Leadership and Authority in Business and Military Services: A Comparative Analysis
Leadership and authority in different sectors can vary significantly. Whether in the military or the corporate world, the approach to leadership and how it is developed and trained can be quite different. This article explores the disparities in the definition and training of leadership within the two domains, providing insights based on personal experiences and observations.
Leadership in the Military: A Seminal Authority Model
The military is particularly conscious about its structure, often described as hierarchical. Achieving a higher rank within the military is a combination of time and ability. Certain positions and commands are handed to individuals based on their fitness to take on those roles, as reflected in their performance reports and experience. Leadership in the military is a combination of positional authority and personal authority.
Unlike in the corporate world, the military has rigorous procedures to ensure that only qualified personnel attain senior ranks and commands. Individuals are expected to follow before they are entrusted with leading. This discipline and training contribute significantly to honing leadership skills. As Fred points out, the military provides excellent training ground for aspiring leaders.
The Corporate World: A Contrast in Leadership
In the corporate world, the leadership landscape is starkly different. According to recent studies, over 75% of those in leadership positions are deemed incompetent. This highlights a significant disparity in leadership ability across the corporate hierarchy. Corporate leaders often rely heavily on positional authority rather than personal authority, leading to a failure in effectively leading teams.
The corporate world also struggles with the distinction between managing and leading. Managing tasks and processes is a key function of corporate leaders, but true leadership goes beyond this. True leaders should lead by example, akin to the approach many military leaders take. However, the corporate world often sets a poor example, preaching one set of rules while failing to live by them.
Personal Anecdotes and Observations
Personal experiences and observations reinforce the differences between the military and corporate worlds in terms of leadership. Fred, in his reflection, notes that corporate leadership often lacks the capability and respect that military leaders command. It is unusual to find someone in the corporate world with genuine leadership qualities.
Corporations, especially in the military context, often have more relaxed rules and regulations. For instance, contractors have more flexibility in their schedules, compared to the micromanagement prevalent in military ranks. The ease of taking leave, the absence of formal permission forms, and the freedom to share ideas suggest a shift away from the hierarchical structure that exists in the military.
Other than military leaders, few in the public sector exhibit true leadership. Effective leaders must be willing to lead by example and be the role models they expect their employees to emulate. Successful companies often have high-level executives who view themselves as servants to the company and its employees, fostering a culture of mutual support and respect.
Conclusion
The military and corporate sectors have distinct approaches to leadership and authority. While the military emphasizes positional and personal authority in a structured and disciplined environment, the corporate world often lacks these elements, focusing more on positional authority and failing to set positive examples of leadership.
True leadership, as exemplified in the military, involves leading by example, managing with integrity, and fostering a culture where everyone strives for excellence. The lessons learned from military leadership can offer valuable insights for improving leadership in the corporate world.