organizations, even in the public sector, individuals have an innate desire to identify with the mission they are asked to carry out rather than simply follow directions without understanding how their task fits in with the organization’s overall mission.

Wittig, an Army Lieutenant Colonel, recommended that leaders and managers in civil service organizations do well to help the members of their organization embrace a level of commitment rather than simply be content with compliance (2012). Once members of an organization are personally committed to the goals of their organization, it is much more likely that the organization will become more effective in accomplishing its overall mission. Members thus contribute to the success of the organization and remain committed not only to the mission but also to other members of the organization (Hannah & Sowden, 2013).

The application of principles of leadership—often ingrained in members of the military—need to be learned by managers in civil service organizations. In many cases, retired military leaders become managers and leaders in various civil service or government organizations. This proves highly beneficial for such organizations since these leaders are able to supplement the training programs often provided to civil servants with practical lessons learned from their military experience (Wittig, 2012). Indeed, the very nature of the military encourages members to continually accept more responsibility and learn new duties. To integrate a similar concept to civil service, Robbert (2005) suggested developing intern programs as well as establishing educational/development programs to further train potential leaders. An additional element that can be taken from the military is job rotation, where individuals would be able to rotate into and out of various positions (if they desired) in order to eliminate the potential for job burnout or simple boredom.

Not-for-Profit Organizations

Research at the USAWC concluded that leaders are responsible for creating an achievable vision for the organization they lead (Wong, Bliese, & McGurk, 2003). This is also the case in a non-profit organization, and the challenge includes forming a cohesive unit that is increasingly diverse and possesses various levels of commitment. Confidence in the leaders of many organizations is waning which requires the leaders of non-profit organizations to make sure that organization members can relate to the strategic vision of the non-profit in order to be more productive assets. A leader applying this counsel will also be proactive in helping members of the group to overcome any personal challenges that they may need to address in becoming fully committed to the non-profit’s mission. By applying these qualities of leadership, a non-profit organization is supported by a leader who often is willing to take risks.

Relationships are cultivated by the leader of the organization in order to ensure that all tasks are completed and the organization can accomplish its purpose (Wittig, 2012). Applying the methods used by military leaders is highly effective and allows a leader to ensure that decisions are effective, especially when accompanied by productive relationships with group members. In effect, these relationships allow a leader to stay on top of the pulse of the organization. The leader thus creates an environment that accomplishes two things: make sure that all processes are carried out properly and allow coordination of various working groups in order to meet the organization’s overall mission.

Volunteer Organizations

The issue of ethics is important for military leaders as well as those in control of other organizations, such as volunteer organizations. This is especially true in light of the degraded trust that many in the public have of organizations as the result of various scandals and the misuse of funds. Throughout its history, the US military has operated under a precise set of moral responsibilities based in large part on the US Constitution (Wong, Bliese, & McGurk, 2003). However, following 9/11, some decisions and practices of the military—and those used by the military to perform some functions—have come under greater scrutiny as to ethics. In a similar vein, some volunteer organizations face similar dilemmas, especially when operating in foreign countries. Lessons learned from the military in this regard can, therefore, be useful for many such organizations.

Ethics has to include more than just what may seem to be the correct moral decision for an individual but must also consider respect of the community (Williams, 2009). This is particularly relevant in the case of volunteering in a foreign country, especially in third-world nations. In trying to reach a conclusion regarding the proper ethical course of action while volunteering in foreign countries, some type of flexibility must be allowed (or more accurately—required) in certain situations. Indeed, as a foreigner in another country, ethics and equity should be understood and expressed in terms of the culture concerned. In spite of some beliefs and actions being offensive to those in the West, it is critical to avoid displaying an attitude that projects “moral imperialism” or “ethical imperialism” (Williams, 2009) since that might result in people refusing assistance altogether.

Following the military model, leaders of volunteer organizations are well-served if they help all members of the organization clearly understand what is and what is not acceptable behavior from an ethical standpoint (Wong et al., 2003). To the extent possible, a leader in this context will limit the number of ambiguous decisions that have to be made by staff. The best way to accomplish this goal is for the leader to collect and understand as much information about the foreign country and its culture as possible.

