Leadership Musings- Military and Corporate

I have been mulling over the concept of leadership for a while, and when a dear colleague, Shiv invited me to give a perspective on military vs corporate leadership, I knew this was my opportunity to delve deeper into an area which is very close to my heart.

 Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomenon on earth.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge this is purely based on my experience and viewpoint. With 5 years in the Forces, and 12 in the corporate world and hundreds of thought exchanges, I have tried to draw on some conclusions.

There are clear parallels and distinct differences in leadership philosophy , way we develop and nurture leadership and finally how we set them up for success in military and in business.

To start the discussion, let us look at the fundamental question –

Are leaders born or made?

 Field Marshal, Sam Manekshaw once said, Give me a man or a woman with common sense and who is not an idiot and I assure you, I can make a leader out of him or her. The same question when asked to Jack Welch, received the answer (perhaps not surprisingly) - Both. Energy, the ability to energize, and passion are traits that are inborn and competitive edge and execution skills can be taught.

 Both military and corporate leaders have competitors. Both require information, strategies, plans and excellent execution to win. The difference is the context and the fact that one is life and death and the other is the survival of the company. The idea of a human life is though much more stringent.

Professional knowledge is the sine qua non of leadership both in the military and the corporate. Without that, you can never be the true epitome of leading your men, who may still abide by what you say because of the authority that you wield but you will neither command respect nor will they be influenced to be led by you. No one has yet figured out how to manage people effectively into battle, they must be led.

Which now brings me to the differences….

 Most of the differences in styles or methods of leadership can be related to differences in cultures. The basis of the army( includes Air force and Navy) culture is the oath taken that puts mission above life itself. In the corporate world, loyalty is to the owner of the business. In the military, fundamental loyalty is to the country.

The culture of the military continues to place more emphasis on personal character than on personal expertise.

 To help build on this concept, Leadership for the military is essential at all levels regardless of designations and hierarchy. Therefore the approach to leadership development is continuous , long term and consistent. The military has more encompassing approach which exposes all service members to leadership growth opportunities (Kirchner and Akdere, 2015). The military has particularly invested in developing leadership capacities early in a soldier’s career. All soldiers are challenged to lead their peers and subordinates at one point or another during their term of service – unique from employees who may never be in a position to lead others.

 Planning is an essential element in both the contexts. There is a famous saying, Failing to plan is planning to fail. Military leaders and corporate business executives are action oriented; they execute.

But here is the difference – the planning in the corporate is based on market analysis whereas in the military it is battlefield analysis.

No plan survives first contact with the enemy” is a military aphorism.

 Forces are modular and relatively independent, and focus on general capabilities. Decisions are flexible, emphasizing local requirements and deviations; officers tolerate outright mistakes, which are inevitable when soldiers have to make unexpected changes. This may not be the case in a corporate context, where not much room for decision making is given to the lower echelons and strategic decision making is largely at the topmost level which also delays the capability building of leaders.

The predominant way a military leader builds trust is through influence – when the matter is of life and death, the transactional sources of motivation do not hold ground.

Why should a person be motivated by rewards when he might not live to enjoy them?

When followers have trust and confidence in a leader, they are transformed into willing partners, rather than merely compliant order takers. In the language of leadership theorists, such influence is called transformational leadership, and it is the dominant style of military leaders. This leadership style coupled with lifelong bonds that are developed in times of adversity are the bedrock of high performing teams as we label them in a business context. Having served in a medical unit- a field ambulance I can testify that in times of need, we have witnessed role overlaps and blurring of responsibilities if the situation so demands.

The current economic environment, partly caused by a crisis of self-serving leadership, with slow economy , global pandemic and businesses going into recession calls for a different kind of leadership.

In my opinion, the best leadership—whether in peacetime or war—is borne as a conscientious obligation to serve. In a business scenario, it is difficult to inculcate such a value system.

Contrastingly, leaders who have operated in the crucibles common to military are embodiments of these values.

Tie selflessness with the adaptive capacity, innovation, and flexibility demanded by dangerous contexts, and one can see the value of leadership both from a military and corporate context. (HBR)