Authority and Leadership

Authority is a necessary part of leadership, but there are many shades to that latter word! “Authority” can mean technical expertise, or it can be a general moral trait, or a position determined by one’s place within a hierarchy. These three aspects can come into conflict.

Take for example technical expertise vs hierarchical position. Say you have a highly skilled engineer (technical expert) who has innovative ideas to solve a critical problem. But a manager higher in the organization, who lacks the same level of technical knowledge, may override the engineer’s recommendations due to his positional authority. Hierarchical authority is often tied to decision-making power, while technical expertise is based on specialized knowledge. When positional authority disregards expertise, it can lead to inefficiency or errors, as decisions may not reflect the best technical judgment.

For technical expertise vs moral authority, suppose you have a person with deep technical knowledge who proposes a solution that is effective but ethically questionable, clashing with someone whose authority stems from moral integrity. The conflict arises because technical expertise focuses on what is possible, while moral authority emphasizes what is right. These priorities diverge when technical goals overlook ethical implications.

For moral authority vs hierarchical position, consider a leader in a high-ranking position who issues directives that conflict with the convictions of someone seen as a moral authority within the organization. This situation describes the situation that whistle blowers find themselves in. Hierarchical authority implies a chain of command, while moral authority stems from trust and ethical reputation. When the person with moral authority challenges the leader in a high-ranking position, this is seen as a challenge which undermines the chain of command.

It is easy to imagine a situation where all three come into conflict. For example, imagine a highly skilled surgeon (technical authority) recommends a risky procedure to save a comatose patient. A hospital administrator (hierarchical authority) is opposed to the procedure for reasons of liability, and an ethics committee member (moral authority) argues against the procedure on grounds of patient consent. The options in this case are either to negotiate or to seek a compromise.

In military situations, the moral vs hierarchy authority conflict is almost always resolved because morally, everybody is in agreement on the rightness of the mission (Hlad, 2013). If not, there are options for one who has moral reservations about the correctness of the mission (Kilner, 2023). When technical authority comes into conflict with hierarchy-based authority (rank), the person with rank evaluates the technical authority’s recommendation against the mission and usually says “go ahead and cook.”

In Total Quality Management (TQM), where continuous improvement, collaboration, and ethical decision-making are paramount, moral authority emerges as a critical pillar of effective leadership. TQM emphasizes not only technical excellence and structured processes but also a commitment to ethical principles that foster trust, integrity, and long-term organizational success (Goetsch & Davis, 2021, p. 53).

The resolution of conflicts among these forms of authority—whether through negotiation, compromise, or ethical prioritization—requires leaders to recognize the unique value of moral authority. In business settings, where competing priorities and stakeholder interests often complicate decision-making, moral authority provides a unifying framework that aligns technical and hierarchical efforts with ethical standards.

References

Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. B. (2021). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (9^th ed.). Pearson.

Hlad, M. (2013, 16 April). Moral fitness: Ethical education for Marines. Marine Corps University. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA603799.pdf

Kilner, P. (2023). Mitigating moral injuries through proactive, ethical leadership. Military Review. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2023-OLE/Kilner/

A Note on Culture and Leadership Style

The U.S. Army is empowering its soldiers with mission command: by requiring and rewarding initiative, trust and loyalty is engendered, just as it is in organizations practicing Total Quality Management (TQM) (Goetsch & Davis, 2021, p. 52). Obviously, bureaucracy is still present and it is now clear how initiative and bureaucracy can coexist.

It is interesting to compare this organizational culture with other military cultures that result in two diametrically opposed leadership styles: centralized control and Auftragstaktik, which is practiced by the German military as well as various self-defense forces.

Russia still clings to rigid, a top-down command style rooted in centralized control. As explained in (Bowen, 2024), "the Russian military continues to operate with a Soviet-style centralized command. This command style at the tactical level often has contributed to the types of inflexible operations that contributed to previous failures and casualties."

Former USSR satellites such as Ukraine maintain a similar approach. Oleksandr Syrskyi, the current Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, has a "preference for a tightly controlled leadership structure that favors loyalty and personal closeness over purely professional criteria" (n.a., 2024).

The consequences of this centralized command were demonstrated in Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014: interviews (VICE News, March 22, 2014) with Ukrainian sailors (VICE News, March 16, 2014) showed them to be demoralized and directionless when one of their commanders defected to Russia and the government in Ukraine was in disarray.

