Integrative Leadership Traits in the Us Military

7/30/2019 Integrative Leadership Traits in the Us Military

1/22

1

2011 Chip Laingen

1Laingen is the Communications and Research & Development Director

forMinnesota Wireand Executive Director of theDefense Alliance .

Commander Laingen is a 21-year veteran of the United States Navy. Hewas the special assistant and speechwriter to the Secretary of the Navy

during the tenures of the 70th and 71st Secretaries. A graduate of the

University of Minnesota NROTC program, he earned a B.A. in

International Relations and an M.A. in Public Affairs from the Humphrey

Institute of Public Affairs.

Commander Chip Laingen, United States Navy (Ret) 1

2010 - 2011Executive Leadership Fellow

Center for Integrative Leadership, University of MinnesotaMarch 21, 2011

Exploring Integrative Leadership

Traits in the U.S. Military Officer

Corps

EXPLORING INTEGRATIVE LEADERSHIP*

*Papers that are part of the Exploring Integrative Leadership Series can be accessed

online at www.leadership.umn.edu
http://www.mnwire.com/http://www.mnwire.com/http://www.mnwire.com/http://www.defensealliance.com/http://www.defensealliance.com/http://www.defensealliance.com/http://www.defensealliance.com/http://www.mnwire.com/


2/22

Exploring Integrative Leadership Traits

1

Introduction

Leadership is Influence. That

simple declarative sentence is

presented at the beginning of an

intensive two-week course of study

on leadership at the U.S. Naval War

College. The attendees are senior

officers who are about to embark on

tours to command ships, squadrons

and shore stations. And the use of

that one wordinfluencesparks

the beginnings of debates they will

have about the most effective

leadership traits and styles for theirprofession. They have all

discovered, after an average of 18

years in the military service, that

while their organizations culture of

discipline certainly facilitates

achievement, truly successful units

are the ones whose leaders can work

across boundaries, inside and

outside of their units, to influence

rather than to order desiredoutcomes.

The men and women who are

members of the U.S. military officer

corps exhibit highly integrative

leadership traits, particularly after

many years of service. The cultural

environment, training, and

operational and administrative

dynamics they face all contribute to

this reality. This paper will explore

these dynamics for the purpose of

adding applied leadership lessons

and potentially applicable

behavioral and thought processes to

the various fields of study

associated with integrative

leadership. The leadership dynamics

of military officers will be presented

in the context of four broad

categories: integrative thinking and

behavior; leading and serving

teams; the military culture; and

expectations from outside the

military service.

The intention herein is not to

suggest that military professionals

have a monopoly on any aspect of

integrative leadership traits; nor to

suggest that other disciplines mustemploy military leadership

principles in order to be successful.

Rather, the integrative leadership

challenges within the military

present a rich and unique

opportunity to identify and study

individuals who have been

immersed in those challenges. This

may help inform and expand upon

the models and practice ofintegrative leadership being

developed and employed as the

discipline is further studied.

I. The integrative thinking and

behavior of military officers

Military officers are often described

as jacks of all trades and masters

of none. This is true even among

those officers trained in highly

technical fields, or with specialized

skills, such as nuclear propulsion or

pilot training. They are

systematically moved from one unit

Military

professionals do not

have a monopoly on

integrativeleadership traits, but

the leadership

challenges

presented in the

military present a

rich opportunity to

learn from

individuals who

have beenimmersed in those

challenges.


3/22


2

to another including from coast-to-

coast, and overseas, regularly

exposed to newly-embraced

management theories and shifting

administrative systems, and are

expected to handle challenges, both

physical and intellectual, sometimes

well outside that for which they

may have received formal training.

This leads to an often frenetic, but

ultimately integrative outlook with

regard to leadership challenges. The

following dynamics will attempt to

illustrate this phenomenon.

Dynamic 1: Systems-level anddistributive

1thought processes

are highly developed among U.S.

military officers due to the

complex and interrelated nature

of equipment, mission realities,

and high stakes outcomes from

the threat and actual use of force.

In a Seahawk helicopter off the

coast of Somalia in the darkness of

an early morning, a Navy flightcrew is tracking a small speedboat

that has been identified as hostile

due to its recent and rapid

departure from an ocean-going

supertanker being held by pirates.

The aircraft commander is

Lieutenant Menendez, who is

beginning a mental checklist of

items that involves a myriad of

1In the military context, distributive

refers to inter-connected units that are part

of the same network of available assets for

a commander on scene.

realities and various levels of

thought, including:

Two sets of rules of engagement,

written by both the flight crews

own Navy and by the multi-national

naval force on station, designed to

address the many possible scenarios

for interaction with the suspect

vessel and its crew

International Law of the Sea

statutes and precedents such as

proximity to territorial waters,

demonstrated actions of the suspect

vessel both prior to and during the

current event, and the right tochallenge the hostile vessels

movements

Two sets of standard operating

procedures (SOP) promulgated by

the aircrafts host ship and parent

squadron, and their applicability

(or not) to the current situation

The current mission status of the

aircraft (fuel state, weapons

readiness, weather and ambient

light conditions, crew fatigue, and

additional mission demands)

The locations and capabilities of

the host ship as well as other

friendly assets, and their awareness

of and readiness for the situation.

