Two Schools of Thought on Leadership
The two paradigms of the soldier and the state reflect competing models of leadership which must be reconciled in the diplomat warrior. Nowhere is the traditional model of leadership held in higher esteem than at The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina.
Since 1842 it has made leadership its hallmark, with the 'Citadel Man' exemplifying the ideal citizen-soldier. That is, until 1993, when a female applied for admission to the all-male corps of cadets. In defending its single-gender tradition in the litigation that followed, the Citadel recommended a separate but equal leadership program for women, the Women's Leadership Institute (WLI).22Columbia College was one of two women's colleges in South Carolina named to co-sponsor WLI. But the dean of the Leadership Institution at Columbia College resisted participation in WLI on the grounds that its traditional military model of leadership was incompatible with the model taught at her college:
The central tenets of military leadership are conforming to clear directives from an officer, imitating the actions of a superior, standardization and regimentation, a 'win-lose' operating mentality and unquestioned allegiance to the chain of command. Leadership education at Columbia College has a different philosophical base. It is not hierarchical, nor does it focus on regimentation or repetitive drill. Hallmarks of this model of leadership are entrenched in the operating principles of collaboration, shared governance, commitment to seek 'win-win' solutions and decisions based on solid ethical premises.23
A retired Army general took exception to the above description of military leadership:
Arter reading Dr. Mary Frame's explanation of military leadership, I was not sure what Army I served in for many years. She has a correct description of the old Soviet military leadership methods - always considered a weakness by Western military analysts.24
The Army War College teaches a situational approach to leadership that includes both the directive style of leadership needed in combat as well as more supportive styles required for operations other than war. Successful leadership in diverse operational environments requires a mix of both styles; there is no one best style of leadership for war and peace.25 The Army, unlike The Citadel and Columbia College, is not a single-gender institution and cannot afford one-dimensional leadership.
Its leaders must be flexible, equally at home in civilian and military environments and capable of employing both directive and supportive styles of leadership, depending on the situation.The Army's model of leadership is incorporated in the concept of professionalism, which is expressed in the values of duty, loyalty, integrity and selfless service, and reflected in civil-military relations. As discussed earlier in this chapter, Huntington's classic on the soldier and the state described military professionalism from the perspective of the traditional paradigm, with its directive style of leadership, authoritarian concepts of duty and loyalty, and isolation from civilian politics. The new paradigm of the political soldier has its focus on the Constitution and incorporates the more supportive traits required in operations other than war, such as negotiation and diplomacy. Most of all, it encourages interaction between the military and the civilian society it serves to ensure healthy civil-military relations.
One of the best arguments for changing the old paradigm comes from its author, Samuel Huntington, whose description of the new strategic environment as one of clashing cultures makes his own traditional style of military leadership an anachronism, except in warfighting. For the military to be an effective instrument of national power in operations other than war it must have leaders whose concept of professionalism - their understanding of duty and loyalty - is consistent with the requirements and principles of military legitimacy.