Leadership, Part 3

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Oct 22

Previous pieces on this subject recounted how the Canadian army in 1964-65 went about developing an all-new leadership doctrine based on the Leader-Follower-Situation concept.  Significantly, the process followed was empirical in nature.  It didn’t lay down dogmatisms and elaborate from them.

The process began with a review of applicable philosophy, that of John Locke and Immanuel Kant.  Locke’s philosophy gave an understanding of the general philosophical assumptions and outlook on life of the pool of future recruits: the men of Canada (this is 1965, remember!).  Kant’s philosophy delivered the justification for the demands of military service: duty, sacrifice, and a moral imperative.  From there, the army turned to the work of the world’s expert on leadership of that day, Dr. Ralph Stodgill.

The leadership theory prior to Stodgill, accepted by the army prior to 1965, was the “great man” theory, or trait theory.  “Great men” are born with certain traits that somehow makes them natural leaders of men.  It is a paradox to study the traits of “great men” since these traits cannot be implanted into lesser mortals.  Stodgill undermined the “great man” theory by observing that some traits are useful in some situations, but not others.  Other workers observed that it wasn’t so much traits, but the behavior that seemed to issue from those traits, that was the operative manifestation of leadership.

Putting the three elements together, you arrive at a Leader-Follower-Situation concept with the traits of leadership understood to be behavioural.  Leadership behavior was something that could be observed and taught to a general audience.  Situation was congenial to a military context because a military situation almost always involved a terminal end, i.e. the achievement of a mission or a goal.  Hence the famous Canadian definition of leadership: the art of influencing human behaviour so as to achieve the mission in the manner desired by the leader.  Implicitly, if the goal was achieved in a manner other than that which the leader desired, the leader didn’t really lead the group to the achievement of its mission, and despite success, was a failure of leadership.

Following Stodgill, three styles of leadership were identified as: authoritarian, or command style; the participative style, and the free-rein style, which was of minimal control.  These styles are well thought of as analytical tools which explain what the leader is doing from moment to moment.  For example, at the opening parade of personnel at the MSE depot, the leader might call his followers to attention in a parade square manner, exhibiting the authoritarian style.  After standing his followers easy, the leader might inform the followers of important news and priority of work for that day and take questions, exhibiting the participative style.  After dismissing his followers to go about their daily work, the leader exhibits a free-rein style letting the followers go about their work with only occasional supervision and inspection.

Another important aspect of the style elaboration is as a diagnostic tool.  What results when the wrong style is used for a situation?  Especially, what happens when one style is relied on too much, the most notorious being an overreliance on the authoritarian style?  The table of diagnostics are uncannily accurate.

As remains the fashion of philosophical ideology, the army identified ten ‘principles’ of leadership, which are traits expressible as behaviour: achieve professional competence, appreciate your strengths and weaknesses and pursue self-improvement, seek and accept responsibility, lead by example, make sure your follows know your meaning and intent, know your [men] and promote their welfare, develop the leadership potential of your followers, make sound and timely decisions, train you [men] as a team and employ them up to their full capabilities, keep you followers informed – of the mission, the changing situation, and the overall picture.

After the revolution of sixty years, how well does the theory hold up?  The followers have changed after the admission of women, and the philosophical outlook is different, containing much postmodernism, but the structure, principles and diagnostics hold up well.

-30-