Document created: 31 October 03
Air University Review,
January-February 1973
In the normal process of military organizations, the leader is never successful alone. He achieves success by effectively and efficiently marshaling the efforts of many people and focusing them on the unit’s missions. Thus, the determinant of military leadership is the individual’s ability to manage people. All other aspects of organizational functioning have little significance unless the people are effectively managed.
The style of leadership (management) adopted by a leader is tremendously influenced by his feelings about people. In turn, his adopted style exerts tremendous influence on the behavior of his people. Stated simply, if he feels that his people are responsible individuals, he will act accordingly in his direction of their efforts, and they will tend to act as they sense he expects them to act. If, on the other hand, he feels that people are “no damned good,” they will sense it and respond in kind. In brief, it can be said that leadership is a relationship that exists between people, and that relationship is most certainly affected by the feelings of the people involved.
The same style of leadership or the same technique of influence will not be equally effective for all people or in all situations. Therefore, the effective leader will be the individual who acquires the ability to “read” the situation, know his people, and respond to both in a tailored manner. He recognizes that there is a difference between what his (the leader’s) job should be and what the other person’s job should be, and this recognition permits him to structure his own behavior as required by the situation and the people involved. In other words, the leader’s style and applied technique must be sufficiently flexible to be appropriate to the particular group’s needs and expectations.
Throughout history, military leaders have contributed immeasurably to management philosophy and managerial techniques. Their more recent contributions have been adapted and adopted worldwide in the areas of systems management, matrix organization, project management, personnel training, quantitative techniques, operations research, and inventory management, for a few examples. In return, of course, military leaders have borrowed concept and philosophy from their contemporaries in nonmilitary and nongovernment enterprises. The history of military organization reflects both give and take in management thought, and no military leader in today’s Department of Defense should consider his job beyond help from outside sources: reported research, expository articles, or accounts of successful and unsuccessful leadership techniques.
An effective military leader may not be totally efficient. He may be gauged a success on the basis of results so long as only a casual measurement of cost is attempted. When cost measurement is also used to determine success, the leader must become conscious of cost-effectiveness and begin to evaluate his leadership/ management actions from the point of view of both effectiveness and efficiency. In the military environment, effectiveness is the driving feature, as it must be for national survival. American military leaders have been and are now effective, as is evidenced by our continued existence as a society and source of world influence. Nevertheless, improved use of people should be a major personal goal of every military leader, and it is to that goal that the remainder of this article is addressed.
a basic philosophy—involvement
Doing a consistently good job of managing people is not accidental. It requires considerable effort, a real interest, the ability to understand people, a lot of time, and a willingness to share. Further, the leader must adopt an outlook that permits him to change because every interpersonal contact offers that possibility. Therefore, the leader must approach the people-management task with desire and dedication if he is to succeed with efficiency.
Successful management of people is an exercise in involvement. Detachment is not a stepping-stone to success even though it may sometimes be a worthwhile strategy. Most of the time, however, the leader must he sufficiently involved with his people so that be is consciously working to help them improve their ability to perform on the job. This demands his commitment to helping subordinates grow in competence, in ability to handle responsibility, and in capability to identify needs that must be satisfied for organizational success.
Involvement dictates that the leader learn to know his key subordinates as individuals, as persons. He cannot be involved with individuals as he must be, if he permits himself to think of his subordinates only in terms of “group.” Together, of course, the individuals, form the group, and the group is the organizational element he leads and manages. But he will most likely acquire his greatest success and most satisfying job performance when he learns to know his people as individuals and works to relate their personal values, desires, and drives to organizational needs and group success.
Unless he does learn to know his people as individuals, he will probably adopt some philosophy that will lead him to thinking in terms of average man.” Such thinking masses people and forces them into molds that they do not fit and that eliminate any sense of individuality or personality. The techniques and notions that must accompany “average man” conceptualizations do not fit most of the people. Their use, then, increases the individual’s sense of irritation and discomfort and makes him restive in the unit, restricting his capacity to contribute.
learning to know him
An effective leader is able to evaluate the situation in which he finds himself and determine how his people’s individualities can best be used in that situation. Most do this automatically, seldom consciously thinking about what process is taking place. Obviously, knowing the individualities of the people means that much has gone before—much learning about the people as distinctive persons with greatly different backgrounds. The people manager aspiring to a high probability of continuing effectiveness will make a concerted effort to know his people so that he can intelligently face any situation coming his way.
It should be clear that a leader’s first concern for his people ought to be to know as well as possible those individuals who report directly to him. In many organizations this will leave a relatively large number of people with whom the leader will have infrequent personal contact. These people, of course, should be known by subordinate supervisory personnel under the same guide: those who report directly. Thus, this approach to leadership effectiveness is well within the capabilities of all responsible leaders and does not impose an unreasonable burden.