The opposite of this is mission command or what the Germans call Auftragstaktik (Widder, 2002). These two styles of command are not the same, but in both, the commander specifies the mission and timeframe, and the way to accomplish this is left to the individual troop's initiative. Vandergriff (2018) gives a more comprehensive description of Auftragstaktik – instead of focusing on command and control, he describes it primarily as a form of professionalism and cultural philosophy expected of all members of the German Army: “subordinates could be trusted to take the action he thought appropriate, rather than stopping and waiting until contact could be re-established. This aggressive attitude allowed units to take advantage of fleeting opportunities and local successes.”

Vandergriff (2018) goes on to identify three virtues that German officers required: “knowledge, independence, and the joy of taking responsibility.” These virtues are expressed in Innere Führung, which the German Major General Werner Widder (2002) describes as leadership and civic education and is the foundation of the relationship between the individual soldier and society.

Thus, Vandergriff’s virtues not only describe the character of German officers but makes Auftragstaktik a natural corollary instead of a forced doctrine: German professionalism implies mission command, but not necessarily the reverse.

Self-defense forces have adopted Auftragstaktik out of necessity: their members are not professional warfighters, and they sometimes operate out of contact with their leaders for extended periods of time. In the absence of orders, the individual knows what to do: locate, close with, and destroy the enemy, and break his stuff. This is the exact opposite of what the Ukrainian sailors were doing.

The relation of culture and supporting leadership style in corporations parallels that in military or semi-military organizations: cultures of trust imply certain types of leadership styles, and when there is no trust, another leadership style is needed. The major difference between the corporations and the military organizations is the price for getting the culture and consequent leadership style wrong, and the speed at which that price is paid.

References

Bowen, A. (2024). "Russian Military Performance and Outlook." Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12606

Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. B. (2021). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (9^th ed.). Pearson.

n.a. (2024). "Oleksandr Syrskyi shifts Ukrainian military leadership to vertical approach." New Voice of Ukraine. https://english.nv.ua/nation/new-ukraine-s-armed-forces-chief-changed-the-command-process-of-the-army-50431480.html

Vandergriff, D. E. (21 June 2018). “How the Germans defined Auftragstaktik: What mission command is – and – is not” Small Wars Journal. https://archive.smallwarsjournal.com/index.php/jrnl/art/how-germans-defined-auftragstaktik-what-mission-command-and-not

VICE News. (2014, March 16). Ukrainian Troops Speak Out: Russian Roulette in Ukraine [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH3HGvZlhhk

VICE News. (2014, March 22). Taking over a Ukrainian Base: Russian Roulette in Ukraine [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBLs_AsBtjg

Widder, W. (2002). “Auftragstaktik and Innere Führung: Trademarks of German leadership” Military Review, September-October 2002. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot-Spots/docs/MC/MR-Sep-Oct-2002-Widder.pdf

TQM and Micromanagement

Total quality management (TQM) requires trust to make it work. Goetsch & Davis (2021, p. 52) describe the importance of trust in business settings as follows:

People who trust each other will be able to get along and work well together even in the worst of circumstances. On the other hand, people who do not trust each other will be unable to get along and work well together even in the best of circumstances. Trust is also a critical element in conflict management. A manager must be trusted by both sides in a human conflict to help resolve the conflict.

This is especially true in front-line positions, meaning internal customers interacting directly with external customers, like customer service representatives (CSRs). From the external customer’s perspective, an empowered front-line employee makes their interaction brief, efficient, respectable, pleasant, and valuable. Making this happen requires that management trusts the front-line employees to make the right decisions within the range of his or her capabilities: managers must trust the CSR to meet the customers’ needs without giving away the store.

Imagine being a CSR where the manager does not trust you. The CSR’s decisions are constantly questioned, the CSR becomes risk-adverse, and the CSR’s range of abilities shrinks. The ultimate betrayal is when the manager undercuts the CSR in front of a customer. The CSR is embarrassed and rightfully so. A customer witnessing this would be right to take his business elsewhere.

