Leadership Styles Of Hostile Workplace

For more than three decades, Army Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO) were part of an era of fast promotions through the NCO ranks, with some Military Occupation Specialty (MOS) seeing Soldiers make the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC) with six to seven years time in service (TIS). Since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the United States military was facing a challenge that produced two separate operations simultaneously in the same region of the world which called for thousands of additional service members, especially in the ranks of NCOs. While “fast tracking” was great for the individual, it left many enlisted Soldiers, as well as Officers angry and frustrated with the lack of knowledge these young NCOs were demonstrating when it came to basic Soldiering tactics and techniques. This stems from the decades old Sergeant and Staff Sergeant promotion boards, lack of leadership time, as well as lack of diversity within major Army Component Commands (COCOMS).

Leadership can be viewed in many different ways and possess many different qualities. There are courageous leaders, respectful leaders, terrible leaders, and seemingly insignificant leaders but leaders nonetheless. But what is it that differentiates between a strong leader and a weak leader, or a powerful leader and an insignificant one? Is it the qualities in the leader or the decisions they make in key situations that define good leadership qualities? Some would define a good leader by their ability to do the right thing even if it is not the easiest choice. Others might define a good leader as one that possesses great integrity and leads by example. The military possesses many great leaders through a process of development and molding individuals to meet expected leadership qualities like honor, courage, commitment and integrity to accomplish any mission or goal. However, this process doesn’t always create the desired effect. So, let’s examine some good and bad examples of leadership qualities and break down what and how we can emulate them.

Transitioning to command from any other leadership challenge in the military requires that an officer experiences a mental shift in his/her approach to exercising the newly granted authority, responsibility and accountability for the unit. Army doctrine suggests that authority, responsibility, and accountability are inherent attributes of command. These attributes of command coupled with the expectations of the commander, demand a new and holistic approach to commandership, which is defined as exercising the art of command through leadership, management, and command.

Poor leadership, or the more widely known phrase “toxic leadership”, has been a topic of concern throughout the history of the Army. The Army’s recently published leadership doctrine says that, “Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.” (ADP 6-22, 2012) There are many examples of leaders in recent years that have been relieved due to negative effects on their organizations. Poor leadership is commonly portrayed by telltale characteristics of those in leadership positions, revealed by detrimental effects on subordinates and mission accomplishment, and must be addressed through consistent education and

“Military leadership qualities are formed in a progressive and sequential series of carefully planned training, educational, and experiential events—far more time-consuming and expensive than similar training in industry or government. Secondly, military leaders tend to hold high levels of responsibility and authority at low levels of our organizations. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, military leadership is based on a concept of duty,

Selfishness, overblown sense of worth, and indecisiveness are certain traits that seem to appear more frequently in today’s leadership due to an ineffectual advancement process. The Navy’s advancement process consist of a standardized test, Navy wide rating quotas, and evaluations which may or may not accurately reflect the person’s being. Certain aspects of these rolls and processes need to be changed to more accurately reflect those qualities that are required to be an effective leader in today’s Navy.

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, 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

Leadership development in the military is critical to its mission and objectives. Understanding and embracing leadership will foster an agile culture and facilitate attainment of strategic goals. People desire quality leadership to assist with achieving their goals, albeit personal or professional development. Having a clear vision and the motivation to perform at high-levels influences others to work synergistically together to achieve organizational goals. Insomuch, employees value being treated respectfully, fairly, and ethically. Leaders serve people best when they help them develop their own initiative and good judgment, enable them to grow, and help them become better contributors.

This paper compares three studies on workplace bullying. The studies were conducted because workplace bullying is an epidemic that needs to be addressed and it needs to be understood to help future organizations prevent workplace bullying.

As an officer in the United States Army, it has been imperative for me to understand every facet of leadership and why it remains important to be an effective leader. During this course, I have learned some valuable lessons about myself as a leader and how I can improve on my leadership ability in the future. The journal entries along with the understanding of available leadership theories have been an integral part of my learning during this course. For all of the journals and assessments that I completed, I feel it has given me a good understanding of my current leadership status and my future potential as a leader. All of the specific assessments looked at several areas in regards to leadership; these assessments covered several

As stated above, the causes of workplace bullying are complex and multi-faceted. Research has shown that stress within the workplace and exposure to bullying is two causes of workplace bullying (Hauge, Skogstad, Anders, & Einarsen, 2009). There is a higher proportion of bullying in any size organization when there is a culture that does not promote social and human values (Baillien, Neyens, & Dewitte, 2011). Other common causes are emphasizing a competitive work environment by managers, also setting unreasonable demands, and goals and lack of authority from management, these factors can all lead to bullying within the workplace (Alsever, 2008). “There is good research available to suggest that strongly hierarchical or feudal organizations are more likely to have an inherent structure which invites, tolerates and supports bullying behaviors” (McCulloch, 2010). These are just a few examples of the many causes of workplace bullying.

Heeman, V. (2007). Workplace Bullying: A Distinct, Interpersonal, and Communicative Phenomenon. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association.

Independent of the Army and country you serve, leadership is always an important subject. There are many civilian books and military manuals talking about leadership. The United States Army divides the subject leadership in three levels. These levels are Direct Leadership, Organizational Leadership, and Strategic Leadership. In this paper, the focus will be only about the first two levels. According with you rank, you will work more in one of these levels. Because of that, most part of time there is not much interaction between higher-level leaders and lower level leaders. Despite the limited interaction between higher level leaders like Brigade commanders with the lower level leader like company commander it’s not affect a satisfactory mission accomplishment.

An effective leader influences their employees in a desired manner to achieve goals and objectives. Different leadership styles can affect an organization’s effectiveness and performance. The objective of this paper is to analyze the review of literature on various leadership styles over the past years and how effective and ineffective different leadership styles are in the workplace.