Entrepreneurial Businesses

Military leaders are often asked to make decisions under circumstances that are highly uncertain and rapidly changing. In reality, the military understands that success on the battlefield is not always enough to achieve ultimate success (Franke, 2011). This again calls into play the importance of strategic thinking, which can adapt to the changing circumstances exemplified by an uncertain environment. The circumstances and environment here described also apply very well to what is experienced by entrepreneurs, who must also make strategic decisions without the benefit of a linear environment that is easily interpreted and navigated through. Entrepreneurs, like military leaders, focus primarily on the overall, long-term goals of the organization rather than merely immediate results.

Specifically, leaders of entrepreneurial businesses never let short-term success (or failure) cloud their vision of the ultimate goal. In this context, the phrase, ‘won the battle but lost the war’, comes to mind. Leaders of these organizations stress, at every level and to all members of the organization, that the business’ vision is paramount and must always be included in any decision made. A strategy that does not help accomplish an entrepreneurial business’ overall mission is useless.

In a military setting, leaders realize the need to conceive unique ideas and concepts as well as to help others mature and grow. Entrepreneurial businesses have a similar need and this requires the establishment of a plan of action geared toward innovation (Franke, 2011). The critical ability in this regard is identifying opportunities while avoiding threats. In the military, therefore, leaders derive strategic objectives from “national policy in pursuit of a predetermined national interest in consideration of issues, trends, risks, threats, challenges, and opportunities that affect those interests” (Bartholomees, Jr., 2010). For civilian leaders, strategy must always be considered part of the structure of decision-making that includes balancing the end results, the proposed strategy to obtain those results, how that strategy will be acted upon, and what resources are available to carry out the strategy. Military leaders are adept at following these steps and are therefore good examples to follow.

Disaster Response Agencies

Military leaders make decisions in a wide variety of settings, including some that are expected and clearly organized and those that are improvised (based on conditions on the ground). In a similar way, the types of decisions made by leaders of disaster response agencies—as well as those leading at the scene—are often made in an impromptu manner (Campbell, Hannah & Matthews, 2010). In an effort to facilitate emergency preparedness,  disaster response agencies are typically asked to coordinate the activities of numerous other groups with disparate responsibilities. Therefore, just as military leaders will utilize whatever resources are available and are able to keep these groups working together to achieve the overall mission, leaders of disaster response agencies accomplish similar tasks in settings that are usually disorganized and chaotic. In many cases, there are no rules to be followed and no standard operating procedures to rely on.

Military leaders often possess a type of personality that motivates others to follow them, and the same should be true in the leadership of disaster response agencies. The leader of the latter agency must show the members of the organization that he or she is worthy of following and possesses qualities and characteristics that elicit the ultimate effort toward improving the situation on the ground. The decisions made by these leaders are formed both at the individual leader level (Kaiser, Hogan & Craig, 2008) and as a result of interactions with other critical stakeholders (DeChurch et al., 2011). Whatever qualities possessed by the leader of a disaster response agency, nothing can be accomplished without the efficient functioning of a group of committed individuals. Moreover, as highlighted by Kurtz and Snowden, other dynamics involved include “cultural factors,” “inspired leadership,” and even “gut feel” (2003, p. 466).

Just as the military often operates in the context of multiple teams from different branches working together, the same is true in the event of disaster response. Leadership or management in such an environment requires the ability to make effective decisions without consideration of these arbitrary divisions. According to DeChurch and Mathieu (2009), this activity involves multiple teams that work toward an individual team goal and, at the same time, the overarching goal of the disaster response mission. In other words, the leader in this context controls “two or more teams that interface directly and interdependently in response to environmental contingencies toward the accomplishment of collective goals” (Mathieu, Marks & Zaccaro, 2001, p. 290). Lessons learned from military commanders are directly applicable in such an environment and will result in the efficient provision of relief materials and supplies.

Conclusion

Several qualities embodied in military leadership—such as a drive for commitment, a desire to foster teamwork, and a transformational style—are all very well suited to many civilian organizations. Leaders and managers in private, public, and non-profit organizations can learn and benefit from military leadership methods. This paper clearly showed that these concepts are applicable to civilian leadership and management positions as well, across a wide range of organizations. Specifically, seven types of civilian organizations that can benefit from the lessons from US military leadership models were considered.