This results in decreased CSR engagement and motivation: the manager is implicitly saying that the CSR’s contributions are below standards. The manager and CSR enter a death spiral: the manager doesn’t trust the CSR, the CSR’s motivation vanishes, the manager notices this in decreased service quality, which leads the manager to further mistrust the CSR, and it repeats. As Ken Metral puts it,

Micromanagement signals to employees that their managers lack confidence in their abilities to perform tasks independently and make decisions. This lack of trust can be demoralizing for employees, who feel their skills and contributions are undervalued. Over time, this perception creates a rift between managers and their teams, with employees becoming less likely to seek guidance, share ideas, or report issues, fearing criticism or dismissal. The result is a work environment where communication is stifled, innovation is hampered, and resentment builds. (Metral, 2024)

If the CSR calls the manager on this, the CSR is seen as insubordinate, as criticism is never taken in the constructive sense.

The CSR’s only alternative, if he wishes to preserve both his dignity and his soul, is to leave the company. With the high-turnover rate, the manager is finding he must constantly train new CSRs.

The untrusting manager adds more work to himself: not only must he do his own job, but he must closely supervise the CSR. The manager, already far from being a leader, becomes a micromanager.

Celestin & Vanitha (2020) analyze several types of “toxic leadership,” including micromanagement, and they find that 67% of leaders exhibit this trait. They conclude that “toxic leadership significantly correlates with a 35% reduction in employee retention and a 28% drop in engagement, with variations across sectors.”

Micromanagement not only undercuts the specialization or division of labor, but it also eliminates one of the prime advantages to having leader-follower relationships: to multiply efforts through delegation. This ultimately sabotages the goals of TQM: customer satisfaction is no longer the focus, and continuous improvement depends on the particular CSR, instead of being an intentional act taken by all employees.

References

Celestin, M. & Vanitha, N. (2020). The dark side of leadership: Identifying and overcoming toxic traits. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Engineering and Technology, 5(2), 26-33. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Prof-Celestin/publication/385826992_The_Dark_Side_Of_Leadership_Identifying_And_Overcoming_Toxic_Traits/links/676c0a5a00aa3770e0b991b2/The-Dark-Side-Of-Leadership-Identifying-And-Overcoming-Toxic-Traits.pdf

Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. B. (2021). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (9^th ed.). Pearson.

Metral, K. (2024, 15 February). 7 Reasons [micromanaging] is killing your team. Cosmico. https://www.cosmico.org/7-reasons-micromanaging-is-killing-your-team

Leadership in Total Quality Organizations

Introduction

How can leaders create a followership in a quality culture? Leadership for quality requires customer focus, an obsession with quality, teamwork, continuing education and training, and an emphasis on best practices and peak performance (Goetsch & Davis, p. 125). Those are end-results, however. How do we get there?

This post begins by examining the character traits of a good leader. Next, we describe a specific type of team and describe a leadership style that works for such teams. We then evaluate the different leadership styles described in Goetsch & Davis against that team. We find that only one style seems to work – and that style is rejected by aficionados of total quality management (TQM)! We conclude with a modification of this style that addresses the shortfall.

Leadership Characteristics

For a leader to lead, he must possess certain virtues that make him worth following. The leader must display self-confidence and have characteristics such as self-discipline, honesty, credibility, common sense, stamina, commitment, and steadfastness. (Goetsch & Davis, p. 128-129). These traits are a subset of the U.S. Marine Corp’s leadership traits captured by the acronym JJ DID TIE BUCKLE (justice, judgement, dependability, integrity, decisiveness, tact, initiative, endurance, bearing, unselfishness, courage, knowledge, loyalty, and enthusiasm) (Mangiameli, 2014).

A leader must act in a way that his followers will detect these traits and work with the leader in a win-win manner (Goetsch & Davis, p. 130) that ensures the customer receives quality products and services, and that quality is continually improved. This way of acting is called a leadership style.

A Particular Type of Team

The leadership style must be tailored to the individuals or team that must be led. Instead of considering which style works best to inspire a team to achieve a customer-centric and quality-focused environment, let us consider a team that is already centered on customer satisfaction and quality improvement and see how they react to various leadership styles.

Consider a team of extremely competent and aggressive software engineers. They are exceptionally productive workers, frequently sleeping under their desks, or bringing tents into the office, or working multiple 24-hour days. They have zero tolerance for bureaucracy or prevarication. Such software engineers have large egos of necessity. The best way to accommodate that factor is to keep team sizes as small as possible, and the responsibilities of the members within the teams should be non-overlapping.

