Relationship of command leadership and management

Introduction to Command, Leadership, and Management by stephen hart on Prezi

relationship of command leadership and management

Leadership and management are the terms that are often considered synonymous. It is essential to understand that leadership is an essential part of effective. This article is structured as follows: Introduction Defining Command, Leadership and Management Value of the CLM Programme NAT Rank Codes and UK. Proficiency in command or leadership at the operational level, for instance, Scholarly work on managing global change in the new security environment has been . only in relation to subordinates as defined above, but frequently must do so.

Command Leadership or Management | Ahson Virk -

While management includes focus on planning, organizing, staffing, directing and controlling; leadership is mainly a part of directing function of management. Leaders focus on listening, building relationships, teamwork, inspiring, motivating and persuading the followers. While a leader gets his authority from his followers, a manager gets his authority by virtue of his position in the organization.

Management is more of science as the managers are exact, planned, standard, logical and more of mind. Leadership, on the other hand, is an art. While management deals with the technical dimension in an organization or the job content; leadership deals with the people aspect in an organization.

If management is reactive, leadership is proactive.

relationship of command leadership and management

Management is based more on written communication, while leadership is based more on verbal communication. The organizations which are over managed and under-led do not perform upto the benchmark. Leadership accompanied by management sets a new direction and makes efficient use of resources to achieve it.

As the nature of threat and concept for employment of military forces is constantly evolving, there is a plethora of literary research on relationship of CLM An analysis of a number of researches indicates certain widely recognised models to understand the said relationship within a military organisation.

relationship of command leadership and management

NATO, and Howieson and Kahn study the inter-relationship of the trinity in a rather unilateral manner. According to the NATO model Figure 1a commander having the legal authority is able to exercise leadership and management within an organisation to achieve assigned goals Howieson and Kahn Figure 2 are of the opinion that command and management are the functions that make an organisation good while leadership is a skill through which an organisation can progress from good to great Both the models highlight an important factor regarding inter-relationship of CLM17, however, co-relation of the same with environment appears to be missing.

The CLM continuum as explained by Keith Grint Grint Model suggests that emphasis on employment of either skill depends on the nature of crisis or conflict and the availability of time for making a coercive, calculative or normative decision Figure 3 Theory and Practice, 2. Oxford University Press, The strategic level deals with the national resources complimenting each other to attain the national objectives At the military strategic level the decisions made by a commander have an implication on attainment of the overall national objectives or policies.

Leadership and Management - Relationship & Differences

At the military strategic level a commander exercises an indirect command over the forces and manages the allotment of resources through his staff and subordinate commanders. National Defence University,7. Appointment of a commander at different levels is based on rank, service and experience.

A careful study of various personalities in military history and their involvement at the strategic level of operations once viewed through the prism of Grint and Okros models argues that an incompatible application of the trinity has an adverse effect on the outcome.

Adolf Hitler during World War II tried to micro-manage the military component from the strategic level and focused on obedience through coercion instead of influencing and inspiring his followers General Eisenhower in Operation Overlord27 and General Mac Arthur during Inchon Landings could combine all elements of the trinity to achieve desired results Through forceful leadership skills they could inspire along horizontal and vertical plains and ensured that common vision, intent and strategic objective is evident down to the lowest channel of command.

Example of General Patreaus also suggests the possibility of a linkage between CLM and contemporary operating environment The military strategic level deals with the national resources available to military commander Grove Press, Penguin Group, Eisenhower, Soldiers and Statesmen: Reflections on Leadership Missouri: University of Missouri Press,7, Nagl, foreword to The U.

University of Chicago Press,xv-xvi.

At the strategic level, a commander is dealing with the operations through the tactical and operational commanders who are sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable. Preference of a commander at the strategic level on command or management is likely to face resistance being the domain of the lower tier commanders. Hence, in order to achieve the desired objectives, lower commanders are required to be convinced, motivated and inspired: Resultantly, the military commander makes decisions to achieve strategic objectives employing coercive or hard power utilising leadership skill to extend the strategic vision down the chain questioning the relationship of leadership with hard power as suggested in the Grint model.

The operational level concerns the actual employment of the military forces to attain the objectives of military strategy, through a design, organisation and conduct of campaigns and battles It is the level of war at which the available military resources are used to attain the strategic ends in a theatre of war or operations.

A commander at the operational level is expected to manage a number of campaigns or battles simultaneously thus creating a dilemma for physical presence. Management of resources at the operational level has a direct bearing on the outcome of operations at the tactical level which will identify the notion of success at the strategic level.

Hence, synergy can be achieved when the operational commander is focusing on management for an optimum utilisation of resources and ensuring that the strategic vision extends down the chain, thereby suggesting a requirement of leadership and command as a secondary set of skills. A commander at the operational level can be observed exercising managerial skill in managing the resources and effect an amendment in the operations Okros model.

The shift observed in the preference for management within the trinity at the operational level also finds its linkage with an indirect style of command. Spellmount,67, His focus after the initial combat was on improving the logistics, administration and welfare of the troops while he left actual combat to his tactical commanders On the western front, General George S. For setting the required amendment into motion, the commander at the operational level requires exceptional managerial skills for shifting or re-grouping the forces while maintaining a balance in the overall operational strategy However, a commander at the operational level still requires a more homogenous approach in an application of the trinity.

The operational commander by a virtue of his position in the hierarchy relies more on managerial skill and utilises command skill in case the tactical commander fails in maintenance of aim. Alternatively he may employ leadership skill when the forces on ground require motivation. Hence it can be assumed that at the operational level also, all elements of trinity have to be applied by a commander, however, management gains more importance and overshadows leadership and command.

Princeton University Press, Battling Japan in Burma and India, Indiana: Cooper Square Press, A Genius for War New York: Harper Collins, Worldwide Conflict from to the Present Day London: Moreover, fluidity of the battlefield usually demands time-sensitive decisions for which the reliance of a tactical commander is on the personal experience and appreciation of the situation while managerial approach during planning phase can assist in the development of a logical plan.

Hence, it can be assumed that emphasis of a tactical commander remains on command skills while leadership and management are contributing factors for achieving the desired results. At the tactical level a commander will seldom face a situation offering luxury of time for deciding upon wicked or tame solutions. The emphasis of a commander on command by virtue of rank and appointment with a blend of leadership for inspiring and management of available resources is vivid at the tactical level.

The argument finds its roots in Field Marshall Erwin Rommel as a company commander in World War I, where he displayed courageous and aggressive attitude during the battle of Caporetto, which won him the coveted Pour le Merite In World War II as commander of 7th Panzer Division, Rommel displayed exceptional command qualities like planning, leading from the front and courage to achieve astounding success Being commander of primarily mobile formation, managerial skills assisted Rommel in exploiting the combat potentials while leadership qualities helped in instilling the shared vision.

However, fluidity of the battlefield necessitated explicit instructions and strict adherence from the subordinates