U.s. Government 's Department Of Defense

Since the inception of the United States of America 250 years ago, our government has enacted a practice of lies and deceit that keep its citizens in the dark. Matters such as false allegations that result in long standing wars, financial misuse and abuse, secret alliances that serve the government agenda's, and the altering of history affect not only the US citizens, it affects the global population as a whole. This deception has resulted in mistrust of the US Government as people question what our government is up to and what they are seeking to gain. In order to earn the public's trust, the United States Government needs to be transparent with its citizens, giving us the information whether it's positive or negative instead of allowing

The American television series, M*A*S*H was a popular program based on a United States Army Mobile Army Surgical Hospital in the Korean War. There were several characters who were leaders, very different yet each, in his own way, was a leader. There are several leadership styles, however Colonel Sherman T. Potter, utilized both the bureaucratic and democratic leadership styles to lead and guide the M*A*S*H 4077th unit successfully during a very difficult time. This paper will discuss the different aspects of the democratic leadership style and how Sherman Potter applied them as commanding officer of the unit as well as how different leadership styles are effective in different circumstances.

The United States Army is a complex organization made up of several commands and managed by different command levels. The U.S. Army is an organization different from that of a business in many unique ways. Specific examples of these differences include: financial reporting, disciplinary review procedures, and tactical operations. Although different in many ways, the Army shares many similar characteristics of a normal profit business. Army personnel are managed by supervisors arranged in a command structure similar to that of a business hierarchy. The Army will also encounter internal and external factors that could impede or enhance operations. As such, planning, organizing, leading, and controlling must be used by managers appropriately

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.

Summary: In this article the authors are addressing future leaders, and they immediately inform the reader that because there is more complexity considerably more complex issues and technologies than a century ago in the operational military environment, there is a great need for military leaders to achieve autonomy in terms of adapting to and learning about the evolving environment. In short, leaders must be smarter and better prepared for a changing world.

The Department of Defense also known as the “DoD” is an executive branch department of the federal government of the United States charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government concerned directly with national security and the United States Armed Forces. Before being named the Department of Defense it was first called the Department of War, which was that each branch was on its own. It had its own cabinet level secretary. It then changed to the DoD shortly after WWII; to run the entire military to decrease political infighting. Each of the branch’s individual secretaries now report to the Secretary of Defense. The decision to unify

Over the past three weeks I have learned a lot about myself; specifically, that I have a lot of developing that I need to do so that I can become the leader that I need to be. As an Air Force leader, it is my responsibility to guide and grow Airmen into future leaders. I plan to find myself to be a transformational leader who can positively influence my subordinates, peers, and my supervisors. Over the next three to five years, I plan on developing myself into a transformational leader by using the different leadership styles that I have written about in my prior Personal Leadership Development Plans. I plan on building a better bond with my subordinates and my leaders. I will also utilize the knowledge that I learned from these modules to develop my Airmen into future leaders.

My leadership philosophy revolves entirely around the Army Values. In every action I take as a leader, I assess whether or not it lines up with the Army Values and the potential impacts. I have had a variety of leadership assignments during my career, all requiring a different leadership approach, spanning from team leader through platoon sergeant. My conflict resolution skills have greatly evolved through my twelve years in the Army, from rudimentary conversations to in depth problem solving. My professional development has had a profound effect on my leadership abilities, from NCOPD’s to mentorship from senior non-commissioned officers (NCO’s).

Leaders have created this imaginary image that regulations, policy, programs are second to mission end state. According to Paparone (2004), the U.S. Army War College (USAWC) drew interesting conclusions about how the staff and faculty defined leadership, both individually and collectively; for example, the definition of the ideal leader is based on personal and cultural expectations of what each of us believe good leaders should be” (p. 1). As a proud member of the Army, I have witness many of these contemporary issues first hand throughout my fifteen years of service.

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

Context: The multifarious tasks within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), requires mission-oriented and transformational leadership with mission-oriented professionals. In its Fiscal years 2014-2018 strategic plan (n. d) DHS have mission-focused, and resilient workforce as part of its mission priority. It is therefore important for the leaderships within DHS to recognize the necessity for drawing from the past experience and knowledge and act in light of where the department should be (visionary) with the ability to move people to accomplish the intended goal of protecting the homeland. Therefore, the question remains, how can DHS leadership lead and operate successfully in such complex environment where the stakes are high? While there

In large organizations, such as the Government, managing organizational structure is certainly a challenge. The most recent change in administration with the Government has created leadership turnover within the executive branch and its associated cabinets. This change brings about a number of challenges within the various components of the Government. Problems can be found both within the structure of the organization itself as well as in the way leadership manages the structure. Considering the definition of organizational structure as "effective communication, effective coordination, speed/responsiveness to the customer, and empowerment," leadership is the key to organizational structure (Schoology, 2017, p. 3). Although the Government has well established missions, visions, and goals throughout its various components, leadership often fails to manage the organizational effectiveness, which supports the mission, vision, and goals established by the leadership. The leadership required to synchronize organizational structure with the mission, vision, and goals of the organization, in order to obtain organizational effectiveness, is often overcome by personal and political agendas, such as control, advancement, or pay. These agendas can be cancerous

Bureaucratic leadership relies on a strict and formal hierarchy, which guarantees members within the organisation are aware of the structure. The authority is organised in a manner that guarantees a higher level of leadership controls each level of subordinates. Which in turn is controlled by another layer of leaders.

A perfect illustration of a working application of the autocratic style of management can be seen though the management employed in United States Military. Within the military the ranking system sets a scene for the role of the manager. In accordance with a strict chain of commands, members with a higher rank