Page Title

Leadership from the Edge: A Matter of Balance

September 25, 2007

"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. Since the Cold War the changing nature of the environment within which armed forces operate has meant that the mechanistic and overlyhierarchical based armed forces have had to transform parts of their operations into more organic organizational forms.

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.' 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. 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). Leadership from the edge concentrates on the enterprising actions of on-scene personnel in an uncertain, fast-changing, and ambiguous environment. 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).

Traits like self-confidence and decisiveness are often suggested as essential qualities for military leaders (Kala, 2003, pp. 168-177; Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2005, p. 42). A strong need for power is relevant to managerial role requirements, because leaders must exercise power to influence subordinates and others in order to direct activities (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). Therefore, leadership from the edge requires commanders at all levels to have well-balanced levels of self-confidence, decisiveness and power orientation.

Military operations are always a joint effort. Therefore, the armed forces need subordinate commanders who combine the active/independent qualities with a high degree of commitment to the operation and the organization. There is an inherent tension between the qualities of independence and loyalty of employees. It is perhaps because of this tension that Kelley (1989) has observed that many leaders prefer those subordinates that are characterized as active and dependent/uncritical.

The dyadic relationship between leaders and subordinates can be described by many variables. However, an important quality of this relationship with direct impact for leadership from the edge is the extent of mutual trust. When the motto of the Dutch Armed Forces is described in the terms of Lewicki et al. (1998), most leaders seem to act from a low trust/high distrust disposition in which there is little trust and much supervision. Leadership from the edge is primarily based on mutual trust, but also on mutual checks if the situation requires that.

From the perspective of leadership from the edge the leader should accomplish that on-scene commanders are committed to the commander's intention and remain working in his or her line of thinking when he or she is not present. Both the quality of the command intent and its acceptance are better guaranteed when subordinate commanders have had the opportunity to discuss the commander's intent with their commander. In an organization that stresses leadership from the edge, there is always a tension between anarchy and control, or between subordinates taking too much initiative versus coordination of subordinates. It is essential that subordinate commanders fully respect the agreed upon mission objectives.

When organizations have to be able to deal with new problems in fast changing conditions, they have to approach these situations with an open mind and a learning attitude. They have to stimulate that frontline managers develop strategic initiatives (e.g. Quinn, 1985), because these managers have actual knowledge and expertise, and are closer to the sources of information. Vogelaar and Kramer (2004) found that central commanders did not stimulate subordinate commanders to show initiatives in crisis response operations.

Leadership from the edge is assured better by stimulating that central commanders are seen by both themselves as well as their subordinates as a facilitator of the performance of on-scene commanders. In this role the central commander focuses primarily on the empowering roles of helping, encouraging, and supporting on-scene commanders in the development of personal responsibility and individual initiatives. The commanders should refrain from giving too much direction and on-scene commanders should take their responsibility.

Vogelaar, et al. (2001) found for instance that commanders did not give their subordinates all the information because they thought their subordinates did not need that or because they were convinced their subordinates would not understand that or because they would misuse that. Leadership from the edge is very much dependent on the professionalism of the on-scene commanders. Therefore, it is important that these commanders are educated and trained to be professionals and are accordingly perceived as such.

Traditionally, leadership has been conceived as a hierarchical top-down process in which the individual leader influences the subordinates. The emphasis is then on the leader as a cause of what happens in organizations. Recently, leadership has been conceptualized as shared leadership (Pearce & conger, 2003). The focus is on the group and not the individual. Leadership from the edge requires a team approach, which can be seen as a balance between individual and shared leadership. This team approach is also important between central commanders and on-scene commanders (Vogelaar. 2007, p. 27-42)."

Reference:Vogelaar, L.W. (2006). Leadership from the edge: a matter of balance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2006, Vol. 13, No. 3

Back to Top >

Created: 2007-07-11, Updated: 2008-12-28