World of Business | |
World of Business | |
5587 VIEWS | |
![]() |
Wednesday, April 10, 2019 / 06:57PM / By
Rear Admiral Akinsola M Johnson, (Rtd) / Header Image Credit: MA Johnson
Being the
text of a paper delivered at the Nigerian Institute of Management Executive
Training for Membership Admission Programme for National Defence College (NDC),
Abuja, on 8 April 2019
INTRODUCTION
In the past 5o years,
leadership scholars have conducted more than 1000 studies in an attempt to
determine the definitive styles, characteristics, or personality traits of
great leaders in the corporate world.[1]
None of these studies have produced a clear profile of the ideal leader. Thank
goodness. If scholars have produced a “template” leadership style, individuals
would be forever trying to imitate it. They would make themselves into
personae, not people, and others would see through them immediately.
With respect to
leadership, there are too many theories out there. There is no single
prescription for leadership and no prescribed style for success in leading. In
1999 alone, more than 2000 books on leadership were published, some of them
even repackaging the biblical Moses and Shakespeare as leadership gurus. Like
beauty, leadership seems to live in the eye of the beholder and while we may
recognize it in action, it is difficult to supply a universal description. The
concept of leadership appears to be driven by myths; for instance, some say
“leaders are born, not made;” others are of the view that “leaders must be
charismatic and have unblemished private lives;” while a few say “leadership is
management by another word;” there are those who believe that “leadership is
for generals, corporate business leaders and politicians.” Yet, history,
experience and observation contradict such glittering generalizations.
At one time or the
other, you must have heard, read, and perhaps seen a highly intelligent,
highly skilled business chief executive or military top brass who was promoted
into a leadership position only to fail at the job. And you may also know
stories of generals, admirals, air marshals, or captains of industry, with
solid but not extraordinary intellectual abilities and technical skills who
were promoted into similar positions but performed well in office. You may be
wondering how an intelligent and highly skilled person fails when assigned leadership
responsibilities. It is because of the phenomenon known as leadership.
“Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomenon on
earth.[2] Leadership is key to
the success of the military both in peace and war, and to the survival of the
corporate business not only when the business environment is friendly but also
when you have a dysfunctional atmosphere. It is against this background
that the lecture will discuss ways of embracing the difference between the
military and corporate business leadership.
The scope of the lecture
will cover conceptual definitions, and this will be followed by origins of
modern military and civilian interest in leadership. Next, we will discuss the
similarities between the military and the corporate business, before delving
into the differences between the two entities. This will be followed by a
discussion on selected cases before considering ways of embracing the
difference in leadership between the military and the corporate business.
CONCEPTUAL
DEFINITIONS
The key words in the
topic are military, corporate business, and leadership.
MILITARY
The term military is
simply “the armed forces of a country.” But due to the composition of the
audience, the military, on a broader scope will include the police and other
paramilitary organizations in Nigeria involved in carrying out security
responsibilities. These organizations provide security to the country and
funded through tax payers money, but controlled by the federal government.
CORPORATE BUSINESS
Corporate business is “a
form of business operation that declares the business as a separate, legal
entity guided by a group of officers known as the board of directors.”[3] A corporate structure is perhaps the most advantageous way to start a
business because the corporation exists as a separate entity and distinct from
its owners. A corporate business is owned by shareholders who share in profits
and losses generated through the firms operations, and have three distinct
characteristics: Legal existence, limited liability and continuity of
existence.
LEADERSHIP
Leadership is of no less
interest within the military and its relevance is not limited to the corporate
world. So we will see leadership from the military and corporate business
angles. There are many different definitions of leadership as there are persons
who have attempted to define the concept.[4]
From the military perspective, the Defense Leadership Centre’s definition of
leadership is:
“Leadership is visionary; it is
the projection of personality, and character to
inspire people to achieve the
desired outcome. There is no prescription for leadership and no prescribed
style of a leader. Leadership is a combination of example, persuasion and
compulsion dependent on the situation. It should aim to transform and be
underpinned by individual skills and an enabling philosophy. The
successful leader is an individual who understands him/herself, the
organization, the environment in which they operate and the people that they
are privileged to lead.”[5]
The key elements of this
definition are: Vision, projection of personality and character, and inspiring
people.