The aircraft and its host ships

interconnected electronic system

can work together in adistributive wayusing a

network system that is able to

communicate with and ultimately

control other sensors, vehicles and

weapons in the same network,


4/22


3

thereby requiring a mature thought

process by Lieutenant Menendez

that is equal to the powerful

potential outcomes this represents

A need to attain mutually shared

outcomes of the multi-national

naval force on station that represent

not only the military realities of the

use of force, but also the effects on

regional and global perceptions of

the use of force; and the domestic

public relations and political

outcomes expected in each of the

forces home nations.

Lieutenant Menendez will likelydemonstrate on-scene leadership

that integrates many of these

complex realities as she

communicates with her crew, her

ship and the multi-national chain of

command. If that leadership is

successful (i.e. truly integrative),

her resulting actions will help lead

to outcomes that are not just

confined to resolving the immediateissue at hand, but will also be

beneficial toward advancing

challenging goals held by many of

the actors involved, such as

maintaining the openness and safety

of the sea lanes of communication, a

return to regional political stability,

and ensuring the use of force is

rationed and scaled to maintain

positive international public opinion

for its use.

This dynamic of military

leadership, a systems level and

distributive thought process, is

not part of rote military regulations

or discipline, but is instead

cultivated within individuals over

time. Officers in particular are often

put in charge of (or operate, as the

pilot in the example above)

expensive, highly complex and

technical equipment; yet many of

these officers have liberal arts rather

than technical or engineering

backgrounds. While they are

expected to demonstrate technical

knowledge of the equipment, they

are not expected to demonstrate the

ability to repair it. Thatresponsibility is assigned to the

enlisted ratings. Rather, the officer

must have an appreciation for the

interrelated nature of the

equipments various systemsand

for how it degrades or improves

other units to which it is often

connected electronically. And, most

importantly, this depth of

knowledge and range of thought isvalued for its ability to evoke

informed decision making related to

the entire network in which the

officer and the team is operating

when a failure occursnot just to

find ways to bring the equipment or

a suitable alternate on line, but to

systematically analyze and react to

the effect on outcomes should the

failure continue to persist.

This type of systems-level

thought produces, over time, the

ability to consider and analyze the

way multiple elements are linked


5/22


4

not just equipment, but thoughts and

opinions, processes, decisions,

administrative and operational

systems, potentially conflicting

rules of engagement or standard

operating procedures among allied

units, even differing foreign

policies. A senior officer, for

instance, engaged in something as

complex as an international treaty

negotiation, has the advantage of

career-long reinforcement of

systems-level thinking and the

outcomes that are possible under a

myriad of scenarios.Also informing the systems-level

thought processes of military

officers are a host of developed and

employed skills that go well beyond

traditional military onesincluding

diplomacy and negotiation,

recruiting, administration, and

training and education. While

officers have often been justifiably

described as jacks of all trades, andmasters of none, it is also true that

the diversity of situations in which

systems-level thought is developed

is a continually self-reinforcing

dynamic that produces an individual

who can sometimes bring masterful

integrative thought to a wide variety

of challenges. They can often do so

with the maturity and patience that

comes with exposure to previous

complexity and risk, and have

witnessed both good and bad

outcomes in a variety of situations.

Other non-military professional

disciplines, of course, require

systems-level thinking to influence

effective leadership behaviors and

positive outcomes for cross-sector

challenges. Yet there is arguably

much less emphasis on

specialization among the military

officer corps (particularly with

increased seniority) than say, within

the medical profession, where

increased specialization frequently

occurs over time. And, because in a

sense leadership is the principal

skill required of a military leader,secondary to his chosen technical

specialty, the organization

emphasizes a broader understanding

of how leadership influences

systems and their interrelatedness

whether those systems be within a

ship, units within a battle group, or

even the differing cultures among

competing tribes in a war zone

where nation-building is theprincipal mission.

Dynamic 2: The U.S. military

officer corps transfers its leaders

often, and to positions that are

sometimes radically different in

scope and responsibility than

previous ones, exposing them to

new cultures (both organizational

and international) and diverse

stakeholders, requiring wholly

new skills and approaches to often

complex challenges.

There is less

emphasis on

specialization within

the military officer

corps than say, within

the medical

profession, where

increased

specialization occursover time. Military

officers must

demonstrate a broad

understanding of how

leadership influences

entire systems and

the relationship

between systems.


6/22


5

U.S. military officers are highly

nomadic in their careers, both

geographically and in terms of the

shifting scope and type of

responsibilities they are given with

each re-location. On average,

officers are transferred every two-

and-a-half years, and more often

than not their new positions involve

duties that little resemble those of

their last posting. But while their

individual tours are generally non-

sequiturs on their face, the exposure

to a diversity of challenges,

interpersonal relationships, cultures

and organizations is cumulative

towards development of integrative

leadership skills.

Perhaps the strongest impact this

career lifestyle has on an officer is

the sense of urgency it instills. He

or she is already immersed in a

culture that is often all about speed.

Technology advances have meant

In a small office in Crystal City, Virginia, adjacent to the Pentagon, Lieutenant Colonel Jackson, U.S.Army, is reviewing classified communications from the U.S. military attach to Ukraine. His boss, the

civilian and politically-appointed Secretary of the Army, is headed to Ukraine in one week. As theSecretarys speechwriter, Colonel Jackson has been tasked with crafting an address to the Ukrainedefense ministrys senior officer leadership school. In the speech, the Secretary will lay the groundworkfor two new, key messages, on behalf of the Secretary of Defenseforward basing of U.S. aircraft and

potential Ukraine membership in NATO. Colonel Jackson is an artillery officer by trade; finding the rightwords, and tone for this critical U.S. policy speech will be informed by his highly diverse career up to this

point, that included the following assignments:

Six months at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, learning the Russian

language

Two years at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, in the Ph.D. program,

where he wrote his thesis on the need for expanded European financial and military contributionsto collective global security issues

Two-and-a-half years as an officer instructor at a civilian land-grant university, where he also, on

his own time (but financed in part by the Army) received his masters degree in English, with a

minor in rhetoric

Three years as an artillery unit commander in Seoul, South Korea which included duties asCommunity Outreach Officer for the regional multi-national army presence.

