Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
MILITARY LEADERSHIP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Modern times hold much challenge to leadership in the military context.
To adapt to environmental dynamics, commanders need to foster compet-
ing demands. They seek to encourage autonomy and control, support indi-
viduality and teamwork, ensure flexibility and efficiency, balance creativity
and discipline, energize novelty and utility, and enable soldiers to reach
their limit and at the same time show social responsibility and attend to
their well-being.
The paradox literature has long recognized the existence of competing
demands, including tensions between novelty and usefulness, idea genera-
tion and implementation, cooperation versus competition, and exploration
and exploitation. Studies of tensions, dualities, and paradoxes have grown
steadily. More than three decades ago, Quinn and Cameron (1988) were
among the first to call for researchers to move beyond simplified either/or
notions and better explore the competing demands of leadership and
change. Since then, there has been extensive work on paradoxical and
hybrid frames showing that the ability to embrace multiple orientations at
the same time is a core feature of effective innovation (Garud, Gehman, &
Kumaraswamy, 2011), and that a dynamic equilibrium model can explain
the ways in which seemingly contradictory elements can coexist within
organizations over time (Smith & Lewis, 2011). These works, as well as
other, highlight the advantage and the need for leadership that can effec-
tively attend to competing expectations and manage tension in hybrids and
complex organizational structures (e.g., Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011;
Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Smith & Tushman, 2005).
In the modern military, a large, hierarchical and total institution, with a
clear structure and orders, that operates within a complex social, cultural,
and fast changing environment, the need to embrace paradox has become
evident. This chapter seeks to explore and analyze the tensions, challenges,
and opportunities posed by core paradoxes that primarily and uniquely
characterize leadership in the military context. We will focus on different
types of paradoxes, among them: (a) Shared leadership versus hierarchical
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 161
does not typify all professions and units in the military, its symbolic and
structural repercussions apply to the entire military organization and mili-
tary leadership in general.1
Other unique characteristics are derived from the security and combat
tasks in military organization that also affect military leadership and shape
its unique challenges. First, military organizations are characterized by
their totality, controlling almost every aspect of the life of its members.
Subsequently, the dependency of the members on the leader is greater than
that in other institutions. This results in a system of expectations of military
leadership that is the broadest and most comprehensive one possible and
leads to a core expectation that the leaders address their subordinates from
both a task and personal perspective. A second major characteristic of the
military in the formal institutional structure. Militaries strive to achieve
their goals through organized professionals in a hierarchical manner. This
implies that the commander is a part of a defined hierarchy and that the
power structure in the military, which shapes the leadership practices, is
largely based on rank and chain of command. Third, the large size of the
military is also an important aspect. The size of military organizations
necessarily results in a situation in which each decision and command
issued by commanders, directly impacts a large number of subordinates.
This poses unique challenges and tribulations for leaders that have to enact
their command and make crucial and difficult decisions, at times in the
moment. This may be even more challenging for young commanders (often
at the age of 19 or 20) that have a wide responsibility for others. The large
size also contributes to the need to maintain discipline, command and to
reinforce the hierarchical structure and hierarchical leadership.
Derived from this is another unique characteristic of military leadership
the perception of leadership as core ability in a military organization and
military career. For example, the military doctrine of the United States
discusses military leadership as a force multiplier. In other words, when
leadership is effective, the organization is capable of acting in a focused, syn-
chronized manner, with efficient use of resources, and capable of achieving
the desired results (ADRP Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 [ADP], 2012).
Similarly, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) leadership doctrine defines
leadership as a foundational ethos around which all military activity is
organized (Doctrine and Training, Military Leadership & its development in
the IDF, 2013).
In addition to the organizational context, an understanding of military
leadership requires a study of the periodic context in which military
leadership currently exists, the changes in the area of operation as well as
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 163
determine the results during crisis and peace (Fischer, 2004; Scales, 2009;
Williams, 2003).
In light of these challenges and work environments, an array of leader-
ship abilities is required to enable commanders to cope with the complex
environment and conflicting demands. Accordingly, many of the training
programs for commanders in various militaries are now focusing on devel-
opment of leadership to cope with complexities, tensions, and paradoxes.
than had existed in the past or whether this complexity was always an inher-
ent characteristic of a military operation, in general, and of combat opera-
tions in particular. A discussion of this question is reflected in statements
made by IDF commanders, particularly with regards to combat and the
characteristics of conflict. On the one hand, commanders tend to perceive
combat as a simple matter. A unique situation in which there is no com-
plexity of considerations or factors that must be taken into account: The
world is black and white. There is a task. We need to perform the task in bat-
tle, things are simple- there is an enemy that must be confronted.
