Search results

This paper aims to explore virtual simulations, merging artificial intelligence with real-world simulations, supporting Canadian armed forces (CAF) junior military leaders (JMLs) leadership development. Our research questions are: (1) How do virtual simulations support CAF junior military leadership development within a globalized and complex environment in the 21st century? (2) Could virtual simulations support a leadership culture change through efficacious “soft skills” training? In this paper, we explore the efficacy of virtual simulations for enhancing or developing leadership in JMLs in the CAF through a four-day pilot project with twenty JMLs (n = 20).

To assess the efficacy of virtual simulations for leadership development, we designed and studied a four-day leadership workshop for JMLs in the CAF using several virtual artificial intelligence leadership role-play simulations developed by McGraw Hill in their smart book textbook (Manning & Curtis, 2022) and several non-virtual in-class simulations for comparison. We selected four twenty to thirty-minute virtual role-play simulations that synergized with the in-person morning leadership workshop. We facilitated the three-hour leadership workshops and virtual/in-class simulations over four consecutive days. We emulated the ELESS model (De Freitas & Routledge, 2013) to assess soft and leadership skills.

The participants (JMLs) reported beneficial learning utility associated with the virtual simulations. Participants also expressed that further utility might be leveraged through virtual simulations incorporating greater complexity with multiple potential outcomes. They also suggested that leadership simulations designed around military situations would prove highly beneficial, something that was outside of the scope of this small pilot project.

Since this phase of our research is a pilot project, we secured a small amount of funding to test our hypothesis that simulations enhance leadership development for JMLs. These funding limitations resulted in several constraints in the research, such as the availability of virtual simulations articulating leadership from a military perspective. However, we believed the assigned organizational leadership simulations in the McGraw Hill Smart Book ecosystem would approximate generic leadership situations enough to test the hypothesis with the JMLs. As a pilot project, our sample size was relatively small (n = 20 JMLs) since participation was voluntary amidst a busy spring season for the JMLs. Since this is a pilot project, we suggest that twenty JMLs are an adequate sampling to test the hypothesis that simulations enhance JML leadership development. We will expand the sample size in the next phase of our research as we work with the CAF to expand the pool of participants to at least forty JML participants (n = 40). We also plan to secure further funding to collaborate with subject matter experts to design virtual simulations based on Canadian military leadership scenarios.

The CAF host robust simulations capabilities for combat training, but have not exploited the potential training and analytical capacity of virtual leadership simulations for leadership development within the CAF. We believe that virtual simulations provide an opportunity for the CAF to effect desired culture change through leadership development that leverages the substantial pedagogical benefits of simulations.

The CAF encountered several detrimental leadership scandals that eroded the reputational capital of the CAF. In the current geo-political climate of an expanding North American Treaty Organization (NATO) and threats from several international actors, the CAF seeks to expand its capabilities by adding and enhancing its human capital. However, the CAF currently experiences a significant gap in its human capital aspirations. There is a unanimous consensus that the endemic traditional culture of the CAF, as expressed in the recent explosive leadership scandals, is a deterrent to recruitment and thus weakens the CAF’s capability. The CAF targets leadership development with new leadership paradigms as pivotal to culture change. The CAF suggests that by enhancing leadership development in the CAF the new cadre of leadership will change the culture of the CAF and thereby enhance the reputational capital of the CAF. It is believed that this rejuvenated culture will lead to greater recruitment and retention, leading to a strengthened military. A strengthened military is important to provide effective support and protection for the Canadian people in these volatile and uncertain times. This expanded capacity will enable the CAF to address external military threats more effectively and also the increasing operations other than war (OOTW), such as the military support of long-term care facilities during COVID-19 or the military’s support in fighting record wildfires and the military’s support in climate change related disasters such as flooding.

The satisfaction measures indicated by the participants are typical evaluative measures of leadership development (Noe, 2023). These satisfaction ratings do not, however, indicate whether training has produced a change in behaviour (Brown, 2022). The implications of these outcomes for leadership education are that role-player simulations are useful leadership education and development tools because they provide a theatre of practice in which mistakes are not detrimental and serve as learning moments (Moore, 2012; Piro and O’Callaghan, 2021; Riotto, 2021). Further, the importance of role-player simulations that closely approximate the sector where leadership is experienced and practiced is perceived to enhance the experience. While the CAF invest in combat related simulations, but leadership development simulations are not as evident in the training and development array. This study seeks to assess their potential value as a leadership development tool within the wider context of character development as a leadership competency.

This article explores and contrasts the views of two influential research projects within the social and environmental accounting space. Both projects advocate for sustainability. The first here referred to as the Critical Social and Environmental Accounting Project (CSEAP), was developed and championed by Rob Gray and calls for immediate radical structural change. The second one is called the Pragmatic Sustainability Management Accounting Project (PSMAP), championed by Stefan Schaltegger, and advocates for an entrepreneurial process of creating radical solutions in joint stakeholder collaboration over time.

The paper is the culmination of a decade-long debate between Gray and Schaltegger as advocates of CSEAP and PSMAP, respectively. Specifically, the paper explores the differences and agreements between CSEAP and PSMAP on whether and how companies should pursue sustainability and the role of accounting in these efforts. The paper focusses on critical issues that exemplify the tension in their views: general goals, the role of structure and agency and how to creating change and transformation.

The article contrasts CSEAP's uncompromising antagonising approach to accountability and fundamental systemic change with PSMAP's pragmatic approach to sustainability accounting with its management and entrepreneurship-orientated approach to change and unwavering support for transformative managers on the front lines. Despite their apparent differences, the paper also outlines areas of agreement between these two positions and how accounting and sustainability can move forward.

The debate tries to reconcile language and conceptional differences in the social and environmental accounting (SEA) and sustainability management accounting (SMA) communities to reduce confusion in the research space over what sustainability is for organisations and what role accounting plays in this. The authors hope that the tension between the different positions outlined in this paper generates new insights and positions on the topic.

While the two views explored in this paper are primarily incompatible, each generates implications for practice, research and education. Debates like this are crucial to moving from discursive disagreement to creating a tolerant and robust foundation for moving forward and achieving much-needed sustainable transitions in the economy and society.

The authors offer shared understandings, points of continuing disagreement and alternative views on the nature of sustainability. The debate forges a bridge of understanding where both sides can learn from each other.