Let us also consider the
definition of leadership espoused by John P. Kotter, Professor Emeritus,
Harvard Business School, on leadership and change. Kotter defines leadership as
“the development of vision and strategies; the alignment of relevant people
behind those strategies and the empowerment of individuals to make vision
happen, despite obstacles.”[6]
In other words, any leader worth his salt must have a vision, articulate
strategies to achieve the vision, muster brains not brawns to actualize
strategies, and empower followers by creating opportunities for them even in
the face of economic obstacles.
ORIGINS OF MODERN
MILITARY AND CIVILIAN INTEREST IN LEADERSHIP
Until the First World
War, British military leaders were largely drawn from a social class defined by
membership of the aristocracy or landed gentry. According to the military
historian, Gary Sheffield, the relationship of the Edwardian officer and
soldier reflected the sort of ideal country in which leaders had the
responsibilities of ruling, guiding and helping those in their charge.[7] When so many of this officer class were killed in the campaigns
of 1914-15, their places in the British Army were filled by men raised up from
the ranks who had some education or had shown courage and raw leadership in
battle. They were taught the rudiments of ‘officership’, then based on
the prevailing concept of paternalism, and donned the mantle of the
‘officer-as-leader’ and ‘temporary gentleman’.
Respect for them was
bestowed by the fact of their rank, regardless of their origins but had to be
sustained by setting a personal example, putting their men before themselves,
and leading from the front as officers were expected to. Such a lesson,
that leaders could be made, had been learnt in the United States during the
American Civil War (1861-1865), a half century before the British experience,
when the mass armies of that age could only be supplied with sufficient leaders
by trawling every strand of society.
Civilian interest in
leadership derives obliquely from studies of management stimulated by the
expansion of industry and the advent of mass production in the latter part of
the 19th and early 20th Centuries. Never before had civilian
organizations matched the size and complexity of armies and navies.
Leadership as such was not an initial concern until first explored within the
context of understanding motivation and little or no attention was paid to the
experience of military leadership as it was believed the setting was so
different.
Within the armed forces
a greater understanding of the qualities of leadership was provoked by
experience of leadership failure in battle amongst those selected as officers
early in the Second World War. Traditional selection methods based on personal
qualities, social background and education were inadequate and a radical
solution was adopted of inviting the contribution of psychologists, with
evident success. Their influence on selection processes in every industry
continues today. Beyond initial selection and induction training,
however, there has been a lack of curiosity within the armed forces and the
public service as to the research and lessons learned from civilian studies
into the art of leading and the science which supports it, although within
recent years this has begun to change.[8] Over time, the corporate world has produced outstanding business
leaders who have successfully managed firms worth trillion dollars. We will
discuss this later but let us look at similarities between the military and the
corporate world.
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE
MILITARY AND THE CORPORATE WORLD
Today, leaders in the
military and corporate business face tremendous pressure to meet short term
targets and solve functional problems. In the military and corporate business
world, you have to solve problems and overcome challenges. In fact, what is
common to leaders in the military and the corporate world is courage,
competence, and character. Character is the foundation; competence is about
your skills of leadership and execution; courage is the energy that keeps you
doing the right thing, even when there are challenges.
Both military and
corporate leaders have competitors who are trying to beat them. So both require
information, strategies, plans and good execution to win. The difference is the
context and the fact that one is life and death of humans and the other is life
and death of the company. The idea of war is however, much more serious and so
the two must never be confused.
A wartime military needs
competent leadership at all levels of command. No one has yet figured out how
to manage people effectively into battle; they must be led. Of course these are
significant differences, but there are certainly many correlations. Mainly, you
have a mission and people as well as obstacles to overcome. Both the military
and corporate business require leaders to influence their people to achieve
results and meet their goals.