However, at the same time there is a perception that the battle field has
become more complex due to changes in the nature of the conflicts, among
them combat in civilian areas, difficulty in defining who the enemy is, the
need to take into account legal and image issues, and the concern with
diplomacy rather than just operational factors. According to one comman-
der in the IDF: The chaotic reality has changed since I was a young
commander. In the past, the classic elements of land and enemy were clear
military civilians border across the border. The reality today mixes
between our forces and the enemy, the uninvolved, the rival system. Trying to
do the simple things and it boomerangs on us. Yes, the commander should
simplify the reality for his subordinates but he must also confront the com-
plexity. Unlike the past, junior ranks must also cope with the complexity.
This tension is compounded among IDF commanders, particularly after
the Second Lebanon War. The military discourse following the Second
Lebanon War reflected a desire to get back to basics, a desire to return to
the tried and true doctrine. This expectation, some claim, reflects concern
that anything beyond the basics will confuse the commanders and the sol-
diers (Hazani, 2011). The desire to return to the fundamentals, then, reflects
a desire to return to the principles of action, the modus operandi, the per-
ceptions of action and traditional values. A distinct expression of this is the
attempt to return to the simple, clear language, based on the assumption
that if the language is clear and definitive, the commanders will successfully
cope with a reality that is uncertain, experiencing it as more coherent and
predictable (Shamir-Doner, 2009). This perspective is rooted in a belief that
the challenges of the last war and the lack of success therein is attributed to
vague perception of action and conceptualization that are not unequivocal,
nonlinear and therefore, lacking clear purpose (Hazani, 2011).
If we connect this to previous tensions and paradoxes discussed in this
chapter, the tension between the hierarchical leadership model and the
decentralized leadership model can also be said to be largely derived from a
discussion of the tension between simplicity and complexity. In other
172 RONIT KARK ET AL.
At the beginning of the 1970s, Janowitz (1976) argued that alongside the
combat profession arose another major military professional specialization
administrative and technical specialization. In other words, along with
the significant role assigned to battle fields, the importance of white collar
military workers gained importance over the past two decades due to changes
in the definition of the goals of the military and their areas of operation.
As can be learned in detail from the introduction, the military during these
decades is no longer preparing for an all-out war but rather for continual
confrontations that constitute alternative warfare and low-intensity conflict.
As a result, the military must frequently achieve its goals through technologi-
cal sophistication. Moskos (2001) argues that the identity of the combat
soldier will still remain dominant in the military, but also alternative profes-
sions are rising such as the soldier scientist, the soldier politician, the officer
skilled in media management, and in the nuances of international diplomacy.
And yet, note that during this transition of the military professional from
174 RONIT KARK ET AL.
A second example of the tension between the ideal leadership model and
other identities in the military is evidenced in the story of women who are
in leadership and influential positions in the military. As previously men-
tioned, the same abstract, ideal military leadership model, based on the
body of a male combat officer who puts his life on the line in difficult, dan-
gerous military assignments, is the model women in the military are com-
pared to and assessed by. The dominant social discourse, then, views men
as having stronger leadership potential than women, and are therefore
given more opportunities to demonstrate leadership (Boyce & Herd, 2003;
Kark & Eagly, 2010; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
In spite of that, it is important to emphasize that woman in the military
acts consistently in an ambivalent context. Some of them are located in
powerful positions and perform important and meaningful duties. But at the
same time the military culture maintains differences between women and men
specifically in the context of leadership that creates dual experiences. A recent
research on women officers shows that the women officers interpretations of
their use of power were complex. On the one hand they talked about feelings
of empowerment, pride and taking pleasure in their ability to exercise power:
I felt like I was doing something very significant, [...] I felt like I was doing it well too.
I enjoyed the element of command, I wont deny it. I had 96 trainees in the course, I
had other officers and 96 soldiers under me, thats power! You know how it feels to go
on a training run when this whole large gang is following you? It gives you a feeling
that you are important, significant and influential. A leader. It strengthened my self-
confidence, gave me a feeling of competence, a feeling that I could do anything [].
(Karazi-Presler, 2012, p. 38)
At the same time, many of the women felt that they could use power
and authority only if they adopt patterns of commend and leadership that
were associated with militaristic and masculine combat leadership styles
(Sasson-Levy, 2006).
