Military

Leadership in the military is unique in that military leaders routinely ask followers to risk their lives to achieve organizational goals. Moreover, the will to act derives not from financial gain but from an instilled sense of duty and often from deep bonds of affection. Of necessity, those who ask for such extreme sacrifice must be transformational leaders who inspire followers to do what may be against their self-interest.

The nature of war generates ethical imperatives, such as personal integrity and unit loyalty, that must be honored or the leader may fail in a number of ways. Failure to live up to these ethical imperatives may result in minimal effort from followers, by receiving an outright refusal of orders by subordinates, or even by physical attacks on the leader by the followers, though the latter two have been rare in American military history. Moral failure by military leaders can even lead to long-term psychological injury to those who are subject to unsound leadership. Most important, however, is the obligation of military leaders to be worthy stewards of the special trust and confidence given them by the nation and its people. Violating this charter undermines the national security and endangers the hopes and freedoms of its citizens. Military leaders also operate within a code of justice separate from that of the general public. Known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, armed forces personnel are governed by this unique and binding code of conduct that gives military leaders tremendous legal power over subordinates. This further deepens their obligation to be leaders of character and to use this influence ethically.

Military leadership has distinct requirements and features during the different stages of war: organizing; equipping and training; battle; and recovery and homecoming. Leadership shortfalls in any of these stages can have catastrophic consequences. Because of the importance of leadership in the extreme conditions of warfare, all the armed services devote great effort to the systematic development of leaders through a carefully orchestrated interplay of leadership education and experience in leadership roles of increasing responsibilities. The army has codified many of these concepts in an official publication on Leader Development for America's Army (1994).

The military also recognizes the need to develop effective followers in ways that leaders in other [Page 1001]domains are only beginning to acknowledge. Military followers are not merely subordinates: They are expected to be independent, critical thinkers who give their best effort to achieve the assigned goals. This may include undertaking creative initiatives that are consistent with higher-level organizational intent when obstacles unexpectedly arise to the original plan of action. Subordinates are counted on to act like leaders when the appointed leaders are not present or are unable to lead because of injury or death. Military followers are also expected to recognize potentially unethical or unlawful requests, question them, and, if necessary, to resist them. Of course, military leaders are expected to avoid issuing immoral directives in the first place. Since following orders is not an acceptable justification for moral failure, both leaders and followers receive frequent education in the legal and moral dimensions of warfare.

...