Lieutenant Colonel Jacksons real challenge is not writing the speech itself, but rather to understand the

different relational frames by which each partner, the U.S. and Ukraine, view their nascent political-

military relationship. Those frames have complex histories and diverse individual and organizational

players, and inform desired outcomes that are different for each partner. His own ability to perceive thosedynamics will help to produce a set of messages that signal U.S. understanding of Ukraines interests,

and thereby strengthen the message of mutual self-interest in the basing of U.S. assets.

Colonel Jacksons career has included tours that are clearly related to the challenge at hand. The one

that comes to mind for him as he starts to outline the speech is the one in Korea. As a Community

Outreach Officer, he learned that policymakers were just as concerned about the cultural impacts of a

foreign military presence as they were with the regional political perceptions among the countrys

neighbors. As a result, his speech will include language that attempts to preempt such potential

concerns, thereby laying the groundwork for a collaborative decision making structure.


7/22


6

the time in which actual military

action takes place is compressed,

along with its requisite decision-

making. And even outside of actual

conflict, an officers career

progression tends to be rewarded by

the aggressive pursuit of readiness

standards and goals. Add to that,

then, the knowledge that the day the

officer checks aboard his new unit,

he may be beginning his transfer

preparations as soon as 12 to 18

months later, and the desire to make

an impact on his unit is accentuated.

In this milieu, when faced withissues that require cross-sector

leadership, officers quickly learn

that there is an initial urgency

required not only in decision

making, but in learning about the

men and women who report directly

to him; about those he can only

hope to influence well outside of his

chain of command; and about the

cultural, administrative andoperative environment in which he

will be leading. This is certainly the

case with the example above, as

Lieutenant Colonel Jackson

attempts to quickly assess the

perception frame of his audience in

the Ukraine.

Coupled with urgency, officers

witness another element of their

nomadic existence: while military

discipline and the shared culture of

mission accomplishment allows for

orders to be given and carried out

fairly readily, individuals within

units know that their officers come

and go routinely. An officer has the

realization if he desires to make an

impact through changeand

change is resisted in any

organization regardless of the level

of disciplinehis charges can likely

wait him out and resist change,

knowing he will transfer fairly

quickly. Effective leadership will

therefore come more readily by

developing trust, and implementing

change by working across any

boundaries that may exist. This

requires more indirect leadership(influence, essentially) that initially

and most fundamentally requires a

rich understanding of those with

whom the officer is working, even

given the shared values and

mission-focused mindset of those he

is leading. What were the positive

and negative management and

leadership traits of the officer who

came before him? What successesor failures of the unit or individuals

within it might have impact on how

his own leadership style will be

effective? What are the highly

individual family and other life

stressors faced by his personnel?

These realities taken together

an urgency to perform at a high

level and a desire to deeply assess

those within an officers sphere of

influencecan be beneficial for

challenges that require integrative

leadership. If there is a need to

exert leadership skills outside of his


8/22


7

own unit, as in the example of being

an effective community outreach

officer in a foreign country, an

officer faces the added hurdles of

cultural, language and even geo-

political differences. Most officers

will interact with such diverse

actors during their careers, in

cooperative and non-cooperative

settings, including foreign military

and diplomatic officers, personnel

from non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), and a wide

spectrum of people when they are

involved in peace-keeping andnation-building activities. Acting in

these contexts, where he has no real

authority over those with whom he

is interacting, an officers leadership

is purely based on influence. Here,

the need to fully examine the

complexity of literally foreign

perceptions becomes paramount to

success. As an officer matures, his

ability to bring previous lessons tobear with an outsiders perspective

becomes a force multiplier (to use

a military term) for addressing

cross-sectoral challenges. He has

likely already had experiences with

other cultures, languages, and with

similar problems in other locations.

And his sense of urgency to act

becomes tempered by a desire to

perceive, to frame and to influence

as a precursor to action.

II. Military officers and the teams

they lead and serve

As an institution, the U.S. military

is heavily invested in teamwork.

Men and women are, of course,

highly trained on individual skills,

trades and equipment, and the

military values the ability of the

individual to demonstrate initiative

to strengthen the chain of command,

should it become severed in a

combat situation; hence the Armys

slogan a few years back: An Army

of One. While that is true, the

principal reason that slogan was

quickly and quietly retired is that in

the military culture, the team trumpsall. The power of one is nowhere

near the power of many, particularly

when teamwork among the many is

well orchestrated. This fundamental

precept of teamwork provides

important dynamics to the concept

of integrative leadership for military

officers, including the significant

diversity of the military, an

emphasis on servant leadership,and recognition that the team is

often involved in high stakes

outcomes.

Dynamic 1: The U.S. military

is a highly diverse workforce that

embraces inclusiveness thanks to

a management system that is

arguably the most merit-based in

society, team-oriented and

provides significant

responsibilities to individuals.

The Commander-in-Chief sits in

the large wingback chair in his

private office in the second floor


9/22


8

living quarters of the White House.