Negotiating is also
similar to the military and corporate business leaders. Negotiations in any
contemporary society affect all aspects of individual and collective life.
Whether in the military or corporate business, negations are in constant
session. In fact, you can negotiate anything- war, businesses, alliances
between nations etcetera. That is why some scholars refer to the world as a
“giant negotiating table.”
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
MILITARY AND THE CORPORATE WORLD
There are very few
differences between the military and the corporate business.
STRUCTURE
The military is a large,
complex and non-profit organization while the corporate business is established
for profit.
BUDGETING
Budgeting is another
area of difference between the military and the corporate business. The
military does not have to worry about where the money is going to come from
after budgeting to make a change. But this is not the case with corporate
business leader. The corporate leader bothers about sourcing for funds to
implement the firm’s budget. Certainly, there could be a budget constraint for
both leaders, but how to get funds is a big difference.
MANAGING CHANGE
Is it easier to manage
change in corporate business than the military? In the corporate world, firms
just simply layoff their staff and pay them appropriate benefits if the
business is not doing well. Managing change in the military can be a profound
matter because of bureaucracy. For instance, when you decide to close a repair
depot or a dockyard, what are you going to do with the staff? There may be
differences in scale and scope but the military and corporate businesses deal
with these issues. A need for change may come. Or it may not come. But you need
to prepare for it. When it comes you must take a decision. You must “estimate
the situation.”
CULTURE
Most of the differences
in styles or methods of leadership can be related to differences in cultures. The
basis of the military culture is the oath taken that puts mission
accomplishment above life itself. The expectation of personal sacrifice is
key. In the corporate world, loyalty is to the owner of the business. In the military, fundamental allegiance is neither to boss
nor to the unit but to the Constitution. The
culture of the military continues to place more emphasis on personal character than on personal expertise.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
There
is a big difference between the military and the private sector in corporate
governance practice. Corporate governance is the “collection of
mechanisms, processes and relations by which corporations are controlled and
operated.”[9] According to Mark
Goyder, “governance and leadership are the yin and yang of successful
organizations. If you have leadership without governance you risk tyranny,
fraud and personal fiefdoms. If you have governance without leadership you risk
atrophy, bureaucracy, and indifference”.[10]
The military has the
presidency, members of the defence committees of the National Assembly (NASS)
and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) interfering in the day to day activities of
the military. In the case of the paramilitary, you have the Ministry of Interior.
For instance, the MOD headed by the Minister, and ably assisted by the
Permanent Secretary and other directors’ form the broad spectrum of those who
form the corporate governance structure of the military. The NASS also performs
oversight functions. Some of these individuals are politicians while others are
bureaucrats. So you can see the predicament of the military in corporate
governance.
In corporate businesses,
the shareholders elect the board of directors who in turn determine the Chief
Executive Officer, approve the overall strategic direction of the corporation
and monitor its operations. Although, corporate businesses are subject to
shareholder constituencies, such influence is far from the direct impact of the
NASS over the military. It may probably be unfair to equate NASS oversight in
managing the military with that of a corporate board as it oversees the
direction of a corporation.
If you have had the rare
privilege of working directly with members of defence committees of the NASS
strictly under the laws which controlled your activities, you may have to do
things which you may not necessarily agree with. On the other hand, if you had
problems you could not cope with, members of the defence committee in the NASS
may be available to make adjustments so that you do not get into trouble.
For the corporate
business, transparency and accountability are very key as shareholders, the
markets, analysts, and many outside people have their eyes on the firm and its
performance on a daily basis. Corporate governance is important to any
business. The same may be applicable these days to the military in Nigeria as
some formations are generating funds through the public for goods and services
provided.
WORKING HABITS
Working habits differ
between the military and the corporate businesses. In the military, there is a
saying that you are to work 24 hours. With this idea, one is gradually damaging
his or health. The corporate business do not do that as a matter of routine. A
military personnel can change appointment after every 2 years, but a civilian
working in a corporate business may not have that opportunity. The civilian
goes on every day for the next 25 years without changing jobs every 3 years.