Military leadership is focused on the value and importance of building teams and teamwork to accomplish goals and the same is true of all the various civilian organizations discussed in this paper. A leader who is able to build a successful team will achieve a level of acceptance within that organization that is difficult to obtain otherwise. While compliance with directions may accomplish some short-term goals, the ultimate goal of any leader is for the members of the organization to fully commit to the organization’s mission, since this will result in a greater potential for success.

References

Bartholomees, Jr., J.B. (ed.). (2010). U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues (4th ed.). Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute. Web. Retrieved from http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=1004.

Campbell, D.J., Hannah, S.J., & Matthews, M.D. (2010). Leadership in Military and Other Dangerous Contexts: Introduction to the Special Topic Issue. Military Psychology, 22, S1-S14. Web. doi:10.1080/08995601003644163.

DeChurch, L.A., Burke, C.S., Shuffler, M.L., Lyons, R., Doty, D., & Salas, E. (2011). A historiometric analysis of leadership in mission critical multiteam environments. The Leadership Quarterly 22, 152-169. Web. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.013.

DeChurch, L.A., & Mathieu, J.E. (2009). Thinking in terms of multiteam systems. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinaryperspectives and approaches (pp. 267-292). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Franke, V. (2011). Decision-Making under Uncertainty: Using Case Studies for Teaching Strategy in Complex Environments. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 13(2), 1-21. Web. Retrieved from http://www.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/385.

Hannah, S.T., & Sowden, W.J. (2013. Leadership in the profession of arms. In M. Rumsey (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Leadership. (pp. 291-310). New York: Oxford University Press. Hannah, S.T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B.J., & Cavarretta, F. (2009). A Framework for

Examining Leadership in Extreme Contexts. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 897-919. Web. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=managementfacpub.

Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63(2), 96-110. Web. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.96.

Kirby, S.N., Marsh, J.A., McCombs, J.S., Thie, H.J., Xia, N., & Sollinger, J.M. (2011).Developing Military Health Care Leaders: Insights from the Military, Civilian, and Government Sectors. Arlington, VA: RAND. Web. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG967.pdf.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012). The Leadership Challenge: How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Print.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D.R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124. Web. Retrieved from http://www.sonoma.edu/users/s/smithh/psyorg/toc/posts/teamoverview.pdf.

Kurtz, C.F., & Snowden, D.J. (2003). The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated World. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462-483. Web. Retrieved fromhttp://xenia.media.mit.edu/~brooks/storybiz/kurtz.pdf.

Mathieu, J.E., Marks, M.A., & Zaccaro, S.J. (2001). Multiteam systems. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Organizational psychology. Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology, 2. (pp. 289-313). London: Sage. Print.

Robbert, A. (2005). Developing Leadership: Emulating the Military Model. In R. Klitgaard andPaul C. Light (eds.), High-Performance Government: Structure, Leadership, Incentives. (pp. 255-279). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Print.

Waters, D.E. (2011). Understanding Strategic Thinking and Developing Strategic Thinkers. Joint Force Quarterly, 63(4), 113-119. Web. Retrieved fromhttp:// www.hsdl.org/?view&did=689791.

Williams, J.R. (2009). World Medical Association Medical Ethics Manual. Ferney-Voltaire Cedex, France: World Medical Association. Web. Retrieved from http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/30ethicsmanual/pdf/ethics_manual_en.pdf.

Wittig, R.C. (2012). Leading Change: Military Leadership in Civilian Organizations. Philadelphia, PA: US Army War College. Web. Retrieved from www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA561960.

Wong, L., Bliese, P., & McGurk, D. (2003). Military Leadership: A Context Specific Review. US Army Research, 14, 657-692. Web. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usarmyresearch/16.

Zaccaro, S.J. (2007). Trait-Based Perspectives of Leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6-16. Web. Retrieved from http://www.mydarknight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Traits-Based-Approach-zaccaro-article.pdf.

Zaccaro, S.J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader Traits and Attributes. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, and R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 101-124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Web. Retrieved from http://www.corwin.com/upm- data/5014_Antonakis_Chapter_5.pdf.