Of any potential leader they would ask: “what qualifies you to be a leader?” From experience, the best type of leaders would be those who are/were software engineers. The leaders need not be top-notch engineers, but they must be good enough to be respectable.

This type of leader will be both well-grounded as well as have a long-term strategic outlook. They can communicate both short-term and long-term goals with their teams. Any explanation of “why” is either short or unnecessary – they all know why they are there. When communicating goals, the last thing a manager should do is to use the corporate-speak word “vision,” as the software engineers would suggest they adjust their medications!

This type of leader knows to set the direction and get out of the way - excellent software engineers are not led, they are unleashed.

All of this cannot be called a complete theory of leadership, but it is a rough outline of one. Does this leadership method fit into any of the leadership styles described in Goetsch & Davis?

Democratic and Participative Leadership Styles

Democratic leadership and participative leadership are similar in that both use group participation in decision-making with the goals of empowering employees and encouraging shared responsibility. Both use frequent public recognition to boost morale and encourage engagement. The main difference between them is where the decision-making authority lies.

In democratic leadership, also called consultative or consensus leadership, the leader makes the decisions only after receiving input and recommendations from team members. This can even be formalized by having the leader place multiple options up for vote and using majority rule.

With participative leadership, decision-making authority is shared more evenly across the team members. The leader may hold regular meetings to discuss ideas and build consensus through dialog.

From the standpoint of the high-performing software team, leaders using either participative or democratic leadership styles are seen as weak and feckless. Software team members would be concerned that individuals who do not have the proper technical knowledge or who aren’t “stakeholders” are somehow involved in the decision-making process.

Under democratic leadership, and to a lesser extent participative leadership, trust is very easily broken. This certainly will be the result when the leader gathers team member input after a decision has already been made. The high-performing software team will regard the efforts to elicit and provide input as wasted time, and any attempt by leaders to build consensus will be seen as really an effort to manufacture consent.

Finally, frequent public recognition for team members is seen as a “dog and pony show.” This is not to say that software should not be demonstrated; rather, software should be demonstrated to the relevant people on an as-needed basis, and without ceremony.

In summary, then, both participative and democratic leadership styles will be ineffective in leading teams of high-performing software engineers. Leaders will be seen as weak and indecisive, and trust can be easily broken. Further, confidence in the leader will be in doubt, as their ability to lead is based on things like consensus building instead of any actual talent.

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership is “a philosophy and set of practices that enriches the lives of individuals, builds better organizations, and ultimately creates a more just and caring world.” (Greenleaf, 1970).

Servant leaders use “active listening” to make their team members “feel heard and valued, fostering a culture of open communication.” They are also committed to “healing” which means “[R]ecognizing the importance of emotional and mental well-being” so as to support “both themselves and their team in a way that nurtures a healthy, balanced work environment.” (IMD, 2024)

A common criticism of servant leadership is that leaders suffer from burnout because they ignore their own well-being. Another criticism is that it may clash with certain cultures (like the culture of a high-performing software team). For that, it may be better to determine which cultures with which it does not clash.

For the software team described above, servant leadership is in many ways worse than democratic or participative leadership styles. Servant leaders are not leaders at all, with their emphasis on empathy, active listening, relationships, and caring. High-performance software teams do not need to talk about their feelings over a pint of ice cream.

Further, servant leaders do nothing to earn the respect of the team of software engineers, and in fact they actively diminish respect. Weak leaders are seen as weak individuals, and that carries the baggage of falseness. In times of crisis, they are not paragons of strength, which is what is needed in those situations.

Goal-Oriented Leadership

According to Goetsch & Davis, goal-oriented leadership – also called results-based or objective-based leadership – has leaders focus solely on the goals at hand. “Only strategies that make a definite and measurable contribution to accomplishing organizational goals are discussed. The influence of personalities and other factors unrelated to the specific goals of the organization is minimized.” (Goetsch & Davis, p. 128)

Goetsch & Davis note that team members could be so focused on specific goals that they can overlook opportunities for improvement. For this reason, total quality workplaces should reject this leadership style.

Will goal-oriented leadership necessarily devolve like that? Companies that employ high-performance software teams frequently have “lab weeks” which gives them the opportunity to work on projects outside their usual domain. This leads to developing projects that represent new revenue streams or otherwise improve company operations.

Perhaps with this modification, goal-oriented leadership would be appropriate for the type of software team described here.

Conclusion

Building a following in a TQM environment necessarily involves finding a leadership style that maximizes employee engagement and challenges them to continually improve the quality of the goods and services that employees produce.

To do this, leaders should have some level of popularity among the team he leads, while maintaining a professional distance. Leaders must have a sense of purpose, and they must demonstrate traits such as self-discipline, honesty, credibility, common sense, stamina, commitment, and steadfastness. (Goetsch & Davis, p. 128).

The leadership styles presented in Goetsch & Davis allow most of these traits to be displayed by leaders – the major exception being credibility.

There doesn’t seem to be a single leadership style that covers every type of employee or team. Some people would flourish in one style, others – like the software team described here – would find that leaders are either not worth following or even that the leaders inhibit achieving a total quality workplace. An appropriate leadership style can maximize all the qualities of a total quality workplace, and an inappropriate style will cause quality standards to fall and result in team members leaving.

References

Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. B. (2021). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (9th ed.). Pearson.

Greenleaf, R. (1970). The servant as leader. http://www.ediguys.net/Robert_K_Greenleaf_The_Servant_as_Leader.pdf

IMD. (2024). Understanding servant leadership and how to implement it in 9 steps. https://www.imd.org/blog/leadership/servant-leadership

Mangiameli, M. (2014, 21 October). How to apply Marine leadership traits to business. Task & Purpose. https://taskandpurpose.com/sponsored-content/14-marine-leadership-traits-apply-business/

On a Conceptual Model of Military Leadership

Introduction

A conceptual model is an abstract representation of a complex idea stripped of inessential details so that key elements are revealed. This paper looks at a conceptual model of military leadership proposed in (Catino, n.d.). We begin by attempting to define leadership at an appropriate level of abstraction. Next, four traits that a military leader should have according to this conceptual model are examined. Finally, we describe a situation containing an ineffable quality missed by conceptual models.

Definitions of Leadership

Some partial definitions of leadership at a level of abstraction appropriate for a conceptual model include:

1. "Leadership is to give purpose." This is overly broad, and the connection to a mission is not clear.
2. “I need living companions, who will follow me because they want to follow themselves — and to the place where I will.” This is from Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra (Nietzsche, 1883). The part about "following themselves" means that those being led have certain abilities they want to exercise – just as a painter wants to paint or a boxer wants to box, a warrior wants to fight. Following a leader allows them to exercise that ability.
3. "To influence or direct others to accomplish a mission that is set before you." This is better but requires the leader to accomplish only one goal.
4. To correct this deficiency, this can be modified as follows: "To influence or direct others to complete a mission that is set before you, and then build upon the results of that accomplishment."

Essential Traits from a Conceptual Model

The “7-C” conceptual model of military leadership from (Catino, n.d.) lists the following traits: Christ, conviction, competency, community, conflict, communication, and character. While all these are important, I believe that the four most essential traits for a leadership model are character, competency, communication, and conviction.

Character - these are virtues that a leader must possess. The USMC lists 14 leadership virtues in their "JJ DID TIE BUCKLE" acronym: justice, judgement, dependability, initiative, decisiveness, tact, integrity, enthusiasm, bearing, unselfishness, courage, knowledge, loyalty, and endurance (USMC, 2016, p. 2-4). By having these virtues, an individual becomes a leader worth following.

Competency - competency in a leader is not just mastery of relevant technical skills but also the ability to rapidly make decisions in high-stress situations. This instills trust in leadership. Further, the leader expects his followers to be competent and will mentor the followers, teaching and transferring those skills to the followers. All this is covered under USMC's traits of knowledge, judgement, integrity, bearing, decisiveness, and initiative.

Communication – communication is the ability to clearly and concisely express intent and objectives to those being led. Communication works in both directions, and it is necessary for a leader to understand what his followers report, resolve any ambiguities, and other purposes. Communication extends beyond immediate subordinates since communication is necessary to report status and progress to people higher in the chain of command. This allows for coordinated action and unity of effort.

Conviction - conviction is a firmly held belief or faith that a goal or mission is justified, and that the leader’s team can accomplish it. Conviction in a leader rallies the followers and fosters a sense of unity. Conviction is different from stubbornness since conviction can change with compelling evidence and can adapt to evolving conditions. Conviction would fall under the USMC's courage, justice, knowledge, and endurance virtues.

Conclusion - The Man in the Arena

Those traits are necessary but not sufficient for a complete conceptual model of military leadership, I believe.

Consider Teddy Roosevelt's "man in the arena" metaphor (Roosevelt, 1910). Character and competency are necessary to inspire men to follow you. Communication is what is needed to tell them they're about to enter the arena and what their mission is. Conviction is the belief that it is worthwhile to enter the arena and that there's a reasonable chance of success.

Entering the arena requires courage, but what about conduct within that arena?

From limited personal experience it is as if a switch has been flipped, and confidence and habit are replaced by mastery and aggression; the desire for success is replaced by the need to dominate. It's not clear whether or how this joie de guerre is covered by the enthusiasm listed in the JJ DID TIE BUCKLE acronym.

References

Catino, M. S. (n. d.). Military Leadership: A Conceptual Model. [Video] https://libertyuniversity.instructure.com/courses/743862/pages/watch-military-leadership-a-conceptual-model

Nietzsche, F. (1883). Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. (T. Common, tr.) https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1998/pg1998-images.html

Roosevelt, T. (1910, April 23). "Citizenship in a Republic." Theodore Roosevelt Center at Dickinson State University. https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Culture-and-Society/Man-in-the-Arena.aspx

U.S. Marine Corps. (2016). Leading Marines. (MCWP 6-10) https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/LLI/MLD/Fidelity/Leading%20Marines%20MCWP%206-10.pdf?ver=2018-09-26-095807-367

Military Leadership: A Conceptual Model

Definitions of Leadership

Here are some partial definitions of leadership:

1. "Leadership is to give purpose" - very broad, and the connection to goal or mission is not clear.
2. “I need living companions, who will follow me because they want to follow themselves — and to the place where I will”. This is from Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The part about "following themselves" means that those being led have certain abilities they want to exercise - a painter wants to paint, a boxer wants to box, warrior wants to fight. Following a leader allows them to exercise that ability.
3. "To influence or direct others to accomplish a goal that set before you." This is better but requires the leader to accomplish only one goal.
4. To correct this deficiency, this can be modified as follows: "To influence or direct others to accomplish a goal that set before you, and then build upon the results of that accomplishment."

Conceptual Model

Major characteristics of military leadership include:

• Character - these are virtues that a leader must possess. The USMC lists 14 leadership traits in their "JJ DID TIE BUCKLE" acronym: justice, judgement, dependability, initiative, decisiveness, tact, integrity, enthusiasm, bearing, unselfishness, courage, knowledge, loyalty, and endurance.
• Competency - this is covered under USMC's traits of knowledge, judgement, integrity, bearing, decisiveness, and initiative.
• Communication - the ability to clearly and concisely express intent to those being led, and convince them of the importance of a goal or mission.
• Conviction - this is a firmly held belief or faith that a goal or mission is just and that your team can accomplish it. This would maybe fall under the USMC's courage, justice, knowledge, and endurance traits.

Those virtues are necessary but not sufficient for a complete conceptual model military leadership, I believe.

Consider Teddy Roosevelt's "man in the arena" metaphor. Character and competency are necessary to inspire men to follow you. Communication is what is needed to tell them they're about to enter the arena and what their mission is. Conviction is the belief that that there's a reasonable chance of success in that arena.

Entering the arena requires courage, but what about conduct within that arena?

From limited personal experience it is as if a switch has been flipped, and confidence and habit are replaced by mastery and aggression; the desire for success is replaced by the need for dominate. It's not clear whether or how this joie de guerre fits into the usual list of virtues.

References

N/A. MCRP 6-11B (with Change 1): Marine Corps Values: A User's Guide for Discussion Leaders. 20 October 1998. Retrieved 9 August 2024 from https://www.fitness.marines.mil/Portals/211/Docs/FFI/MCRP%206-11B%20%20W%20CH%201%20Marine%20Corps%20Values_A%20User's%20Guide%20for%20Discussion%20Leaders.pdf

Nietzsche, F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. (T. Common, tr.) Retrieved 9 August 2024 from https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1998/pg1998-images.html

Roosevelt, T. "Citizenship in a Republic." 23 April 1910. Retrieved 9 August 2024 from https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Culture-and-Society/Man-in-the-Arena.aspx