The first, and likely most obvious, learning medium is the personnel record system of the organization. These files offer quick and basic information about an individual’s background, education, prior jobs, and experience. With this, the leader can approach each individual at an appropriate time for amplification through discussion, which can be most valuable in establishing rapport and displaying interest in the person as an individual. A few comments from the leader about the man’s past (as gleaned from the records) will establish that the leader was, in fact, sufficiently interested to learn something about him prior to the conversation.
Private conversation with each individual offers the leader a good opportunity to learn how the other feels about his work, how he thinks, and how he responds to his environment. If these conversations are motivated by sincerity, the leader will recognize the effects of his involvement, as earlier outlined, and further recognize that he is establishing a foundation of mutuality from which can develop empathy and understanding. He will be addressing a need, existing in each of us, for assurance that the boss is indeed interested in making our contribution a meaningful and worthwhile use of abilities and skills.
These private conversations should be frequent and should never be considered as no longer necessary. The leader should arrange the opportunity for these conversations in such a way that they never give an impression they are held “because it’s time for another chat.” Rather, they should be maneuvered so that they seem to develop naturally and give the other person an assurance of true interest. An important element should be the leader’s desire to listen to the other person. It is vital that the leader recognize how much difference true listening—not just hearing—will make in his learning about his personnel.
When this is recognized by the leader, he will be wise to somehow transfer to the other person how that person’s words and actions are modifying the leader’s actions, thinking, and understanding. Thus, the involvement process and its resulting changes in the people participants will be recognized and acknowledged. Often the other person will react in kind by revealing how the association is also changing him. When this begins to surface, the relationship will likely blossom with greater faith, trust, and performance.
A leader is often able to help a subordinate attain some personal goal if he knows that the goal exists. Therefore, some part of the learning-to-know-him process should include development of the opportunity for the participants to express their goals on this job and for this life, Thus, the leader learns some of the motivational factors of his people and is better able to help them, individually and collectively, realize their potentials. The leader, then, can encourage his people to seek new experiences and can contribute the support which only he can provide for personal improvement efforts.
the leader leads
A leader is expected to set the pace, provide a functional participation to the group, and contribute to the group in a manner that helps make goal attainment probable. Thus, if the leader expects his people to work for goals, he must contribute to the establishment of those goals and to their attainment. The group will, unconsciously at least, expect to learn that the leader has some established personal goals, has exerted effort to define the group goals clearly, and encourages members of the group, individually, to set personal goals to which group membership will contribute.
Enthusiasm is a hallmark of leadership, and it is contagious. Problems are opportunities to the enthusiastic leader who gets a charge out of the challenge of risk that accompanies the opportunities. He is eager to work with new requirements because he is confident in his ability to meet the future even though he recognizes the probability of difficulties. In his enthusiasm he eagerly seeks help when he needs it and is intelligent enough to recognize, and admit, that such help is often needed. Accordingly, he is also enthusiastic in his help to others, recognizing with empathy the similarities of their needs and his. Thus, the leader leads by example with his enthusiasm and his eagerness both to seek and give help for goal attainment.
People work best, and in a more cooperative fashion, when they understand what they are expected to do and why their participation is necessary. The communicative skills of the leader play an important role in the creation of an atmosphere of cooperative effort. Efficient use of the human resources demands communication, coordination, and cooperation, and the effective leader realizes this. Accordingly, he works for two-way communication, aimed at understanding and acceptance, through conscious application of the principle of feedback for both participants of every confrontation. He recognizes, too, the effect of attitude on communication, coordination, and cooperation and strives to keep his thinking and, hence, his attitude constructive at all times. He avoids the caustic results of negativism in thinking and attitude and the impact of such negativism on his people.
A good leader might also be considered a part-time public relations specialist. People in successful group operations accomplish much that is worthy of display to others. The leader realizes this and does his part for the group by publicizing the accomplishments of his people individually and in group. He will work for his own professional development and encourage the same in his people in recognition that the work itself constitutes an important element for job satisfaction and human motivation. Thus, with his understanding and enthusiasm he encourages performance, innovation, creativity, and initiative.
Loyalty is an essential ingredient for effective leadership, and it must be displayed without equivocation. The leader, if he desires to remain so, must develop and evidence his loyalty to his people, his boss, and his organization. This should in no way be interpreted to require blind loyalty in which the boss, the unit, and the people can do no wrong because, obviously, there is always that likelihood. Normally, however, the boss, the unit, and the people act effectively, and the leader’s significant contributions are loyalty and support through decisions based on a sounder foundation than hoped-for popularity.
