What is “Transformational” Leadership in the US Army?

by MSG Woody Woodward, US Army

The Army’s professional military education system teaches leaders to be transformational leaders. Nevertheless, nowhere in Army doctrine is transformational leadership defined. The systems and leadership styles outlined in the leaders’ requirements model show attributes and competencies (Department of the Army [DA], 2019a). The purpose of this article is to take a deeper look at the leadership styles within the Army and how one style of leadership is not the only style needed to train and develop the leaders within the Army.

Leaders must be well-rounded when it comes to leadership styles. Not being able to read the situation and figure out what leadership style would best suit the current situation is a problem worth solving. Leaders who can assess the environment they are in and apply the necessary leadership style to accomplish the mission will be better leaders overall. A leader must be able to adjust their styles on the fly to allow for successful mission accomplishment. The United States Army expects senior noncommissioned officers to display transformational leadership while adapting to changing environments; still, without authoritative or democratic leadership styles, the Army would fail.

Literature Review

Transformational leadership, what is it, and how does one become a transformational leader? The author will analyze these two questions in depth throughout this review of Army, Air Force, and other scholarly articles to identify and describe what transformational leadership is and why the Army must incorporate a definition into Army doctrine.

Problem

According to Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 (2019a), there is no one singular leadership style; There are multiple styles and philosophies with core attributes and competencies. The regulation further supplies a definition of leadership as an “activity of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization” (DA, 2019a, p. 1-13). Both Training Circular 7-22.7 (2020b) and Jasper (2018) provide definitions of Army leadership styles; Jasper states there are five standard leadership styles, while Training Circular 7-22.7 lists six: Authoritative, Coaching, Coercive, Democratic, and Pacesetting and the added style in Training Circular 7-22.7 is Affiliative (DA, 2020b; Jasper, 2018). Leaders within the Army have difficulty when asked what transformational leadership is, as the Army has no clear definition. However, the Air Forces Full-Rang Leadership Model, which resembles the Army’s Leaders Requirements Model in Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, has incorporated and defined transformational leadership within its doctrine (Arenas et al., 2017). The author describes transformational leadership as creating relationships with subordinates that increase morale, and motivation levels, while being observant of the subordinates’ needs and developing subordinates into leaders (Arenas et al., 2017).

Maj Devin, author of “The Trouble with Mission Command: Army Culture and Leaders Assumptions,” says that authoritarianism has been a long-standing complex leadership style for decades and that this leadership style has its place depending on the conditions and the environment (2021). In the article “Mastering the Art of Dynamic Leadership,” the authors from NCO Journal Staff talk about distinctive styles of leadership, one of which most should be familiar with; Transactional leadership (2018). The article continues to describe transactional leadership as a leader giving an order to do something, and if the Soldier does not do it results in punishment, and if the Soldier does it well, then the Soldier might receive a reward for their efforts (NCO Journal Staff, 2018). The author also explains that the leadership style focuses on structure, goals, performance, and results that can lead to rewards or punishment (NCO Journal Staff, 2018). With all the assorted styles of leadership in Army doctrine, it is no wonder the Army has issues with leaders amongst the ranks. Some of those issues are what authors Do & Dobbs (2018) describe in their article: “The Impact of Perceived Toxic Leadership on Cynicism in Officer Candidates.” Examples provided of “Destructive Leadership” were counter-productive, aka toxic, horrible or unethical, tyrannical, and foul leadership styles resulting in disastrous behaviors towards subordinates and the organization they are leaders in (Do & Dobbs, 2018).

Solution

How does the Army solve this problem and build more effective leaders and teams? Cadet Cote (2020) explains in his article “West Point cadets lead the country in tackling real issues” that sitting down and discussing the root causes “upbringing” of destructive behaviors is how you can learn, identify, discuss, and mitigate bad behaviors before they become a leadership problem (Cote, 2020). Dryer (2018) explains in his article “Why won’t My Boss Embrace Lean? An Epiphany” that a leader who empowers their subordinates to make decisions and works as a team through collaboration versus dictating while sitting back and watching the workers will achieve anything that is in front of team (Dryer, 2018).