His steady but tentative hand hovers

over the pad of paper in his lap as

he contemplates the momentous

order he is about to pen in his own

words, well aware of the far-

reaching effects it will have on men

and women in uniform, and for the

society whose freedoms they

protect. He begins to write:

"It is hereby declared to be the

policy of the President that there

shall be equality of treatment and

opportunity for all persons in thearmed services without regard to

race, color, religion, or national

origin (Executive Order 9981,

1948)

It is late at night, July 25, 1948. The

next morning, President Harry S.

Truman signs Executive Order

9981, ending segregation in the

U.S. military and also establishes

the President's Committee on

Equality of Treatment and

opportunity in the Armed Services.

The military is a bureaucratic

and conservative organization,

highly resistant to change; and this

particular change and others like it

mandated by presidential authoritywere neither easy nor automatic

even after a presidential directive.

Full acceptance and implementation


10/22


9

of Trumans order took years to

realize in practice following the

order. Integration of gays in the

military did not occur until 2011

(with a bill signed into law by

President Obama), though the

Dont Ask Dont Tell (DADT)

policy had been in place for nearly a

generation prior to that and

provided a transition period.

Women are only in the past several

years entering into the most senior

ranks in any numbers, with the

combat exclusion for women still in

place for the foreseeable future.Nonetheless, the military has

arguably led American society as an

institution that has come to

epitomize equal treatment,

inclusiveness and opportunity based

on performance.

For the vast majority of those in

the U.S. military, the very nature of

the rank structure and its strictly

controlled advancement system laidout in Title 10 of the U.S. Code

provides an inherent and instant

legitimacy for anyone in uniform.

And the exemplary history of fair

application of the Uniform Code of

Military Justice (UCMJ) reinforces

a similar sense of justice within the

military structure. These realities

have established a level playing

field on which inclusiveness is more

of an accepted norm than exists

among the public it serves. In this

environment, there is a tendency for

those leading a team, and those

within the team itself, to more

readily look to others for the

individual, unique strengths that

each can bring to a challenge; and

less of a tendency to negatively

perceive others by a label that in

their often high stakes environment

appears relatively meaningless

such as race, gender or sexual

orientation.

Apart from the diversity of the

U.S. military itself, many officers

also find themselves working with

foreign military units in joint

exercises, on combined staffs, orthrough exchange programs.

Military units are increasingly

involved in peace-keeping and

nation-building operations. This

further expands an officers

exposure to diverse opinions,

administrative systems and cultural

backgrounds, providing a still richer

perspective for his approach to

difficult problems.These realities tend to reinforce a

highly inclusive atmosphere in

which a leader can look to his team

for advice and counsel as he faces a

challenging issue and even look

upon others across boundaries as

having legitimacy that allows for a

starting point when negotiation is

necessary. He can more objectively

perceive, appreciate and empower

individual team members for what

their diversity can positively

provide, rather than for what it can

inhibit. Because the U.S. military is


11/22


10

an extremely diverse organization, a

leader can access, when necessary, a

lot of skill and perspective from the

toolbox of people even within his

own unit. Over time, this further

means that leaders will increasingly

recognize the power of integrative

leadership, and more readily seek

out diverse thought and opinion as

they realize the inherent power of

this approach.

Dynamic 2: Servant

leadership is a prevalent value in

the U.S. military due to the risk

and sacrifice asked of those beingled, that leads to mutual trust up

and down the chain of command,

and empowerment of, and

knowledge and responsibility

transfer to subordinates.

The concept of servant

leadership was originally codified

by Robert Greenleafin his 1970

essay titled The Servant as

Leader. Its centralpremise is that

truly effective leaders demonstrate a

high level of care and concern for

those who work for and with them.

In the U.S. military, servant

leadership is discussed in officer

training with an even higher level of

intensity: if those we lead are

willing to fight and potentially die

for their fellow warrior, unit and

country, then a leader has a moral

obligation to serve them; know

them, care about them, reward

them, and provide them the tools

they need to feel valued andeffectively do their jobsand to do

so at a level worthy of the degree of

sacrifice being asked.

Military officers who most

readily embody servant leadership

tend to have clear and open lines of

communication with their

subordinates, and thus have

thorough and intimate knowledge of

Theodore Roosevelt, leading the Rough Riders in Cuba during the Spanish-American War, demonstrated

a care and concern for his troops that illustrates the level of servant leadership prevalent among U.S.

military officers, described here from Nathan Millers 2009 biography of Roosevelt:

Rumors of a stockpile of supplies on the beach reached Roosevelt, who took a detail of thirty or forty

men with pack mules to see if they could obtain some for the regiment. They scrounged around and

found some sacks containing about eleven hundred pounds of beans, but a commissary officer refused

to let them have them. Producing a well-thumbed book of regulations, he pointed to a subsection stating

that beans were to be issued only to an officers mess. Roosevelt went away and as he later related,

studied on it and came back with a request for eleven hundred pounds of beans for the officers mess.

Why, Colonel, your officers cant eat eleven hundred pounds of beans, the officers protested. You dont

know what appetites my officers have, replied Roosevelt as he ordered the sacks to be loaded upon the

mules.

The military bureaucrat insisted that a requisition would have to be sent off to Washington. Roosevelt

responded that he didnt care as long as he could take the beans back to his regiment. As he signed the

requisition amid warnings that the cost would probably be deducted from his pay, the sacks were loaded

on the mules. Oh, what a feast we had, and how we enjoyed it, Roosevelt told his family. (p.298)

Military officers areasked to lead those

willing to fight and

potentially die for their

fellow warriors, unit,

or country. Servant

leaders in the military

have a moral

obligation to serve

these men andwomen; know them,

care about them,

reward them, and

provide them the tools

they need to feel

valued and capable.


12/22


11

them. They know their strengths

and weaknesses, what they need to

be most effective, and what external

forces are affecting them, and how.

This in turn strengthens their

knowledge of the diversity inherent

in the unit, and builds a further

appreciation for that diversity as a

resource.

Risk is also an important element

of servant leadership in several

ways. Most importantly, as

described, in the military context

there is requisite appreciation for

the often great risks taken in supportof the units mission or values. But

there is also risk for a leader who

asks his subordinate men and

women to fully open up to them, as

it leads to expectations that are

sometimes difficult to fulfill. While

empathy can be appreciated in and

of itself (it is therapeutic for many

to just have someone listen to

them), having unrealistic needsunmet can lead to frustration. And

the chain of command, in the end, is

paramount. Thus, servant

leadership that is not balanced with

well-communicated boundaries of

authority can lead to challenges to

authority at inopportune moments,

as when combat mission

requirements call for blind and

instant obedience to orders.

On balance, an understanding of

servant leadership can enhance the

ability for a person to exhibit

integrative leadership. Because it

enhances the two-way

communications, trust and mutual

risk-taking within a unit, there is a

resultant increase in the degree and

effectiveness of teamworkand

therefore a desire to use all of the

skills resident in that team to solve

the most difficult challenges that

arise. And there can be an

acceptance of the precepts of

servant leadership even outside

ones own normal sphere of

influence. Its embrace can

encourage an appreciation for

others work and sacrifice that maybe dedicated to goals or even values

other than ones own. This can be

especially the case if one has a

mutual, professionally-driven

respect for the others profession

that may have a very similar code

but is subsumed in a wholly

different culture. Thus a military

officer, used to finding shared

values on a more human level, mayhave a greater tendency to look for

common ground when working with

those he is trying to influence cross-

sectorally.

Dynamic 3: Military officers

have an innate sense of the need

to immediately trust those with

whom one is working thanks to a

team orientation on problem

solving, and a belief that the

stakes are generally high because

of the potential outcomes of the

decisions being made.


13/22


12

At a Forward Operating Base in

the Afghan desert, First Lieutenant

Willis Grant is sending a call-for-

fire request against a hostile

enemy location that he has not

actually seen himself. Lieutenant

Grant made the decision to do so

after receiving several pieces of

data and permission from the

following sources:

Civilian Human intelligence

information from an Afghan

citizen who just hours ago was at

the target location

Special Forces from a unit otherthan his own who are close to the

scenedata sent by secure

satellite transmissions detailing

the enemy threat

A remote spotter from another

military service who is at a

nearby locationspecific map

grid coordinates to make up for

the failure to receive GPS

targeting data

An on-scene commander from

another nation within the

combined allied force who has

tactical mission authority

permission to engage the target

In order to get his job done the

Lieutenant has had to use his trust,

instinct and training, in very short

order, to: gather information froma local civilian national and two

remote individuals from other units;

receive permission from the

command post of an army from an

allied nation; and send his coded

summation to an airborne command

post that will further relay the

information to an unmanned, armed

drone. Lieutenant Grant has

complete trust in this disparate team

that the attack will lead to the right

outcome.

The team that is operating

successfully together in the example

above is a complex multi-national

one. Despite the fact that most of

the team members are military (with

the exception of the Afghan civilian

informant), they are from various

units, different services and severalnations, all of which have unique

cultures of their own. Yet the team

is a cohesive one for three

interrelated reasons.

First, the bond of military

hierarchy is common which

effectively instills trust by rote and

discipline; second, these disparate

players have worked together before

(and in fact exercise continuouslytogether), testing individual and

organizational reactions to crises,

working through differing

perceptions of threats and breaking

down barriers that may have existed

from pre-conceived notions. The

latter is an important element for

integrative leadership, according to

Barbara Crosby and John Bryson

(2009) of the Humphrey Institute:

Cross-sector collaborations are

more likely to succeed if leaders

make sure that trust building

activities (including nurturing


14/22


13

cross-sector understanding) are

continuous (p.211-230). And

third, the stakes regarding the array

of potential outcomes of their

individual and collective actions are

generally highboth in terms of

their own immediate, personal

security, and for the longer term

outcomes of their mission, including

the ultimate goal of an end to

conflict.

This analysis is intuitive in the

sense that it describes a building of

trust among team members who are

engaged in the same mission againsta common opponent. But it may be,

too, that the relatively high level of

diversity of many military teams, as

in this example, has an impact on an

individual officers ability to trust

others outside their normal circle to

a degree higher than among other

professions; or at least allows them

to be more open to gaining trust

from diverse sources. And while theability to gain trust may require a

higher initial threshold of

acceptance given the stakes and

often short time frames involved,

once established that trust tends to

be consistent and fiercely held. Both

elements can certainly be useful in a

situation that requires effective

integrative leadership.

III. The military as a unique

cultural milieu that fosters

integrative leadership traits

The U.S. military is undeniably a

multi-cultural cauldron, reflective of

the nation. While the diversity of its

individual members is capitalized

upon by the best of its leaders (as

described in a previous section),

there exists a unique, shared culturethat supersedes the individual and is

valued for its simplicity and its

connection to a sense of duty. That

reality requires a unique balance

from leaders who can appreciate the

inherent value of diverse thought

and deliberation; yet who can also

bring that diversity to bear for a

common purpose, often do so

decisively, in a fast-pacedenvironment and under great stress.

Dynamic 1: There exists a well

defined, shared sense of purpose

and set of core values that

underpin the culture of the

military.

Within each of the military

services there exists a set of

unquestioned values that service

members learn, live and abide by

each and every day. They are few

in number, and simply stated as

in the manner above; yet there are

whole classes and exercises

Honor, Courage, Commitment(Core Values of theU.S. Navy and Marine Corps)

Integrity First, Service Before Self, Excellence In AllWe do (Core Values of the U.S. Air Force)

Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor,

Integrity, Personal Courage (Core Values of the U.S.

Army)


15/22


14

dedicated to reinforcing each value,

from boot camp damage control

scenarios for enlisted personnel that

illustrate a specific value, to formal

seminars at command leadership

school for officers. These are deeply

ingrained and methodically

reinforced throughout a service

members career.

This dynamic introduces a

challenge for an officer: first, he

must constantly work to create an

environment that champions and

rewards individual thought and

action. Effectively doing so willreinforce the need for initiative even

among the most junior individuals,

particularly during the stress and

unpredictability of combat

situationsa well-known and much

emulated hallmark exhibited by

U.S. military units. Second, he must

simultaneously foster a shared sense

of mission and purpose that includes

strict adherence to a common set ofvalues, and an unquestioning

obedience when situations call for

decisive action. This balance of

individual action and unit

cohesiveness, when achieved,

ultimately reinforces an officers

ability to analyze diverse thought

and look for ways to find common

purpose, and therefore his ability to

exercise integrative leadership. It

also leads to a heightened

confidence that diverse thought is

not a barrier, but a dynamic to be

understood and tapped into. Taking

this analysis to its extreme, an

integrative military leader can also

examine an enemys core values (or

potential enemy), likely to be

dramatically different than his own,

as a center of gravity that can be

exploited and attacked if the need

arises. Strange (1996) notes that the

U.S. Marine Corps, based on the

writings of Sun Tzu and Von

Clausewitz, defines an enemys

center of gravity as primary

sources of moral or physical

strength, power and resistance

(pp. 93-96).Another important element of the

military leader who understands the

power of shared values and

common mission is effective

communication on a level that taps

into their power, rather than just

assumes their existence and

acceptance. Aristotle intimated that

the influential leader does so by

appealing to the characterof thosebeing led in three fundamental and

interrelated ways: an appeal to

character (ethos); an appeal to

reason (logos); and an appeal to

emotion (pathos) (Shay, 2000). This

appeal to character is powerful, in

that a search for shared core

valuesor even human values for

those well outside ones normal

sphere of influencecan be

tremendously beneficial for building

effective cross-sector leadership.

Dynamic 2: The military

maintains a relatively constant,


16/22


15

fast-paced tempo of operations

and training even during

peacetime. This results in a

culture wherein officers are

predisposed to regard most

situations with urgency, and with

the need for extensive contingency

planning.

Central to the unique culture of

the military is a predisposition

among its members to remain on the

move, at the ready at all times,

putting the mission first, before all

other things. Hence the tradition of

maintaining the watch, evenduring circumstances when there is

little if any call to do so, other than

to reinforce the tradition of

individual and unit vigilance. And

officers tend to be highly engaged

not only with the issues they face,

but also with the issues they could

be faced with. Readiness for any

situation is paramount, particularly

given the speed at whichcircumstances can go from

monotonous to life-threatening. As

a result, contingency planning is not

simply something done at a high

level with regard to grand strategy

for potential conflicts; it is also a

constant for military leaders for the

most mundane of topics. Asking

what if is a recurring mantra in an

officers head: What if my engine

fails here? What if the

Congressional committee before

which I am testifying asks me if I

have coordinated with other

agencies? What if this civilian

Afghan informant is not

trustworthy? What if my deployment

is extended and my family has to

move without me? What if the

enemy is not where we thought it

was?

As the individual asks those

questions, he is also formulating

solutions, and in most cases with

various options that are situationally

dependent on a range of potential

outcomes. A well-known phrase in

the military is No battle plan

survives contact with the enemy(Helmuth von Moltke). For officers,

the enemy is often loosely

defined, and can include a senior

budgeting office threatening the

funding for a program upon which

the unit relies for equipment

modernization, or even an

administrative system that is not as

flexible as his operational

requirements suggest they shouldbe.

The result of this somewhat

manic degree of planning is a

cultural dynamic that may appear as

paranoia, but in reality is a

disciplined way to help guarantee

outcomes that are if not completely

as planned, are at least expected and

manageable. This can positively

impact integrative leadership by

reinforcing individual traits that are

more innovative, inquisitive and

adaptive when working across

sectoral boundaries.

People FirstMission Always.(U.S. Navy slogan)

Semper Paratus(Always Ready.Credo of the U.S.Coast Guard)

Come on youbastardsdo youwant to live forever?(Gunnery SergeantDan Daley, U.S.Marine Corps)


17/22


16

IV. Expectations for military

officers from the broader public,

nationally and globally

According to the 2010 Gallup

Confidence in Institutions poll,

the U.S. military is the most trusted

institution in America by a wide

margin (Saad, 2010). In fact, the

military has been rated number one

in Gallup's annual list continuously

since 1998, and has ranked number

one or number two almost every

year since its initial 1975 measure.

With trust comes expectation to live

up to that trust, a fact that militaryofficers are well aware of. Despite

high profile exceptions such as the

Tailhook misconduct among

naval aviators in the early 1980s,

and the Abu Ghraib prison guard

incidents in Iraq beginning in 2004,

military officers tend to be more

willing to risk their own lives than

to risk their careers in betraying the

trust of the public which they serve.And, as the U.S. military has been

increasingly active on the world

stage, even going beyond traditional

military operations with the

evolving nature of conflict and post-

conflict operations, citizens of other

countries look to U.S. military

officers with a similar level of high

expectations for their general

conduct, and for their ability to

work across boundaries of nations,

culture and language.

Dynamic 1: There exists a high

level of personal excellence, and

moral and ethical conduct

expected of the military by the

public which it serves, including

on a global scale.The military officer corps has a

highly developed sense of what

their service to the nation

represents, and what their conduct

means for the legacy of that service.

From the very first day they enter

training as candidates, officers are

provided with a sense of obligation

and responsibility equal or greater

to the respect returned by virtue oftheir rank. The element of servant

leadership described in a previous

section includes serving the

On the door of an office in the outer ring of the Pentagon, a

standard placard that identifies its occupants looks like thousands

of others in that enormous building, designed originally as a civilian

hospital, and derisively known among its occupants as the five -

sided wind tunnel. Next to the placard, however, is another sign;

neat, and expertly aligned, but clearly unofficial. It displays a singlephrase that proclaims: Imperfect people striving for perfection.

The office is home to a public affairs staff group, its officers

dedicated to maintaining the public image of the service whose

motto has always been: The FewThe ProudThe Marines.


18/22


17

militarys higher purpose and

shared values, not simply the

individuals within ones unit.

Indeed, the officer swears an oath to

serve and protect the Constitution,

and the warrant on her commission

contains a catchall phrase that

drives home the sense of higher

expectations: that she will perform

all manner of things thereunto

pertaining.

There is also significant visible

symbolism that surrounds an

officers existence, including the

uniforms that are worn. The rankand unit insignia, even aspects of

the color and cut of the uniform

itself, all have elements that

reinforce the traditions of

excellence they are expected to

uphold. A naval aviators gold

wings insignia, for instance, have a

nearly invisible bump on one of its

anchors flukes. That bump, known

as a becket, is symbolic of theholes that existed on anchors of tall

ships in the 18th

century, to which

an extra line was fastened ensuring

a way to raise it should the anchor

chain break. Its meaning goes

deeper, symbolizing the need for

redundant planning to ensure

success, the importance of systems

design even for the simplest, but

critical items of military hardware,

and the need for teamwork among

shipmates who must help ensure

others follow procedures to

guarantee success.

This level of symbolism is

ubiquitous and seems over the top

for those outside the culture; it is in

fact central to building unit

cohesion and pride, esprit de corps,

and constant reinforcement of a

culture that requires adherence to a

standard upholding the high

expectations of the public it serves.

The wearing of a uniform also

provides a reminder of the need for

personal excellence as the

individual is a highly visual

example. The term Leatherneck

for U.S. Marines comes from theband of leather that was sewn into

the high collar of dress uniforms for

added stiffness, forcing the wearer

to hold his head higher and

straighter to reflect his pride.

Another interesting reality that

affects a military officers

behavioral expectations is that the

nature of conflict has evolved in

recent years and officers faceentirely new expectations that have

evolved at the same time. Since

World War II, wars have become

Cold Wars and undeclared

conflicts; conflicts have become

United Nations police actions;

and police actions have now

become operations as the U.S.

enters a period of aggression against

non-nation state actors engaged in

terror, with the possibility that such

warfare could last far longer than a

full 20-year or more career. The

nature of conflict now includes an


19/22


18

awareness among officers that post-

conflict outcomes are not what they

were for previous generations of

officers. Those outcomes lead to

ongoing peace-keeping and nation-

building operations, for which

officers have expanded their jacks

of all trades portfolios to include

negotiation, language, civil-military

liaison, oversight of construction

and institution-building projects,

and many other non-traditional

military roles, or duties far removed

from the scope of their training.

Finally, the military culture ofexpectations is different than the

citizenry they protect because there

exists a requirement for members to

remain apolitical in the conduct of

their duties. Far enough up the U.S.

military chain of command the

leadership becomes non-uniformed,

and politically appointedand

ultimately, elected, in the case of

the Commander-in-Chief. Thus,while U.S. military personnel are

obviously citizens who can vote and

hold strong opinions, they are

prohibited from active political

advocacy while on duty, or in

uniform. This tenet means that

officers generally view those in

senior leadership positions,

particularly civilians, as having an

inherent legitimacy and due respect

irrespective of the political view

those individuals may hold. This is

not blind obedience, but more a

faith in the constitutional and

electoral system to which the officer

is duty-bound. Thus an officer,

particularly a more senior one, is

forced to look for common ground

and ways to work with those even

outside of his own uniformed

culture, including the politically-

appointed, civilian officials who are

senior to them. In multi-national

venues, that may include foreign,

allied officers or civilians who may

legally outrank them in given

situations.

All of these realities tend to

reinforce higher personal andprofessional expectations among the

officer corps. And as leaders,

officers then tend to exhibit traits

that respect and understand different

roles, expectations and cultures

among those with whom they must

interacthence building upon their

ability to be effective integrative

leaders.

Dynamic 2: The military isconstantly asked to be at a high

level of readiness in all respects,

even during times of relative

peace, and regardless of the level

of resources provided for its

assurance. As such, many officers

have become adept at challenging

the status quo in order to ensure

peak readiness of their unit.