No matter where you are,
your most important resource is the people who work with you. You must place a
lot of emphasis on the morale, welfare and well-being of not only your staff
but their families. If any of your staff has problem at home, he or she is no
more useful to you anymore. This is a big issue with the military. Why? Deploy
a military personnel for 3 months and he may end up spending one year without
communication with his family for months and he cannot go on leave. It is the
job first. Yes, the job comes first. But that does not mean the military
commander must not respond to the needs of his personnel and the family. To say
that the job comes first and everything else is second is not the best way to
work as a commander who wants the best from your men.
PLANNING
There is a saying that
if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Military leaders and corporate business
executives are doers; they execute. Knowledge is useless to both leaders until
it has been translated into actions. But before springing into action, the
executive needs to plan his course. The action plan is a statement of
intentions rather than a commitment. It must not become a constraint. It should
be revised often, because every success creates new opportunities. So does
every failure. The same is true for changes in the business environment, in the
market, and especially in people within the enterprise- all these changes
demand that the plan be revised. A written plan should anticipate the need for
flexibility. Planning in the corporate business can equally be frustrating.
Looking ahead reliably more than 3 years would be stretching one’s luck. For
instance, if you build manufacturing capacity too soon, you have got idle
capital sitting on the ground. If the plants are built too late and you cannot
supply your customers it affects your company negatively because it takes time
to design and build these plants.
Generals will plan for
battles when they are going to war. Planning in the military is much more
difficult to determine than it might be for corporate business because of
political actors-presidency, NASS and the MOD. How does the military lead
in ways that position it for the future while also meeting current demands? Strategic
Thinking, Strategic Acting, and Strategic Influencing are essential skills to
adapt, innovate and succeed well into the future.
Without an action plan,
the general may become a prisoner of events in the battlefield. But as you
plan, there may likely be constant interference from political leadership in
order to attain the military objective of the war. Let’s take a 10-year
transformation plan of any military organization. You may be surprised that at
the end of the tenth year, you might have barely achieved only 50 percent of
the plan because of cut in defence spending, and change in technology, among
other problems. So changes in defence directions will affect your plans. And
without check-ins to reexamine the plan as events unfold, the military may have
no way of knowing which events really matter and which ones do not. There is no
way you can plan for the future, let alone prepare for it, if you do not know
your business.
SELECTED
CASES
Two cases are selected
for study in this lecture to enable us generate new ideas and perhaps, carry
out an in-depth investigation of an individual, group, time-period or event.
This is an important way of illustrating theories and can help show how
different aspects of a person’s life are related to each other. For this
lecture, the cases selected for study are: History will Credit Shinseki and
Rapid Growth Impacts Negatively on Compaq. Let us start with Case One.
CASE ONE
Case One, titled History
Will Credit Shinseki is about General Eric Shinseki who was the former US
Army Chief of Staff. He had a plan to transform the US Army to a lighter and
more deployable force. “He could not achieve the innovative but controversial
transformation plan to make the US Army more strategically deployable and
mobile in urban terrain. He also implemented the wearing of the black beret for
all US Army personnel. Prior to Shinseki implanting this policy, only the US
Army Rangers could wear the black beret.” So when the black beret was given to
all soldiers and officers, Rangers moved to the tan beret. One may not be far
from the truth by saying that General Eric Shinseki had problems with changing
an organizational culture of the US Army.
The General, according
to reports, had conflicting clashes with the Secretary of Defence, Donald
Rumsfeld, during the planning of the Iraqi War over how many troops the US
would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. He
recommended “something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers.” But
his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, rejected his proposals in strong terms and from that
moment, the influence of Gen Shinseki on the Joint Chiefs of Staff declined.
You may say that Gen Shinseki was unable to convince his political boss about
his plan. So is this a case of incompetence, insubordination, or lack of
communication? Or was General Shinseki mislead by officers on the staff? We
will address these issues during the question-answer session.
