Napoleon vs.
Presented to
LTC Salgueiro
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for
HCA 5329, Leadership
By
CPT Alan A. Jones
30 November 2005
Napoleon vs.
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the role of leadership in military and academic settings. Military leaders have long been studied and revered for their role in leading large numbers of troops in battle. The names of great military leaders such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, George Washington, and Schwarzkopf are recognized by millions of people. While the names of great academicians such as Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein, and Hawkins are just as famous, they are recognized for their individual achievements rather than leading large groups. In this paper, I will define organizational leadership and compare and contrast the organizational structure, the follower motivations, and the three leadership traits that are necessary for good leadership outcomes in both military and academic settings.
What is leadership? Daniel Goleman states (1995, p. 149), “Leadership is not domination, but the art of persuading people to work toward a common goal.” Both military and academic institutions have goals and require leadership. Although Goleman’s definition is widely accepted, it does not fully define the role of leadership in military and academic settings. Paul Bon expands on this definition by including the organizational role. He states (1995, p. 7), “Organizations are goal oriented and purposeful. They place leaders in key positions to insure the accomplishment of their goals.” He further defines organizational leadership as the “process of influencing human behavior so as to accomplish the goals of the organization” (p.7).
Organizational structure defines how organizations formally divide job tasks (Robbins, 2003). The structure varies significantly depending on the organization and its mission. Robbins states that there are six elements that must be considered when a manager designs his organization’s structure: work specialization, departmentalization, chain of command, span of control, centralization and decentralization, and formalization. Work specialization describes the degree to which tasks are subdivided into separate jobs and allows managers to group jobs together so that common tasks can be coordinated. This grouping together of jobs in known as departmentalization and is seen in both military and academic settings in the separation of brigades into battalions and companies and universities into colleges and departments. The chain of command refers to the line of authority that begins at the top of the organization and extends to the lowest ranking member. In military settings, the chain of command is defined by officer and enlisted ranks which do not always correlate with time in service. In academic settings, the upper ranks of the organization are usually “tenured” due to extensive time in service and expertise. The span of control defines the number of subordinates that a manager can efficiently and effectively direct while centralization and decentralization refer to the degree to which decision making is concentrated at a single point in an organization. Finally, formalization refers to the degree to which jobs are standardized. By carefully considering these elements, an organization’s structure can facilitate and motivate employees to perform at higher levels.
There are several common organizational designs including the simple structure, the bureaucracy, and the matrix structure (Robbins, 2003). According to Robbins, the simple structure is characterized by a low degree of departmentalization, wide spans of control, little formalization, and authority which rests in a single person. This type of structure is usually found in small businesses. A bureaucracy has highly routine operating tasks, formalized rules, a strict chain of command, a narrow span of control, and tasks which are grouped into functional departments (Robbins). Finally, a matrix structure combines functional and product departmentalization and has dual lines of authority. Robbins notes that this structure is very useful in organizations where there are multiple complex interdependent activities.
The organizational structures of the military and academic institutions are very similar despite these organizations having very different goals. The mission of the military is to defend the homeland, fight and win the nation’s wars, and serve in peacekeeping operations. To meet the requirements of the mission, the military must have a complex, highly centralized organizational structure. This structure ensures a united effort and greatly reduces the amount of chaos and confusion on the battlefield. Figure 1 demonstrates the basic structure of the military.
The mission of higher education is to expand the knowledge base of our citizens, promote understanding of the world, and ensure future research and development. Like the military, academic institutions also require a complex, highly centralized organizational structure in order to carry out their mission. Figure 2 demonstrates the organizational structure of an institute of higher learning.
While military and academic organizations have similar structures, one can argue that the military has characteristics of both bureaucratic and matrix organizational structures while institutes of higher learning are clearly organized in a matrix structure. Leaders in both military and university settings function with several lines of authority and have dual responsibilities. For example, a hospital commander must meet the requirements of both the Army and the requirements of JCAHO; thus, he must understand both roles and ensure that both requirements are met. Likewise, educators must both conduct research to allow for growth in their field as well as educate students.
The corps of an organization is composed of followers who believe in the mission. There are several factors which motivate an individual to join an organization. Robbins (2003) illustrates this by using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. Physiological needs include food and shelter; safety needs include security and protection from physical and emotional harm; social needs include feelings of acceptance and friendship; esteem needs include self-respect and autonomy; and self-actualization needs include growth and attaining one’s full potential. Both the military and institutes of higher learning offer fulfillment of these needs in different ways.
The prerequisites for enlisting in the military include passing an aptitude test, meeting a weight standard, and having no criminal record. Although the requirements for enlisting in the military are not difficult to meet, a much smaller number of people join the military when compared to those that enroll in an institute of higher learning. The motivations for entry into the military are based on three factors; patriotism, teamwork, and adventure.
Patriotism is
defined as love and devotion to one’s country.
The opportunity to engage in teamwork also provides motivation to join the military. In order for a mission to be completed, teamwork is essential among the different military services as well as among members of an individual unit. While individual achievement is recognized and awarded in the academic arena, the courage and loyalty to serve the needs of the unit above one’s self are recognized in the military and illustrate the importance of teamwork.
