Leadership in tough situations requires one to dig deep
to find values, meaning and strength at a more basic level. A paper by Jennings and
Hannah discusses the concept of leadership identity formulation among those who
experience some of the world’s most intense situations. They create a more
concrete formulation of the idea of ethical leadership in the military even
when the situation is tough and the right path is not easy to discern. The report
focuses on the choice between moral versus legal aspirations.
The ultimate aim of any military is to project and employ
force to defend their people, rights of their citizens, interests and very core
values of their people. When stressful situations occur individuals within
units have multiple competing interests. They may engage in self-preservation,
protection of their unit, protecting civilians, engage their personal values,
or engage the unit’s values. Each creates different avenues and opportunities
for action. How someone chooses between these competing interests determines
their ethical leadership stance.
According to Coker (2007) a soldier’s occupation may be
fighting but his vocation is to combat the need for war. Thus, the soldier
should develop character and virtue rather than simple behavioral compliance with
societal norms. To think on this level requires the internalization of concepts
such as honor, courage, sacrifice, and patriotism beyond simple social
approval. Difficult situations test the very fabric of a person and their
ability to draw on internal values versus external compliance.
The author describes military morality a little like Adam
Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments.
At the lowest level is simple grammatical adherence in writing while a higher
form of expression breaks all the rules to create an eloquent form of
communication. The professor may give an
F on the paper but an A on their ability to think beyond simple substance. Those who take those types of chances are
often judged for breaking codes and standards but can also create new standards that push the envelope.
Essentially, rule following is an extrinsic motivation based
in a negative feedback model that creates self-regulation (Bandura & Lock,
2003). Identity conferring constructs are an intrinsically motivated positive
feed-forward model based within self-challenge and self-efficacy (Bandura &
Locke, 2003). One focuses on social acceptance while the other focuses on
complete self-development.
The authors use examples of Above the Call of Duty to highlight their point:
Example 1: The
rule-following member does not act to value civilians because he views his life
as more important and the rules do not explicitly require him to act to protect
others.
Example 2: The
identity-conferring member moves beyond the rules and risks his life to protect
others because he is guided by his military ethic of what is good, beneficial,
and honorable.
The two persons are fundamentally different. The first
person is more interested in their life and ensuring that they have the social
acceptance of others. The second person is less interested in immediate
agreement and moves to take on higher ideals of value. To do so requires a
whole different thinking about self in the context of events. He is not only the rule-following
soldier only but also the authentic soldier-protector who finds higher value in
what he does. He recognizes the value of following the rules but can move
beyond them if there is a higher principle worth engaging.
The authors focused on informing and inspiring military
conduct under extreme conditions. Previous research fails to develop beyond
basic transactional ethics and into the realms of virtuous behavior in combat
situations. Exemplary leadership should be seen in terms of transformational
and authentic leadership that moves beyond defined standards. As the nature of
warfare changes to high civilian interactions and insurgencies the ability to
maintain certain ethical considerations in isolation becomes even more
important. The author contends that militaries will need exemplary
ethics and leadership now and in the future to be successful.
Comment: It can
be beneficial to look at leadership in high stress situations where a large
array of possible decisions can be made to help organizations formulate a greater
understanding of leadership management. This report helps us understand that
rule and norm maintenance is an external value system based in self-interest. In
day-to-day operations, and standard situations, these rules provide structure
and should be followed. Occasionally, it is necessary to think beyond the rules
and into greater value systems when difficult situations call for it. Where
trust has been broken with the public it is even more important to ensure
corporations act in the betterment of society and foster those strengths within
their executives so they may think for themselves beyond the social approval of
their internal social structure. There are a few examples where business
leadership has gone above and beyond the call of duty even when they have taken all the risks.
Bandural, A. & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy
and goals effects revisited. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88.
Cocker, C. (2007). Warrior
ethos: Military culture and the war on terror. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jennings, P. & Hannah, S. (2011). The moralities of
obligation and aspiration: towards a concept of exemplary military ethics and
leadership. Military Psychology, 23.
