top of page
  • Brig Neil John

Military Leadership An Art or a Craft ? By Brig Neil John

Updated: Jun 15

Leadership is the most controversial topic. Are they born? Are they those that adapt? Are they the survivors and is leadership a survival instinct? Somehow, who describes leadership? Those that have already reached the top? As it is said that “History is Written by Victors.” The quote gets attributed to Winston Churchill, but its origins are unknown. It implies that history is not grounded in facts, rather it's the winners' interpretation of them that prevails. The victors can force their narrative down on the people.

So, who actually can extrapolate leadership. Different situations need different types of leadership. Decision making, risk taking, empathy, sacrifice, leadership by setting personal examples, etc are all tools of leadership. So what defines leadership?


I believe that in a given situation, anything that works when applied by a human, towards end state objectives is what denotes leadership qualities. But the same leader might not be successful in other varied environments. A military operation has distinct channels of work and decision making. Everyone is a leader from the section commander upwards. Even in a buddy pair, one is a leader and the other a follower. Therefore, there is visible leadership and there is an invisible quiet leadership, shy of the viewership.


There exists in the military, too many types of leaders


- Smart leaders

- Intelligent leaders

- Conformist leaders

- Yes men leaders

- Disruptive leaders

- Exemplary leaders

- ⁠Projectionists

- ⁠Maukaterians


Our leadership is also based on situations and opportunities. Because for leadership qualities to come to fore, you need situations that draw out your tact. The more medals you wear is not actually a certificate for top class leadership. It’s the opportunity that existed, and you involved and evolved with it. Making the best of situations to adapt, perform, channelise and deliver.

So are there ABSOLOUTE LEADERS? In my understanding there aren’t. Leaders succeed, and leaders fail. Some military leaders in their growth process forget being approachable and humane. Arrogance also creeps in. A leadership style akin to autocratic application prevails a lot in today’s military, my way or no way becomes the sin. While there are some that adapt, they empathise, they seek visions, thought processes, and manifest a team. Then they get the best out of that team through trust and delegation. That’s adaptive leadership. But this kind of leadership often tends to generate a sense of happiness and goodness first, prioritising a perceived quality of life as necessity because it brings with it flattery. This analogy takes over occupational objectives and dilutes performances.

Adaptive leadership with decision-making is the most effective and efficient form of leadership. Built with open communication and reach (approachability), it is lethal and highly productive. In the military, a leadership style that knows when to clap and when to kick butt will always work.


So, can we actually train leaders? Or put leaders that we think are good for the system into situations that would garner them experience and validate their qualities. Or is it easier to just write an ACR and ensure that we create leaders who on paper are all 9s.


It’s an interesting case study, how we actually presume that military leadership that reaches the top are actually endowed with leadership qualities. Who is gauging them? They are rated by the hierarchy above them. While on the contrary, the people led should be making the judgment.


Fails me, hat even after multiple studies and thought processes, we still don’t want to bring in a 3360-degreereporting pattern. It is almost sinister that we are running with a failed validation system and still churning out military commanders, I am abstaining from using the term military leaders here, cause there are many officers who missed the bus, whose credentials are superior to the ranks that they wear. Like I said , lame it on their luck or the MS branch who couldn’t afford him the situation where he could play with fire and ice and deliver with military candour.

63 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page