The third factor which motivates many people to join the military is the opportunity for adventure. Members of the military travel to many distant countries and experience many different cultures over the course of their careers. Besides the extensive traveling, the military conducts training unlike any other organization. The training often includes exposure to extreme environmental elements, parachuting, shooting weapons, and maneuvering obstacles.
The motivation for entry into an institute of higher learning is the desire for future employment which will provide financial security and the desire to study an area of interest. In order to be admitted into an institute of higher learning, one must meet the minimum criterion which are based on high school grade point averages, standardized test scores, and financial obligations. Unfortunately, high school students who fail to do well on standardized tests or who have poor grades are often denied entry. Likewise, those who cannot afford tuition bills or the lost opportunity of earning money while attending school are also denied entry in many cases.
Although enlistment in the military and enrollment in an institution of higher learning are motivated by different factors, ultimately the desire is to meet basic physiological, safety, esteem, social, and self-actualization needs. In order to be successful in either arena, there are essential leadership traits that must be present.
The three keys to success in military leadership are integrity, loyalty, and knowledge through continued education. Integrity is the adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. It is the part of an individual’s character which holds him to his commitments despite desires to do otherwise. This is an especially important virtue for military leaders as it deals with one’s belief in his own best judgment and respect for the judgment of others. It is the characteristic which causes an individual to stand up for what he believes in and to fight for what is valuable. Leaders have a particularly vital role in upholding their beliefs as their subordinates look to them for guidance. Military leaders are often faced with making difficult decisions with imperfect information. By consistently making decisions that are in the best interest of the soldiers and unit, leaders can positively influence the morale of their soldiers and the mission at hand.
The second trait found in successful military leaders is loyalty. Loyalty is the steadfast allegiance to one’s organization and is an essential quality. Military leaders are entrusted with the safety of the Nation, the lives of their soldiers, and millions of dollars of equipment. They must demonstrate their loyalty by putting the nation’s interest and the needs of their soldiers ahead of their own. Military leaders must make considerable sacrifices to help preserve and protect the values that our country upholds. Through selfless service, military leaders demonstrate their loyalty and create an environment of trust.
The final trait of great military leaders is knowledge through continued education. Military leaders must continue to educate themselves as well as educate their subordinates. John F. Kennedy said that “leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.” The military recognizes that military leaders must expand their knowledge as they assume increasing levels of responsibility. This is evident by the use of the Military Education System, which trains and educates leaders as they are promoted. Military leaders have a responsibility to educate their subordinates to ensure safety and mission readiness. For this reason, military leaders spend a considerable amount of time planning and conducting training exercises.
The keys to being a successful leader in an academic setting are charisma, autonomy, and participation. Academic leaders are viewed as successful if their students understand the course objectives and are able to apply the information to real situations. In order to be successful, academic leaders are also expected to meet the requirements of the institution and contribute to their specific field of study.
Academic leaders must be charismatic. This quality enables them to arouse a popular devotion or enthusiasm in an area of interest. In most institutes of higher learning, students are not required to attend lectures and won’t if their professor fails to spark their interest. If a professor is unable to motivate his students, he will fail to meet one of his core objectives which is ensuring that his students understand the course material. Additionally, students who may have made significant contributions in an area may choose a different field of study due to an uninspiring professor. This concept has been illustrated by known educator Alexander Astin who referenced the theory of involvement which states that, “a particular curriculum, to achieve the effects intended, must elicit sufficient student effort and investment of energy to bring about the desired learning and development” (1999, p. 522). Astin noted that the link between the curriculum and learning was a charismatic teacher.
Educators must also maintain a sense of autonomy or independence in order to be successful. The academic profession is based on the expansion of knowledge through innovative ideas and creativity. In order to ensure the continued growth of a field, academic leaders must permit freedom and the autonomy to explore new possibilities. By allowing students to “self-direct” professors can prevent barriers in the learning process.
The third trait of an academic leader is participation. In the Journal of College Student Development, Alexander Astin writes that educators can achieve better outcomes if they focus more on interacting with the students and less on the act of lecturing. He states that this is a paradigm shift in which educators historically “placed students in a passive role as recipients of information” (1999, p. 522). Astin states that teachers’ participation is the key to elicit student involvement and that unfortunately “many teachers and administrators often concentrate on their own techniques or processes and thus ignore or overlook what is going on with the student” (p. 526).
In conclusion, strong leadership is required in both military and academic settings. Leaders in both settings are responsible for ensuring that the mission is accomplished by clearly defining the organization’s structure and goals. They must have the vision to see where the organization is going and be able to utilize the talents of their members in ways which positively affect the mission at hand. While military and academic institutions have similar organizational structures, they have very different missions and factors which motivate members to join. Leaders in both settings have specific traits which make them successful, but they are united in their role to persuade and empower their members to work toward a common goal.
References
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education. Journal of College Student Development. 40,5: 518-29.
Bons,
P. M. (1985). Leadership in organizations
(3rd Ed.).
Goleman, D.
(1995). Emotional Intelligence.
Robbins,
S. P. (2003). Organizational Behavior
(10th Ed.).