Search results

This chapter focused on challenges and tensions that characterize leadership in the military context. It aims to identify and analyze key paradoxes that are reflected in this unique setting, while exploring the challenges, opportunities, and advantages posed by these core paradoxes for leadership. It addresses different types of paradoxes, among them: (a) shared leadership versus hierarchical leadership, (b) flexibility and creativity versus conformity and discipline, (c) complexity and chaos versus simplicity and linearity, (d) hegemonic and prototypical leadership versus leadership of multiple identities, and last (e) distant leadership and exchange relationship versus intimate leadership and communal relationship. For each focal paradox, we uncover the dynamics, processes, management tensions, and possible subsequent outcomes. We suggest that leadership that is able to effectively attend to competing expectations and paradoxical tensions is essential in the current hybrid and complex organizational structure and unique context of the military. The chapter draws on interviews and prior research of leadership in the Israeli military, as well as other global military contexts, to gain a more nuanced understanding of the challenges of modern military leadership.

Serious questions have been raised regarding the necessity to continue focusing our research on what constitutes individual, or what the authors refer to as singular leadership. Although the authors consider these questions to be important to advancing the field of leadership theory, research, and practice, they also suggest that attempts to minimize the relevance of singular leadership may hinder progress in other domains of leadership research. In this chapter, the authors explore how and why singular leaders and their leadership matter, and how they may influence follower, peer, and organizational outcomes. The authors use a paradoxical framework to present a theoretical model and propositions that allow us to clarify the influence of different forms of singular leadership within organizations. In our examination of singular leadership, the authors consider both positive and harmful modes of attributes, cognitions, and behaviors.

While organizationally relevant outcomes of charismatic leadership have been studied more extensively, we do not know as much about when and why followers attribute charisma to leaders. Drawing on the self-concept based motivational theory of charisma developed by Boas Shamir and colleagues, we propose that congruence between leaders and followers on a core characteristic, namely organizational identification plays an important role. When leaders are high on identification with the organization, they embody and communicate the values of the organization more strongly in their vision and behaviors, which is likely to affect the attribution of charisma to these leaders, but only for followers who themselves strongly identify with the organization. In contrast, those leaders low on organizational identification are more likely to communicate messages that appeal to followers who are similarly low on identification. A multi-source study in the healthcare sector largely supports our model as congruence between organizational identification levels of leaders and followers is positively linked to perceived charisma and, in turn, charisma relates to followers’ organizational citizenship behavior.

In this chapter, we integrate recent theories on followers’ self-concept and transformational leadership theory in order to develop a conceptual framework for understanding the exceptional and diverse effects transformational leaders may have on their followers. We propose that transformational leaders may influence two levels of followers’ self-concept: the relational and the collective self thus fostering personal identification with the leader and social identification with the organizational unit. Specific leader behaviors that prime different aspects of followers’ self-concepts are identified, and their possible effects on different aspects of followers’ perceptions and behaviors are discussed.

Pygmalion and charisma are mutually compatible leadership constructs that beg integration. They share some basic assumptions about human nature, about how leaders lead, and about how they could lead more effectively. Nevertheless, for the most part these constructs are discussed in disparate academic literatures. The present treatise integrates these somewhat divergent yet partially overlapping approaches to leadership and management. The differences between Pygmalion and charismatic leadership, and the commonalities that they share, are explicated. The aim is to understand better how leaders affect followers and how they can exert their influence with greater effectiveness. Some ideas for further research and for more effective management practice based on integration of Pygmalion and charisma constructs are presented. The result is a description of “charismatic Pygmalion,” an integrated management style that embodies both leadership constructs.