attempts at servant leadership in a military institution

Looks like there's more than military training at play here -- likely also national culture, inculcated since birth and embedded deep in the language. This would mean the notion of servant leadership would be more widely reviled. I wonder if there's any evidence of this. What it does highlight is the way we go to other countries and believe that they think like us and that there's a westerner just dying to get out of that strange foreign exterior. Even when it seems terribly wrong, it's a wonderfully diverse world. Dave

Situational Leadership teaches leaders to be more directive or "task-oriented" when there is high risk or time pressure, when the task is unclear or unstructured, and when suborinates are inexperienced. When those conditions relax, leaders can be more collaborative (Fiedler would call this "considerate"). One thing is clear, though -- solidiers follow leaders who take care of them and look after their well-being. West Point banned hazing and implemented a system that mirrors the Army unit structure, to teach young leaders how to take care of their subordinates and develop them. A caution, though, that teaching only Servant Leadership, by any name, may do these soldiers a disservice. Why? Because even though the principles of servant leadership are noble -- listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of others, and building community -- soldiers need something more. They need clear direction in the fog of battle. They need swift decision-making in unsure conditions. They need someone to follow when they're scared. Maybe the focus on foresight, awareness, and conceptualiztion will help develop leaders in battlefield conditions; I'd be very interested to see that part of the training and whether it can develop better warriors who are better leaders.

Control is a concept of distributed command. It empowers field personnel to use judgement and make decisions with respect to the intent of command. The classic example is a unit that is assigned to recon a bridge understanding the commander's intent is to secure an area of operations from enemy infiltration. Ideally, the unit reports up the chain of command information that can be used to make decisions. However, if the unit is cut off and loses communications, then they may act on an enemy troop movement autonomously based on their knowledge and training. Command and control also applies to leadership in principle. The commander communicates the standards for leadership as a service throughout the organization and the expectation is for subordinate leaders to follow the example in service to those in their charge. On a basic level, having to manage everybody centrally can be innefficient. So the more you can empower groups or individuals to take care of business and eachother without direct commands- the less burden on command. Thus you come to the verbage of command and order. A fundamental aspect of leadership in the military is getting things done through people. What you do to support the people around you and how you do it can make all the difference. There is a time and place for direct command. However, in unusually difficult or complex situations, you want your team to be able to make decisions at the point of contact and handle things without a lot of explanation. In order to do this, leaders must learn how to communicate organizing ideas, genuinely motivate, influence ownership, and empower discretionary risk-taking. I agree with Sheryl and would add that Command and Control doctrine sufficiently addresses Servant Leadership by design. In a civilian context, Servant Leadership may be more appropriate for influencing groups with different views on leadership. The private sector operates from contemporary views on social organization often discreditting authoritarian concepts as inneffective for the sake of more democratic ideologies. It would be a disservice to promote Servant Leadership in that form to military, and I think unnecessarily confusing. Rather, it is more constructive to adapt the key ideas in it within the context of Command and Control. On that note, military personnel may have an advantage when entering the private sector specifically due to their familiarity with the range of organizational concepts. Servant Leadership can be presented as an expression of their knowledge applied for their professional success outside the military, as well as a "soft-skill" set useful in dealing with operations that engage civilians directly. Best, Anthony Reardon CEO/ Imagineer Nascent Dynamics ( ) Modern Business for the Modern Environment