The central premise of the study is that this dual meaning is attributed
to the sociocultural link between masculinity and power, something that is
particularly discernible in the military context, which is a clear masculine
arena. In light of this, leadership in a military organization holds tension
and paradoxes for women and for demonstrations of feminine stereotypi-
cal behaviors for both women and men.
The research further raised a theme related to the paradoxical percep-
tions of soft power. Female officers frequently adopted leadership practices
or gestures perceived as soft and sociable in order to increase the chances
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 177
the others welfare and to give benefits in response to the others needs.
Thus, leader follower relationships that are characterized by workplace
intimacy, affective communal features and simultaneously distance and
instrumental exchange features are likely to coexist in the context of
military leadership.
A recent work on distance in the IDF focused on the importance and
affect commanders distance and closeness may have on the development
of soldiers. It highlights the tension commanders face in advanced profes-
sional army training courses by having to decide if to display the style they
are used to of showing a strong hand and distance or to become closer
and be a friend of the soldiers, allowing them to call the commanders in
their private names. According to this work in many professional army
training courses, it is most important that commanders give up their dis-
tance stance and become closer to the soldiers, since this can promote the
learning and development process of the soldiers. However, many comman-
ders refrain from the erosion of distance since this may highlight emotion-
ality and contribute to them being seen as more humane and less
commander like, challenging their leadership identity (Asido, 2013).
In the words of one of the commanders: The commander can find him-
self having to deal with emotions and not with command dealing with emo-
tions is not natural to the commanders and may be difficult for them,
therefore they may refrain from getting into such sensitive situations. They
may also dread being seen as soft and as focusing on emotions and not on
the army missions This can threaten the commanders image . He
further asserts: Decreasing leadership distance may expose the commanders
personality to the soldiers and he may be more exposed to the observant eyes
of colleagues and soldiers. Commanders in such situations fear to make mis-
takes and be seen by others, a situation they think will decrease their legiti-
macy to lead. (Asido, 2013).
Although becoming closer can take its toll, the commander, which heads
one of the professional technology training courses in the army acknowl-
edges the importance of closeness for the success of the course and the
learning process of the soldiers, stressing that when commanders decrease
their distance the commanders can form better mentoring relationships
with the soldiers and can facilitate the learning process, by drawing on the
commanders personal values and sharing his past experience. In his words:
During training, the relationship between commander and subordinate is cri-
tical, for a system that enables the command distance during the training
stages to be reduced. The importance of lessening the command distance lies
in expansion of discourse of the doctrine, and professionalism, which is
180 RONIT KARK ET AL.
camaraderie and fraternity between soldiers. This type of close knitted rela-
tionship and networks facilitates leaders effective performance in the battle
field (Shachaf, Winshel, & Pizmony-Levy, 2010).
To summarize, army leadership is challenged by conflicting forces of dis-
tance, formalities and exchange relationships, versus close-emotional bonds
that link combat soldiers contributing to camaraderie, friendship and
the need to build close and at times intimate and mentoring relations with
soldiers and colleagues. This simultaneity of distance and closeness and
embracing the tension between them is needed in order to perform well in
an ever changing and complex current military settings. Navigating
between these forces and holding on to both are most challenging for mili-
tary leadership.
NOTES
1. Other organizations, such as the police or fire force, may have some character-
istics that are similar to the military while other that are distinct, suggesting that
some of our analysis may apply to other similar organizations as well.
2. The findings in this chapter are based on four different studies that were con-
ducted by two of the authors as a part of their work in the Research Division of the
IDF School for Leadership. In each study, between 15 and 25 in-depth interviews
were conducted.
3. This quote is excerpted from research by Yeger-Zelinger, Shahaf, and
DellaPergola (2011).
REFERENCES
ADRP Army Doctrine Publication 6-22. (August, 2012). CAC-LD&E- combined arms cen-
ter for leader development and education, CAL Center for Army Leadership.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2004). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organiza-
tional ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4),
697 717.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organiza-
tional ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4),
696 717.
Anisman-Razin, M., & Kark, R. (2012). The apple does not fall far from the tree: Steve jobss
leadership as simultaneously distant and close. In M. C. Bligh & R. Riggio (Eds.),
When near is far and far is near: Exploring distance in leader-follower relationship. San
Francisco, CA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Asido, N. (2013). The reduction of the commandership distance. Mirrors of Leadership, 4,
64 71. [Hebrew].