CASE TWO
Basically Compaq, as a
computer firm, failed due to lack of understanding of the market. The company
had talented staff coupled with competitive advantage over its competitors.
Before its failure, she made the Fortune 500 companies in the USA. The firm expanded
more than necessary in size. Can this be an example of tactics without
strategy? The firm was unable to align strategies with shifting environment.
The company had excess inventory and there was unexpected price competition
which saw the company’s profit wiped away.
Key Takeaway
The takeaway from these
cases is that both the military and corporate business leaders must constantly
design ways and means of survival (strategy) in the environment they operate,
in addition to having carefully planned actions to enable them attain their
goals (tactics). You may recall Sun Tzu’s philosophy that “strategy without
tactics is the slowest route to victory, while tactics without strategy is the
noise before defeat.” While leaders face tremendous pressure to meet short term
targets and solve functional problems, businesses fail because of so many
reasons. Failure can be rooted in bad management, misguided leadership,
strategic failings, market changes or bad luck….. Or a combination of all these
factors.
EMBRACING THE DIFFERENCE
Although,
there are differences between the military and corporate business leaders. The
military and corporate business of the 21st Century have a lot to
learn from each other. The military may benefit
from a wider understanding of how the corporate business leader thinks and vice
versa. The main differences between corporate business and the military are
centered on organizational culture and how to align people to achieve their
goals. What are the qualities
of people recruited into the military? What are the attributes of those to be
employed into the corporate world? They are not the same because the corporate
business is established to make profit and remain in business irrespective the
business climate. While the military is to defend the nation from land, sea and
air against external and internal threats. What is the culture of both the
military and the corporate world? The quality of people and the culture of both
the military and the corporate business may not be the same. But one desires
that they are the same for national development.
For
both the military and corporate leaders to accomplish their missions, they need
to have the right people in the right places. This is the biggest challenge in a nation like
ours where many people are not pro-industry because the standard of education
has significantly dropped. Yet, you need qualified staff. You need talents in
leadership positions who understand that both the military and the corporate
businesses are contributing to the economy of the country.
So recruiting people with leadership potential is very key, that is,
people who are achievers and it is equally important to manage their career patterns. In the
corporate world, there is no quota system because these are organizations whose
purpose in business is to make profit and to remain in business among other
reasons.
Reward system must be improved. You need to take care of the people and show that you care about them. If you do not take care of your good staff through a reward system, the good staff will leave first. This is very common in the corporate world when the economy is good. In the military, the good officers and men do not leave frequently even when they are not satisfied with the condition of service. When those in the military do not like a leader they endure and still work together in order to achieve organizational goals. That is not to say that military personnel cannot retire voluntarily if they wish. After all, serving in the military service is voluntary.
CONCLUSION
In
conclusion, you need to be who you are, not try to emulate somebody else. You
do not have to be born with specific characteristics or traits of a leader. But
with reasonable level of common sense and professional competence, you can be
made a leader. Though, you can discover your potential right now, it may not be
too late. All of us have the spark of leadership in us, whether it is in the
military, business, or any organization. The challenge is to understand
ourselves well enough to discover where we can use our leadership gifts to
serve others.
Drawing inspiration from
some leadership scholars, great leaders must stand for strong values and build
strong culture around them. They take responsibility for decisions. Leaders
must lead by example and walk the talk. People are watching the leader and a
good leader will be a powerful influencer. People are desperately wanting to
see honorable leaders. Honorable leaders are secure in themselves; and because
they have good values and courage, they can do the right thing even when it’s
hard and when they suffer for it. Trustworthiness, of course, remains the
essential medium in any leadership situation. Great leaders and good cultures
have a remarkable similarity across the broad range of organizations, be it
military or corporate.
Both
the military and corporate business leaders must create appropriate corporate
culture. Organizations create a corporate culture where people value strong
leadership and strive to create it. We need more people to provide leadership
in complex organizations that dominate our world today. We also need more
people to develop cultures that will create leadership. Institutionalizing a
leadership-centered culture is the ultimate act of leadership.