Not all people will live up to the leader’s expectations. The leader needs to recognize that sometimes a person will disappoint him, but he should not permit this recognition to become an expectation—for the obvious reasons already discussed. Sometimes the natural rivalry that exists in the group will encourage some individual to overextend himself and create a condition in which he cannot perform as expected. Other times an individual, for any of a wide range of reasons, just will not contribute as the leader expects. Thus, the leader must accept the probability of some individual failure, some disappointment, and be prepared to deal with it in a manner consistent with the situation and the person.
Error and failure are human frailties with which the leader must cope, in himself and others. Perfection continuously has little probability of occurrence, so the leader has to accept that he will commit errors and be exposed to the same in the efforts of others. This is not to say that error and failure should be condoned under any or all circumstances, but their probability must be accepted. This creates a situation in which the leader must define for himself the fine line dividing honest error/failure and inadequate performance.
the leader helps
Truly effective leadership requires the leader to help his people realize and use the talents and abilities of the other people of the unit. In this manner a cooperative approach to group success is formulated, and no one in the unit feels he is alone in his efforts to succeed. In defense organizations, such an environment is vital for mission capability because today’s sophisticated weaponry has made the one-man victor highly improbable. Rather, military missions today are successfully accomplished only through the cooperative use of the skills of many, directed with coordination for a common purpose. For this reason, the skill of the leader helping to instill an active cooperative spirit becomes a tremendously significant determinant for consistently successful group performance.
The leader helps his people come to grips with understanding that the varieties of backgrounds represented in the group will cause some ideological conflict that should be used for the common good. Progress is usually sparked by such conflict if the participants accept the fact that there is normally more than one way to skin the cat. Such acceptance paves the road to an intelligent judgment of the other person’s point of view and offers a logical means by which the opinions of all participants are continually altered until agreement is reached. This form of confrontation in which each participant reacts with understanding is dynamic and innovative, offering the group a much wider range of alternatives for problem solution.
Active and dedicated people want to grow in knowledge, experience, and ability. The effective leader, recognizing this, helps his people by urging them not to be restrained in their healthy curiosity by the artificial barriers of the formal organization chart. In this manner, the leader encourages his people to accommodate their curiosity, stretch into new experience areas, and enhance their understanding of the needs and accomplishments of others united with them for the common organizational objectives. Thus, communication is facilitated, coordination is made more likely, and cooperation is gained from a willingness on the part of all.
Success invokes change, and change can be frightening or disturbing when people do not understand what results are likely from the suggested alteration of the familiar. This appears to hold true even though all humans have been exposed to constant change throughout their lives. Despite the constancy of change and the normal human desire to improve, life in an organizational endeavor seems to carry with it a desire to retain the status quo. Inconsistent as this may be, the leader must still cope with it and simultaneously cope with the need for and problems of change and help his people to adopt and accept.
The consistently successful organization dynamically functions within a framework of constant change. Each job performance, every conversation, each ideological conflict—all alter the capacity and capability of the persons who make the organization and thus change the organization. Such change must be expected, as must be the changes resulting from the outside world’s technology and its cultural, economic, and social stretching. No person or organization can be fully insulated from these stimuli. Military organizations are likely to feel even more of this change impact because of the transiency of population and the ever present pressures of urgent alterations occasioned by world politics and mission emphases. For these reasons, the ability of the military leader to help his people adapt to change becomes significant for the unit. He cannot afford to be overly sold on the established routine of requirement, process, or procedure. Instead, he must adopt the philosophy of grace: progress is impossible without change, so he should make change a graceful and beneficial process for his unit.
The military leader is not successful alone. He needs and relies upon the efforts of other people to accomplish the unit mission. Accordingly, the military leader is, in fact, a manager of people, and to be effective he must provide himself a conscious program aimed at knowing his people and how best to use them in the current and projected situations. It should be emphasized that the leader’s effort to better his ability to use people must not be left to chance. He may, in fact, over time become quite proficient by random situational learning; but not many would disagree that, in sum, this is likely to be an expensive and often disappointing process. Therefore, this article urges a purposeful effort to learn and apply learned knowledge to the task of managing people—a task that can be psychically and tangibly rewarding when done well and successfully.
School of Systems and Logistics,
AFIT
Jerome G. Peppers, Jr., Major, USAF (Ret), (M.L.S., University of Oklahoma) is Professor of Maintenance Management, School of Systems and Logistics, Air Force Institute of Technology. His active duty assignments (1940-64) were in maintenance, in Strategic Air Command from 1951. He is editor of the 4-volume textbook AFIT Maintenance Management and author of numerous articles. He is a graduate of Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression,
academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official
position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air
Force or the Air University.
Air
& Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor