Elements Of Combat Leadership And Garrison Leadership In The Military

In today’s Army, there are three levels of Leadership. We are going to talk about Direct and Organizational levels of the Army leadership. Direct leadership starts at the lowest level with the team leader of which has the most direct influence with Soldiers. Organizational Leaders have a staff to help them make decisions on a daily basis and provide the resources for the direct leaders to accomplish their mission. After 13 years of conflict, Mission Command could not have not even been more important than it is now. Both Direct and Organizational leaders must provide their subordinates intent and purpose in order for them to operate with in Mission Command.

This paper on Leadership will compare the primary differences and characteristics between the tactical leader and the organizational leader. I will provide you with the basics for development, characteristics, and the fundamentals that help guide and influence each leader’s style and how they influence Soldiers to follow them. Leaders at all levels demonstrate their values, knowledge, skills, and abilities in many different means and methods in

Leadership is defined by Peter G. Northouse as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”. One’s leadership style can shape a subordinate’s approach and place emphasis to the task or mission at hand as well as accomplishing long term objectives. The role of any leader is to provide direction and guidance to those who may fall under his/her command. The manner in which leadership is applied, especially in today’s society and ever-changing geopolitical situations can vary significantly and be markedly effective or undermine the leader’s ability to lead. In the readings from the Canadian Military Journal (CMJ) several examples are provided to support each author’s viewpoint of leadership style and I will use these along with my own opinions and experiences to substantiate the importance of differing leadership styles as they pertain to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the Profession of Arms in the 21st century.

This paper displays the impact in battle and on troops of key characteristics that differentiate the distinction between an effective and ineffective leader. Using the analysis of the Battle of Chattanooga and various memoirs from General Sherman and Grant, biographies about Grant, and reliable resources from researchers, such as J.F.C. Fuller, and the Library of Congress, this paper details the events of the battle and the events that preceded the battle in direct correlation with the leadership decisions that impacted the outcome of these events. The leaderships being directly compared in this analysis are that of General William S. Rosecrans and Major-General Ulysses S. Grant. For the purposes of this comparison, these leaderships at Chattanooga are divided into two phases: Phase I being Rosecrans’, and Phase II being Grant’s impact at Chattanooga.

Army leaders make decisions that affect the lives of their Soldiers. Rule oriented obligations, goal oriented aspirations, and situation-oriented decisions are challenging. There is tension as leaders balance them.

A concise, well thought out leadership philosophy will assist a leader in improving an organization. My leadership philosophy statement is; if you develop a vision, believe in and support all the people within your organization, then they will propel the organization to do amazing things. My philosophy has evolved over time and was developed mainly from past experiences and enhanced through formal education programs and personal reflection. Within the military organizations that I have served, I’ve experience that most people want to do the right thing and make positive contributions to an organization as long as the leaders within that organization provide a vision of where they want the organization to go, show that they truly care about

mental agility. Soldiers that work out regularly and eat responsibly will not only be able

The foundation of leadership is mutual respect and caring. As a unit, we need to care for one another. NCOs must care for Soldiers, Soldiers must care for their battle buddies, and Officers must care for the unit as a whole. Use the chain of command to resolve issues at the lowest level possible, but know that my door is always open should you need anything. I am always willing to talk to a Soldier. However, do not mistake my kindness for softness. Our mission is simple – provide excellent preventive medicine services to prevent disease non-battle injury – and we are all in service to this mission.

My definition of leadership is to possess the skills to provide transparent communication, the aptitude to ask for help and the emotional intelligence to have empathy for others. While I was in the Marine Corps, I got to experience how ineffective and problematic leadership that operates vertically. The type of leadership that I am accustomed too is more focused on the mission and has no problem expressing how easily replaceable you are to the organization. I believe that leadership should operate horizontally, focusing collectivism. I really resonated with John Chamber’s leadership style. He is a leader that realizes that each individual is vital to the success of the organization and he goes out of his way to ensure his followers know that.

to Annual training because, the unit was short drivers and the unit CDR wanted a

Leadership, according to the Army doctrine, represents individuals’ ability to influence people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization (“Leadership” FM 6-22). However, the varying characteristics of individuals that the Army attracts may instill this doctrine in many different ways, leading to different representations of leadership. Some individuals choose to lead their subordinate in a stern matter, only displaying matured emotions and a “tough-loving” attitude to guide them in the right direction. Others

The United States Army is a thriving military force that has safeguarded America’s homeland for over 241 years and continues the fight for everlasting freedom. The Army’s success lies in its ability to adapt but most importantly the Army’s triumph lies within Soldiers who are groomed into leaders. In my opinion, leaders are expected to uphold the standards and become a source of motivation that followers gravitate towards. The dictionary definition of leadership is simply the action of leading a group of people but everybody has their own method in doing so. In this short paper, I will provide my leadership philosophy and establish my standpoint as an Army leader.

Situational leadership style would be the contingency model I prefer to use on the job. Due to being a Soldier in the military, the insight of being able to understand different followers is a must. Therefore, the leadership style must adjust to meet those needs. In order for the insight to function one must be flexible to move seamlessly from one type of leadership to the other. Also, there is the trust. If the trust isn’t there, there are no followers. You must gain the trust and confidence of the followers to be able to influence them. Being able to solve problems will be always be there due to multiple reason if it is from the followers or from the mission. Lastly, coaching a major factor of training the Soldiers to accomplish the

Beginning in boot camp and continuing throughout my career, I’ve seen the Coast Guard promote the leadership model to be: “You” influencing “Others” to achieve a “Goal”. With all the different ways leadership can be defined, this simplistic model which has been permanently engrained in my thinking definition still rings true for me. As such, when defining my own personal definition of leadership, I align it to this same model. More specifically, while I support the fact that leadership involves influencing others to achieve a common end I propose that is not the whole story. Leaders must not be stagnant in their vision and must lend themselves to the possibility they may have to adjust their leadership styles depending on the goal. The best leaders are the ones that understand their own personality traits as well as those traits of the people they are trying to lead.

Combat leadership and garrison leadership, each one of them have their own responsibility. I need to find out which one of them is important for military. And I need to know how much they’re related to each other’s. The combat leadership mostly time they have to take a quick action, and the garrison leadership have time for planning.