The NCO Journal Staff expressed in their article that leaders need to be lifetime learners and study theories on leadership (NCO Journal Staff, 2018). Arenas et al. (2017) explain in their article that the “Leadership Development Survey” should be to assess leaders’ developed behaviors at an earlier stage in the individuals’ career (Arenas et al., 2017). Gabriel et al. (2022) conducted a study on Army cadets and found by using a leadership development and assessment course. The results assessed leadership qualities and behaviors to find if the cadet has what it takes to be a military leader or what the cadet needs to work on (Gabriel et al., 2022). Training Circular 7-22.7 explains that individuals who can adapt to situations because of the training they have received during professional military education and other educational systems, for example, Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), along with their past experiences and assignments, will increase their knowledge and become better leaders (DA, 2020b).

Literature Review Summary

Leadership comes in all different forms, and there are many different ways to help grow leaders. A Cadet, Soldier, or Officers ability to lead and lead well initially is a byproduct of the environment that they grew up in and the values and beliefs that they learned during their childhood (Cote, 2020). The Army leaders’ requirements model describes attributes and competencies but does little to provide a clear leadership philosophy or a specific leadership style for future leaders. There is a multitude of different leadership philosophies and styles in the Army, the military at large, and the civilian world. The military academies have the right idea of incorporating leadership evaluations to find the behaviors of leaders early on in their careers. The Army enlisted professional military education system could incorporate these types of evaluations in basic training and again in basic leader courses to help guide leaders in the right direction and course correct their bad behaviors. Jasper said that the best leadership is not a popularity contest; it is not about being everyone’s favorite person at work (2018). It is about creating harmony in a diverse and ethical environment where people want to work together and carry out their mission.

Diversity Perspective

Army leadership styles can affect vulnerable and disenfranchised groups differently from the way it affects dominant cultural groups. Vulnerable and disenfranchised groups may include minorities, women, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Others individuals, and people with disabilities, to name a few (Gevarter & Hill, 2017). One way that leadership styles can affect these groups differently is through the use of power and authority. Vulnerable and disenfranchised groups often view Army leaders who use an authoritarian or hierarchical leadership style as oppressive (Devine, 2021). These styles reinforce power imbalances and may give the impression of a dictatorship. On the other hand, vulnerable and disenfranchised groups commend leaders who use a more democratic or participative leadership style as it demonstrates the leader’s ability to value the collaboration and the inclusivity of vulnerable and disenfranchised groups (Devine, 2021).

For example, leaders who actively seek out diverse perspectives and opinions may be better able to engage and empower marginalized groups. Additionally, Army leadership styles affect the culture and norms of the organization. For example, leaders who prioritize diversity and inclusion may create a more accepting and welcoming culture for vulnerable and disenfranchised groups (Garamone, 2022). Conversely, leaders who do not address discrimination issues or perpetuate bias through their actions or language may contribute to a hostile or unwelcoming culture towards these groups. Ultimately, the way Army leadership styles affect vulnerable and disenfranchised groups will depend on a variety of factors, including the specific style of leadership, ethical principles, culture and norms of the organization, and the individual experiences and perspectives of the people involved.

Ethical Perspective

The ethical principles that drive Army leadership style policies, decisions, and actions include respect for human dignity, fairness, and justice. These principles reflect the Army values such as loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage (McMaster, 2021). To ensure that these ethical principles are adhered to, the Army has developed various strategies and solutions, including training and education programs, policies and procedures, and accountability measures (DA, 2019a). For example, the Army provides diversity and inclusion training to its leaders to ensure that they understand the importance of creating a culture of respect, dignity, and inclusivity. The Army also has policies in place to address issues of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and has implemented processes for reporting and investigating these issues.

Some other strategies that the Army employs are the use of mentorship and sponsorship programs (DA, 2020a). The program’s design is to help vulnerable and disenfranchised groups navigate the challenges of military service and to provide them with opportunities for career advancement and professional development (Thompson, 2022). To ensure these strategies and solutions are effective, the Army regularly evaluates its policies and programs and seeks feedback from its members. This allows the Army to find areas where improvement is possible and make changes that align with its ethical principles and values (DA, 2020a). Driven by ethical principles, the Army uses principles such as respect for human dignity, fairness, and justice and employs strategies such as training and education programs, policies and procedures, and accountability measures to ensure these principles (DA, 2019b). The Army also uses mentorship and sponsorship programs to support vulnerable and disenfranchised groups and regularly evaluates its policies and programs to ensure they are effective (DA, 2019b).