In
both the military and the corporate businesses, leaders must have the courage
to do the right thing. Courage is the strong base for a number of other
leadership attributes like being authentic, having integrity and stronger
character and resilience. Courage is key; for without it, you will fail at the
point of greatest need. Both the military and the corporate leaders must
embrace their differences.
Finally,
permit me draw inspiration from the author of a book Leading with Honor,[11] “anyone can steer the ship through the
calm waters; the real captains take it through the storms.” Facing the stormy oceans of leadership takes
courage, competence and confidence. These three attributes of leadership are
very important, but without courage, either you or the organization you lead
will not achieve its goals.
Thank
you for your rapt attention.
MA
Johnson Rear Admiral (Rtd)
Abuja,
April
2019
About The Author
Michael Akinsola Johnson, Rear Admiral (Rtd), MIoD MNIM CEng FIMarEST MBA ; Johnson had a distinguished career as a naval engineer, a weapons electrical specialist, until 3rd October 2014 when he took to writing and consultancy services. He can be contacted via mjaymarine@gmail.com . Kindly follow him on twitter via @akinsolajohnson
Footnotes
·
[1] Bill George et al, Discovering Your Authentic Leader, A Harvard Business
Review Book, 1999, p163.
·
2James MacGregor Burns,
Political Historian Leadership, (Harper & Rows: New York, 1978), p2.
·
3See www.entrepreneur.com accessed on 12
March 2019.
·
4
Bernard M Bass, Professor of Organizational Behaviour, State University of New
York, Bass and Stogdill’s Book of Leadership, 3rd Ed, (Free Press: New York,
1990), p11.
·
5 Defence
Leadership Centre. This definition is not the last word on the meaning of
leadership which remains a work in progress. However, it does provide a
foundation on which to build understanding.
·
6 John
K Potter, on What Leaders Really Do, A Harvard Business Review Book,
1999.
·
7 G D
Sheffield, Leadership In The Trenches, (Macmillan Press: London, 2000),
pp 4 and 5.
·
8 As part of a
series of studies designed to develop a strategy for leadership training,
Brigadier Ian Rodley’s unpublished thesis, Leadership Development in the
British Army, 1996, carried an extensive review of various theoretical models
and examples of contemporary methods of leadership development taken from the
civilian sector. An investigation into the requirement for improving
leadership within Defence by the Modernising Defence People Group, “Sustaining
the Leading Edge: A Report on Leadership Training and Development,” April 2000,
also leant on ideas from civilian writers and theoreticians.
·
9 www.wikipedia.com accessed on 14 March 2019.
· 10 Mark Goyder, Living Tomorrow’s Company-Rediscovering the Human Purposes
of Business, Gower Publishing, England, 1995
·
11 Lee Ellis, Leading with Honor: Leadership Lessons From the Hanoi Hilton,
Freedom Star Media, 2012.
Related News
1. Leadership,
Change and Corporate Transformation – The Nigerian Experience –
Apr 03, 2018
2. Stakeholders X-Ray Nigerian 2018 Corporate Governance
Code at IOD and FRCN Forum – Apr 08, 2019
3. New Harmonised
Code of Corporate Governance – Legal Alert – Mar 25, 2019
4. NSE Issues
Circular On The Adoption and Compliance With Nigerian Code of Corporate
Governance, 2018 – Feb 15, 2019
5.
The FRCN
Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance 2018 – Jan 18, 2019
6.
Facial
Recognition in the Military – Current Applications – Mar 22,
2019
7.
Artificial
Intelligence in the Military – An Overview of Capabilities –
Feb 22, 2019
8.
Fashola Calls
for Removal of Military from State – Full Speech – Jan 16, 2012
9.
Corporate
Governance Is A Myth
10. Why Trust
Matters in Business And Governance - The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer
11.
Chain Reactions
To Unveil The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer Report In Nigeria