All have been formed in a world that is rapidly changing and has no common or shared worldview. They are educated in a society that prizes individualism. The dynamics of this hierarchical structure demanded that responsibility, accountability and authority rested at the top of the structure and this dynamic was reinforced both by law, class and tradition.Ĭanada’s present soldiers definitely do not fit the mold of the scum of the earth! Soldiers and officers 4 no longer come from the dregs of society. Fundamental to this model of leadership was the belief that a thinking soldier was a liability on the battlefield.

To be a good soldier one did what one was told and nothing more. Personal initiative was actively discouraged and individual authority, except for those in key command positions, was vigorously dissuaded.

Within such a structure, personal responsibility and personal accountability were rigidly defined within the boundaries of military rules and discipline. Such individuals needed a coercive hierarchical leadership structure if they were to be formed into an effective fighting force. declared that the British Army was composed of “the scum of the earth-the mere scum of the earth.” Officers were distinguished from the men they led by the accident of birth.and in most cases were no better qualified than the horses they rode into battle. David Bercuson captures this viewpoint when he writes:Īs late as 1831.the Duke of Wellington. 2 In addition to this obsolete worldview, soldiers, for almost all of recorded history, were considered the very dregs of society. This hierarchical paradigm, thousands of years old, is a culturally formed model which, while still partially functional today, bases itself on a worldview which is inadequate to our complex and chaotic times. The present military command structure is based upon a traditional, top-down hierarchical paradigm. This is done with the hope of spurring the necessary dialogue and subsequent actions needed to create a stronger and more flexible army to carry out its present responsibilities and to face the changing challenges of the new millennium. The aim of this paper is to outline this flaw and to suggest a different leadership paradigm to challenge these assumptions, philosophy, and the thinking and actions of the present leadership model. This paper will argue the hierarchical leadership model is inadequate to meet the demands placed on it, and the leadership crisis stems directly from the assumptions, the fundamental philosophical outlook, and both the day-to-day actions and long term thinking of this model of leadership. The main thesis of this paper is that this central contradiction underlying the leadership problem has neither been dealt with nor identified. This paper will argue there is an inherent contradiction within the Army’s command structure which mitigates against its goal of training soldiers for this unsettled time. Some will find it uncomfortable to lay bare the soul of our institution but address it we must. This gets to the heart of the military culture. The Soldier As Servant: A Leadership Paradigm Shift for the 21st CenturyĪs the world changes, so must our leadership skills. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies

Paradigm shift in management philosophy