Synthesis

Transformational leadership is a leadership style that the U.S. Army expects its senior noncommissioned officers to display while adapting to changing environments (Sadulski, 2022). However, the Army does not provide a clear definition of transformational leadership in its doctrine, which creates difficulty for leaders when asked about the concept (Richter, 2018). In Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, the Army supplies a definition of leadership as an “activity of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization” (DA, 2019a).

According to Training Circular 7-22.7 and Jasper (2018), there are multiple leadership styles and philosophies with core attributes and competencies (DA, 2020b; Jasper, 2018). The five standard leadership styles named by Jasper are authoritative, coaching, coercive, democratic, and pacesetting, Training Circular 7-22.7 adds affiliative as another style. The Air Force’s full-range leadership model includes transformational leadership within the model, which, like the Army’s leader’s requirements model, emphasizes creating relationships with subordinates that increase morale and motivation levels while being observant of the subordinates’ needs and developing subordinates into leaders (DA, 2019a).

According to Maj Devin (2021), authoritarianism has been a long-standing complex leadership style for decades, and it has its place depending on the conditions and the environment. The Army needs to empower its subordinates to make decisions and work collaboratively. Leaders need to be lifetime learners and study theories on leadership, as suggested by the NCO Journal Staff (2018). The “Leadership Development Survey” should be to assess leaders’ developed behaviors at an earlier stage in their careers, according to Arenas et al. (2017) and Gabriel et al. (2022). They suggest that the leadership development and assessment course can assess leadership qualities like ethical decision-making and behaviors like how they handle diversity amongst the ranks to find if the cadets or Soldiers have what it takes to be a good military leader or what the cadets or Soldiers need to work on (Arenas et al., 2017; Gabriel et al., 2022).

Ethics and diversity have not been the Army’s strong points since its inception in 1775; throughout the Army’s history, it has discriminated against vulnerable and disenfranchised people (DA, 2023). Women were forbidden from serving from 1775 until about 1901, the Army established the Army Nurse Corps in 1901, allowing women for the first time in United States Army History to officially and actively serve in support of the defense of the United States of America (DA, 2023). Prior to 1901, women were contractors hired to support the Army one of those contractors even was a Medal of Honor recipient Mary E. Walker who was a contracted surgeon during the Civil War (DA, 2023).

The discrimination and marginalization throughout the history of the Army have not been just to Women, and this also applies to African Americans from 1775 to 1861 both slave and free African Americans were involuntarily put into service due to a lack of white Americans to fill the ranks (DA, 2023). Initially forbidden from serving during the Civil War, but as the war progressed again, the nation’s fallback was to fill the gaps in the ranks with African Americans, some voluntarily and others by force (DA, 2023). In 1866 Congress passed legislation allowing African Americans to freely serve in the Armed Forces (DA, 2023). The diversity in the military’s history has been a long and bumpy road with discrimination against race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity, to name a few. The Army has made great strides toward being a professional, diverse, and ethical Army, although the Army still has room to do better (DA, 2023).

Conclusion

The United States Army expects senior noncommissioned officers to display transformational leadership while adapting to changing environments, still, without authoritative or democratic leadership styles, the Army would fail. The Army must train its leaders to be well-rounded and adaptable to all situations. As the Army defines each function and item within the service, it would make sense that they do so with such a pivotal term or concept as transformational leadership. Leaders and Soldiers at all levels demand and require definitions and contexts to guide them throughout their military careers.

The implementation of the concept of transformational leadership must be at the lowest level and at the point of inception into the military service. Wither it be Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, Reserve Officers Training Corps, for example, Virginia Military Institute, or Military Academies, for example, West Point, or when enlisted recruits report to Basic Combat Training. A definition of transformational leadership within Army doctrine would aid in that goal. However, as discussed in this article, transformational leadership is not the end-all to being a well-rounded leader in the United States Army. There are times when a leader must use alternative leadership styles like authoritative and democratic to complete the mission. A well-rounded leader will know when and how to use those alternative leadership styles.