In a speech to the entire Brigade

of Midshipmen at the U.S. Naval

Academy, the Secretary of the Navy

delivers an effective reminder to the

young, future officers of the Navy

In the 21stcentury, the

resolution of conflicts

often entails ongoing

peace-keeping and

nation-buildingoperations which

expand an officers jack

of all trades portfolio to

include negotiation,

multiple languages, civil-

military liaison, oversight

of construction, and

many other duties far

removed from theirofficial scope of training.


20/22


19

and Marine Corps. He precedes it

by flashing an image on the giant

screen of the field house. It is a

page taken from the program

published for the Army-Navy

football game nearly sixty years

ago. The image is a bow-on

photograph of the battleship USS

ARIZONA plowing through a heavy

sea. The caption next to it states: It

is significant that despite the claims

of air enthusiasts no battleship has

yet been sunk by bombs. The date

on the program is November 29,

1941just eight days before PearlHarbor was attacked from the air

and the ARIZONA itself was sunk at

its moorings.

The Secretarys message is a

visually poignant one, given that

stark reminder of historic tragedy:

central to their role as leaders is the

need to constantly question the

accepted norms and deeply held

beliefs that are part of their rigid,

military culture. The message is

highly counterintuitive to the young

midshipmen, all of whom have been

immersed in a system that is deeply

rooted in, and reliant upon, the

many traditions that make up their

daily routines. But this is the

beginning of a constantly-fought

balance that the most effective

leaders among them will achieve

over years of service. The very

traditions that bring excellencethrough rigid standards and esprit de

corps are also potentially the cause

of blindness to a world that

constantly evolves around them,

including the norms of the society

they are sworn to serve and protect.

This balance involves risk, and

not the type of risk that one

normally associates with men and

women in uniform. The military isgenerally a system that rewards risk

in battle, but not one that rewards an

officer for questioning the status

quo, whether it is an accepted

tactical maneuver in the face of an

enemy movement, or a simple

administrative procedure. Yet, as

with the blind adherence to the

battleship as the central,

undefeatable capital naval asset, the

consequences of not challenging

tradition can be even more

devastating. The very best officers

strike an effective balance, take


21/22


20

risks on and off the field of battle,

and honor tradition by protecting

the more fundamental needs for the

institutions survival.

Adding to this dynamic is the

fact that the military has become

significantly smaller than in

previous generations, even as the

scope and frequency of operations

has steadily increased since the end

of the Cold War. While technology

has enabled force reductions

through more capable, automated

systems, the same use of technology

has led to a desire to field thenewest advances in systems as they

evolvewhich in itself is occurring

at an ever-increasing rate. The

result is an officer corps that

continually questions the

applicability of its current hardware

and systems, and strives to improve

or replace them. And most recently,

the embrace of greater efficiencies

throughout the military has furtherreinforced the tendency for officers

to evaluate change with regard to

the effectiveness of their units and

the individuals within them.

There exists, then, a constant

balance between these competing

realitiesbut they are not wholly

incompatible, and in fact can

reinforce each other. In terms of the

impact this dynamic has on the

integrative leadership abilities of

officers, it tends to foster a sense for

the need to continually evaluate the

resources around them, to re-assess

how they can influence the people

and assets that can bring about

action, and to question outdated

norms that would otherwise be

impervious to change. All of this

creates, ideally, a willingness to

look, listen and learn from non-

traditional sources that can have real

power in their diversity.

Conclusion

Leadership is influence. Even in the

rigid context of the military themost effective leaders know that

real success is more the result of

influence than orders. Officers who

have served in the military,

particularly for long careers, tend to

exhibit traits of leadership that are

highly integrative, making them

effective in a variety of challenging

situations. These traits are

developed because of dynamicsthey face in their roles as leaders:

the complexity of the inter-related

operational and administrative

systems within which they operate;

the teams they lead and serve while

championing the individuals within

them; solid core values that guide

their behavior and decisions in a

context of constant urgency; and

high expectations of the society and

world in which they serve.


22/22


1

References

Crosby, B.C., & Bryson, J.M., (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance ofcross-sector collaborations.Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 211-230.

Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature ofLegitimate Power and Greatness 25th Anniversary Edition (25th ed.). Paulist Press.

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder - Wikiquote. (n.d.). . Retrieved March 25, 2011, from

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder.

Miller, N. (1992). Theodore Roosevelt: A Life. New York: William Morrow Publishing, p. 298.

Saad, Lydia. Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions. (June 22, 2010). RetrievedMarch 25, 2011, fromhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-

institutions.aspx.

Shay, J. (2000). AristotlesRhetoric as a Handbook of Leadership. Retrieved March 25, 2011,

fromhttp://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/aristotle.htm#1.

Strange, J. (1996). Centers of Gravity & Critical Vulnerabilities. (2nd ed.). Marine CorpsAssociation.

Truman, H. (1948).Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the Armed Forces. Retrieved March25, 2011, fromhttp://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84&page=transcript.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elderhttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elderhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspxhttp://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/aristotle.htm#1http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/aristotle.htm#1http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/aristotle.htm#1http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84&page=transcripthttp://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84&page=transcripthttp://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84&page=transcripthttp://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84&page=transcripthttp://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/aristotle.htm#1http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspxhttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder

Integrative Leadership Traits in the Us Military

Documents

Transcript of Integrative Leadership Traits in the Us Military