¶ … Leadership Styles of Sam Damon and Courtney Massengale In the military setting, it is very common to hear statements like 'you are acting like a Courtney (Sam) on that issue'. Courtney Massengale and Sam Damon are the two main characters in the novel, Once an Eagle by Anton Myrer. The two are portrayed as significantly different army officers in a story that revolves around the key themes of unchecked ambition, devotion to country, career over family, corruption of power, ethics and morality, good vs. evil, and heroism. Both are portrayed as ambitious, dedicated, and aggressive men dedicated to the service of their country and its people; however, whereas Sam acts as a selfless, caring, and kind commander, Courtney presents himself as his exact opposite -- a charming professional out to portray a can-do image at whatever cost, even if it means stepping on his subordinate's toes just to get things moving. This text compares the leadership approaches adopted by both characters and assesses i) their relevance in the military today, and ii) the extent to which either is used.

Leadership: Leadership Styles

Simply stated, leadership style refers to the manner in which a leader motivates his followers, gives direction, and implements plans (Walker and Miller 15). In other words, it refers to the way a leader administers leadership and control, how they give instructions to subordinates, and how they offer coaching to ensure that the instructions given are carried out effectively. In the book, Sam Damon is seen as exercising the democratic style of leadership, where the leader appreciates the role played by subordinates in the organization, and as such, he goes out of his way to not only solicit their participation in decision-making, but also ensure that their needs and welfare are properly taken care of. He sets high performance standards for his team, but he does not rely on sycophantic behavior or taking advantage of his subordinates to achieve success. Moreover, he does not put so much emphasis on his success as an individual; rather, he strives for team participation, and is keen on achieving success by getting himself as well as members of his unit adequately-prepared.

Massengale, however, adopts a different approach to leadership -- he takes on the impersonal, aristocratic leadership style, where decisions are made and orders given without input from subordinates (Walker and Miller 15). He gives instructions and orders without defense or explanation, and his main focus is on achieving goals, as opposed to ensuring that employees are kept satisfied. To him, the needs and welfare of staff come second to goal achievement (Walker and Miller 15). His major focus is on pleasing his superiors and gaining a reputation for himself, and he strives to achieve that even if it means stepping on those below him in the hierarchical structure. The potential implications of each leader's approach, and a statement on which of the two approaches works best in the context of the modern-day military have been discussed in the next subsection.

Potential Issues of Concern arising from:

Massengale's Leadership

Massengale's autocratic approach may work effectively in some environments, especially where large sums of money are involved and the work done is repetitive in nature. In the context of the military, however, it could cause staff to be over dependent on their supervisors for instructions, and therefore unable to devise creative and innovative solutions on their own. Autocratic leadership has no place, particularly in today's military, because creativity and innovation are crucial for combat success. Security threats are evolving dynamically, and new threats are emerging on an almost daily basis; the degree of creativity at the military is expected to evolve at the same rate if the unit is to combat the same effectively. Having a unit that cannot adjust itself flexibly to changing threats and that cannot innovate successfully would be disastrous, to say the least. It would be prudent to cultivate a culture whereby staff feel like they are part of the greater combat team, and where they feel like they are being valued and appreciated as they deserve. This can only be achieved through participative (democratic) leadership, where the needs of staff are placed above combat objectives, and staff are treated more as participants and less as subordinates.

Besides rigidness and lack of creativity, there is also the issue of staff losing drive, initiative, and esprit de corps as a result of feeling like they are not being valued and appreciated. An autocratic leader would require even the simplest...

In the same way, he would require subordinates to provide back briefs on the status of every decision they choose to undertake (Slim 36). Guided by this type of culture, subordinates would eventually be disempowered from making decisions in the fear that they may be seen to have overstepped their mandate and disrespected their leader (Slim 36). This would make the status quo a more or less permanent arrangement amidst rapidly changing security threats.
A third possible issue that could arise in the case of an aristocratic leader is that of delays. If subordinates will be required to obtain the leader's approval before making decisions on even the most routine of activities, then delays associated with bureaucracy will be almost inevitable. The situation is worse if the leader is impersonal as was the case with Massengale -- out to create a name for himself with no room for mistakes -- because then, he would be keen to ensure that he sweeps blame as far away from himself as possible and that he is not held personally accountable for any mess thereof. The subordinates would, therefore, often find themselves having to pay for the mistakes of their leader. This, from a different perspective, increases the risk of ethical dilemmas -- subordinates and junior leaders may find themselves in a situation where they are tied between waiting for the leader's approval and moving forward without the same (and then perhaps not disclosing it to the leader) just to avoid delays and its associated costs.

It would be prudent to mention that there are a number of benefits that could be derived from the use of the aristocratic approach to leadership. To begin with, it would ensure that the chain of command is adhered to and that, hence, leaders are held accountable for any decisions made in their units. Moreover, it could help in ensuring consistency in operations given that all decisions are made by the same entity. However, the issues presented earlier overshadow these benefits, denying this leadership style a place in the modern-day military.

Damon's Leadership

Damon's democratic approach to leadership obviously presents better chances of success in the military than that adopted by Massengale. This is because by showing his desire to look out for the needs and welfare of members of his team, the leader gets his subordinates to feel like they are more than just tools in the organization. Damon listens to and displays a caring attitude towards his subordinates, and in as much as he yearns to achieve success, he does not encourage sycophancy and neither does he take advantage of his subordinates to realize desired outcomes. This results in high levels of motivation among staff and increased opportunities for innovation and creativity, given that input is taken from all members of the team.

However, it is also not without its share of issues. To begin with, the approach could prove costly if the labor characterizing the division is disorganized and illiterate. Corruption is rampant in the modern-day society, and it is now relatively easy for an unqualified person to find their way into the military, just because they have links and connections to influential people inside and outside the institution. It is possible, therefore, that not all staff members may be literate enough or genuinely interested in the operations of the military, and their personal goals may not align effectively with those of the organization. Obtaining input from such members could be disastrous, as the views they give may not be in the best interest of the institution.

Moreover, given the tension that usually characterizes the relationship between line officers and staff officers, attempts by a line officer such as Damon to look out for the needs and welfare of staff members, and involve them in democratic decision-making, could be interpreted as a way to manipulate them and reduce their loyalty to their staff superiors. This could result in staff being unreceptive and unwilling to offer their cooperation to the leader, giving rise to stagnation.

Nonetheless, this approach to leadership is relevant to the modern-day military because of its openness to innovation and new ideas. With security threats changing rapidly on a daily basis, there is an open need for creativity and innovation. It is only through innovation that the military can be able to remain at par with evolving threats. Any leadership approach, therefore, that increases opportunities for innovation would have a place in the military. Leaders should, however, be keen to keep the personal goals…