...commanders often closely supervised. reasons behind this tendency are explored by developing and using an analytical framework consisting of nine leadership dimensions. For each dimension the requirements of leadership from the edge are elaborated and compared to actual practice in the armed forces. The conclusion is that many leadership aspects in the military do not match with the requirements of leadership from the edge.

**********

Military organizations are currently oriented towards crisis response operations, which are considered part of their core business. In these operations military units usually operate dispersed over a relatively large area, carrying out their tasks such as patrolling, observing, manning checkpoints, collaborating with other organizations, transporting goods, etcetera. Because of the dispersion, commanders at lower levels in the hierarchy (lieutenants, sergeants) are usually the on-scene commanders who have to deal with the many uncertainties that accompany these kinds of missions. They have to operate between people with very different cultures, they may be confronted with varying levels and kinds of dangers, they may have to perform tasks which can be far from "soldierlike" (Avant & Lebovic, 2000; Miller, 1997; Segal & Tiggle, 1997), and they may have to deal with local belligerents who do not comply with the agreements of the mission. These tasks can be characterized by relatively low standardization, low outcome feedback, high variety, and much latitude, and therefore those armed forces that perform these operations should be organized in a more organic way (e.g., Carroll & Tosi, 1992).

Since the Cold War the changing nature of the environment within which armed forces operate has meant that the mechanistic and overly hierarchically based armed forces have had to transform parts of their operations into more organic organizational forms. With the required organizational design changes in the armed forces (see Kramer, 2004, 2007), changes are also required in its use of technology, such as on-line communication systems (e.g. Alberts & Hayes, 2003), changes in its educational systems (Caforio, 2001), and changes in its leadership (Essens, Vogelaar, Tanercan, & Winslow, 2001).

Leadership from the Edge

There is much literature that is devoted to the required changes in military leadership (e.g., Essens, et al., 2001; Harries-Jenkins, 1999; Reed & Segal, 2000; Shamir & Catignani, 2005). The general message is that crisis response operations require commanders at many hierarchical levels to be "thinking commanders" rather than only "rule-following commanders." The essence of the change is that on-scene commanders are the ones who have to make sense of the situations they are confronted with and act according to their assessments in trying to accomplish their part of the mission. In fact, many of the problems that have to be solved in these operations may be new, not only for the on-scene commanders, but also for their higher commanders.

This line of thinking requires an organization philosophy where responsibilities and authorities are delegated throughout the command line in order to stimulate initiatives and leadership at all levels. In other words, it requires leadership from the edge. The concept "leadership from the edge" has been derived from the concept "power to the edge" that was introduced by Alberts and Hayes (2003). The word "edge" refers to individuals (subcommanders) at the periphery of the organization, i.e. where the organization interacts with its environment to have an impact or effect on that environment. The concept "leadership from the edge" is used to stress that these sub-commanders have to be in command of the situation they are in. They have to make sense of the situation and develop initiatives to make use of the situation as much as possible in the pursuance of the desired end-state of the organization.

Leadership from the edge is very much related to other concepts, such as delegation (e.g., Yukl & Fu, 1999), self-leadership (e.g. Manz & Neck, 2004; Manz & Sims, 2001), and psychological empowerment (e.g. Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Delegation involves the assignment of new responsibilities to subordinates and additional authority to carry them out (Yukl, 2006, p. 98). Self-leadership is a self-influence based view (Pearce & Manz, 2005). It is a process through which people influence themselves to achieve the self-direction and self-motivation necessary to perform (Houghton & Yoho, 2005). It refers to behavior-focused strategies, natural reward strategies, and constructive thought patterns that could be useful for employees working at the edge of the organization. Psychological empowerment has been defined as a motivational state construct consisting of the cognitive dimensions: meaning or purpose, competence, self-determination, and impact (Houghton & Yoho, 2005). These dimensions influence the active approach to work that causes individuals to strive toward and feel capable of shaping work roles and work contexts (Spreitzer, 1995).

The concepts delegation, self-leadership, and empowerment can be considered as necessary conditions for leadership from the edge. Without delegation on-scene commanders have no autonomy. Self-leadership and empowerment influence the way the subordinate commanders approach the situation. Leadership from the edge combines those concepts in that it focuses on both the leaders who have to delegate authority and on the subordinates who have to be capable and willing to take the required initiatives and the accompanying responsibilities. Furthermore, it focuses on the interactions between leaders and subordinates within the larger dynamic organizational context.

Leadership from the edge concentrates on the enterprising actions of on-scene personnel in an uncertain, fast-changing, and ambiguous environment. It is very important where local conditions develop quickly, where it is important to build an integrated local situational awareness, where the top of the organization has no good insight in local situations, where shortterm urgent decisions are required, or where there are no adequate communication means (Dekker, 2003). These conditions may be pertinent to armed forces in crisis response operations (e.g., Krulak, 1999), or in warfare (Wilson, 1989), but also to other organizations, such as client oriented organizations (e.g., Baron & Kreps, 1999, p. 327) or organizations in hypercompetitive environments (e.g., D'Aveni, 1994).

In the military literature, the concept leadership from the edge has much in common with the concept mission command. Mission command entails for commanders at many hierarchical levels the "... freedom to make decisions in a situation that one is faced with without referral, but operating within set guidelines and in pursuance of a superior's intent" (Spacie, 2001, p. 205). The system of mission command is based on commanders giving broad assignments or orders that leave much latitude for their subordinates. A number of western military organizations are attracted to the idea of mission command and have implemented the concept in their doctrines (e.g., Australian Department of Defence, 2004; Doctrine Committee of the Netherlands Army, 1996; Spacie, 2001). In this article, leadership from the edge is used instead of mission command in order to stress that subcommanders should think through the situations they are confronted with and take the initiatives that are required of them, even if they have no orders or where the given orders are not appropriate to the situation at hand.

Aim of the Article

In their research on leadership in crisis response operations Vogelaar and Kramer (2004) found that central commanders were very reserved to delegate authority, despite the fact that many subscribed to the system of mission command. Vogelaar and Kramer (2004) found in their review of case studies a large number of diverging factors that contributed to the lack of delegation of authority from battalion and company commanders to platoon commanders and squad commanders during crisis response operations. Their conclusion was that higher commanders may always find arguments for centralization of authority. On the one hand, in very uncertain and ambiguous situations, centralization was considered wise as central commanders felt they had to keep a firm grip of the situation. On the other hand, in very stable and certain situations, centralization was considered efficient. Vogelaar and Kramer (2004, p. 427) concluded that if central commanders so wish, they may always find good reasons to refrain from delegating authority and to put aside mission command principles.

The above analysis was the starting point for this article. It could be argued that central commanders tend to centralize authority too much and keep things too much under strict supervision, whereas leadership from the edge requires that they relax their control and make more use of their unit's full intellectual potential. In this article, this tendency of central commanders to supervise the behavior of their subordinate commanders more than desired from a viewpoint of leadership from the edge is explored by introducing and using an analytical framework. This article has two objectives: (1) develop an analytical framework with which the conditions for leadership from the edge can...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.




More articles from Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
The role of curiosity in global managers' decision-making., March 22, 2007
A measure of hope in franchise systems: assessing franchisees, top exe..., March 22, 2007
Psychological contract or social contract? Development of the employme..., March 22, 2007
A corporate training view of ethics education: an interview with Dov L..., March 22, 2007

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.