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Boyce, L., & Herd, A. (2003). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite
military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles, 49(7 8), 365 378.
Bruhl, J. (2012). Gardner-leaders: A new paradigm for developing adaptive, creative and hum-
ble leaders. Military Review, 92, 41 45.
Carson, J. B., Tessluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investi-
gation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
1217 1234.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal-attraction in exchange and communal relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12 24.
Cohen, R. (2009). The king, the prophet and leadership dilemmas in modern battlefield.
Mirrors of Leadership, 1, 16 20. [Hebrew].
Cojocar, W. (2011). Adaptive leadership in the military decision making process. Military
Review, 91, 23 28.
Coleman, S. J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95 120.
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 185
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, M. T., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and
future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203 1213.
Diefenbach, T., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2011). Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of
organization. Organization Studies, 32, 1515 1537.
Eagly, H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3 22.
Fischer, M. (2004). Recovering from violent conflict: Regeneration and (re-)integration as ele-
ments of peace building. In A. Austin, M. Fischer, & N. Ropers (Eds.), Transforming
ethno political conflict: The Berghof handbook (pp. 373 402).
FM 3-0 Operations. (2008, February). U.S. Army Report.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2011). Complexity arrangements for sustained
innovation: Lessons from 3M corporation. Organization Studies, 32, 737 767.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2009). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important
to combine opposing action strategies. Organization Science, 21(2), 593 608.
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN:
Bobbs-Merrill.
Halpin, M. (2011). Historical influences on the changing nature of leadership within the mili-
tary environment. Military Psychology, 23, 479 488.
Hazani, A. (2011). The connection between social processes and the operation doctrine of the
IDF. IDF Journal Marachot, 435, 18 25. [Hebrew].
Huppaz, K. (2009). Reworking bourdieus capital: Feminine and female capitals in the field of
paid caring work. Sociology, 43(1), 45 66.
Ingram, P., & Zou, X. (2008). Business friendships. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28,
167 184.
Janowitz, M. (1976). Military institutions and citizenship in western societies. Armed Forces
and Society, 2(2), 185 204.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kaplan, D. (2006). Public intimacy: Dynamics of seduction in male homosocial interactions.
Symbolic Interaction, 28(4), 571 595.
Kaplan, D. (2007). Folk models of dyadic male bonds in Israel culture. The Sociological
Quarterly, 48, 47 72.
Kaplinski, M. (2009). IDF before the war. Military and Strategy, 1(2), 19 28.
Karazi-Presler, T. (2011). Between long-lasting empowerment and consistent trauma: perceptions
of power of female military officers in Israel from the perspective of Time. Masters thesis,
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan [Hebrew].
Karazi-Presler, T. (2012). Other leadership required: Perceptions of leadership and influence
among male and female officers in an HQ military framework environment. Mirrors of
Leadership, 5, 38 60. [Hebrew].
Kark, R. (2011). Workplace intimacy in leader-follower relationships. In K. Cameron &
G. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (Vol. 32,
pp. 423 438). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kark, R., & Eagly, A. (2010). Gender and leadership: Negotiating the labyrinth. In
J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology.
New York, NY: Springer.
Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does valuing androgyny and femininity
lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role, transformational lea-
dership and identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 620 640.
186 RONIT KARK ET AL.
Silva, M. J. (2008). A new generation of women? How female ROTC cadets negotiate the
tension between masculine military culture and traditional femininity. Social Forces,
87(2), 937 960.
Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of
organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381 403.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision-making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic
paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592 1623.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. (2005). Senior teams and managing contradictions: On the
team dynamics of managing exploitation and exploration. Organizational Science,
16(5), 522 536.
Tubi, S. (2012). Leadership and complexity: Can they go together? Mirrors of Leadership, 5,
60 77. [Hebrew].
Tubi, S., & Gal, L. (2013). An analysis of leadership and its development in the Israeli army.
Internal Document, The School of Leadership Development [Hebrew].
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKlvley, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298 318.
Williams, T. (2003). Strategic leader readiness and competencies for asymmetric warfare.
Parameters, 33, 19 35.
Wisecarver, M., Schneider, R., Foldes, H., & Cullen, M. (2011). Knowledge, skills, and abilities
for military leader influence. Technical Report, U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Yeger-Zelinger, H., Shahaf, K., & DellaPergola, S. (2011). Watching from the stands:
Seniority phenomena in the eyes of senior veterans. Images of Leadership, 4, 72 85.
[Hebrew].
This article has been cited by: