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 not 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

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/

The Opposite of Good Leadership

Military structures vary widely in how they empower — or fail to empower — their troops. While some forces cling to rigid, top-down command styles rooted in centralized control, others embrace a decentralized approach that unleashes the initiative of individual soldiers. This contrast is starkly evident when comparing the Soviet-influenced militaries of Russia and Ukraine with the principles of mission command, such as the German Auftragstaktik. The difference isn’t just theoretical — it’s a matter of battlefield outcomes.

Demoralized Ukranian Troops During the Occupation of Crimea
Image from "Ukrainian Troops Speak Out: Russian Roulette in Ukraine" (VICE News, March 16, 2014)

Empowerment is something that is not practiced in all militaries. Consider the Russian military: according to (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."

Ukraine was a satellite of the USSR for years and apparently maintains 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 was 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 exactly the same (Klepper, 2024), but in both, the commander specifies the mission and timeframe, and the way to accomplish this is left to the individual troop's initiative. In the absence of orders, the troop 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.

References

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

Klepper, M. (2024). American Mission Command vs German Auftragstaktik. The Other Side of History Blog. https://the-other-side-of-history.blogspot.com/2024/01/american-mission-command-vs-german.html

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

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

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