References

Arenas, F., Connelly, D., & Tucker, J. (2017). Transforming Future Air Force Leaders of Tomorrow: A Path to Authentic Transformational Leadership. Air & Space Power Journal, 31(3), 18–33. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/Transforming Future AF Leaders of Tomorrow

Cote, J. (2020). West Point Cadets lead the country in tackling real issues. www.army.mil. https://www.army.mil/article/238599/west_point_cadets_lead_the_country_in_tackling_real_issues

Department of the Army. (2019a). Army leadership and profession. (ADP 6-22). https://Armypubs.Army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/Army Leadership and Profession.pdf

Department of the Army. (2019b). The Army people strategy. https://www.Army.mil/The Army people strategy.pdf

Department of the Army. (2020a). Army Project Inclusion – faqs. https://www.Army.mil/article/236797/Army_project_inclusion_faqs

Department of the Army. (2020b). The noncommissioned officer guide. (TC 7-22.7). https://Armypubs.Army.mil/epubs/The Noncommissioned Officer Guide.pdf

Department of the Army. (2023). The Army and diversity. U.S. Army Center of Military History. https://history.Army.mil/faq/diversity.html

Devine, D. (2021). The Trouble with Mission Command: Army Culture and Leader Assumptions. Military Review, 101(5), 36–42. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/The Trouble with Mission Command

Do, J., & Dobbs, J. (2018). The impact of perceived toxic leadership on cynicism in officer candidates. Armed Forces & Society, 45(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327×17747204

Dryer, J. (2018). Why Won’t My Boss Embrace Lean? An Epiphany: How Leaders are Measured for Effectiveness Needs to Change. Industry Week, 267(2), 29–31. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/Why Won’t My Boss Embrace Lean?

Gabriel, T., Teasley, R., & Walker, W. (2022). The Moderating Effects of Perceived Organizational Support on Leadership Behaviors: A Study of Army Cadets. Global Journal of Management and Marketing, 6(1), 32–42. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/The Moderating Effects of Perceived Organizational Support on Leadership Behaviors

Garamone, J. (2022). Diversity, equity, inclusion are necessities in U.S. military. Department of Defense. https://www.defense.gov/diversity-equity-inclusion-are-necessities-in-us-military/

Gevarter, D., & Hill, J. (2017). A lifetime of service: An interview with General James T. Hill. Gale. Other, Harvard International Relations Council, Inc. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A lifetime of service: an interview with General James T. Hill

Jasper, L. (2018). Building an adaptive leadership style. Strategic Finance, 99(9), 55–61. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/Building an Adaptive Leadership Style

McMaster, H. (2021). The Corrosion of The Warrior Ethos: Necessary restorative work belongs to us all. National Review, 73(21), 22–26. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/The Corrosion of The Warrior Ethos

NCO Journal Staff. (2018). Mastering the art of Dynamic Leadership. Army University Press. https://www.Armyupress.Army.mil/nco-journal/Mastering the art of Dynamic Leadership

Richter, G. (2018). Antecedents and Consequences of Leadership Styles: Findings from Empirical Research in Multinational Headquarters. Armed Forces & Society, 44(1), 72–91. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48609232

Sadulski, J. (2022). Effective military leaders use 3 different leadership styles. Edge. https://amuedge.com/effective-military-leaders-use-3-different-leadership-styles/

Thompson, M. (2022). Embracing diversity, inclusion and authenticity at Army Futures Command. U.S. ARMY. https://www.Army.mil/article/258010/embracing_diversity_inclusion_and_authenticity_at_Army_futures_command

____________________________________

Woody W. Woodward is an active-duty Army Master Sergeant serving as a Student at the United States Sergeants Major Academy. As a Senior Intelligence Analyst, MSG Woodward has deployed four times in support of multiple named operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. MSG Woodward holds a Bachelor of Science in National Security from Excelsior University and an Associate of Applied Science from Cochise College in Intelligence Operations.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.