Antecedents and Consequences of Leadership Styles

• Date: 01 January 2018
• Published date: 01 January 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X16682787
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Antecedents and

Consequences of

Leadership Styles:

Findings From Empirical

Research in Multinational

Headquarters

Gregor Richter

1

Abstract

There are numerous studies on the success of various leadership styles that refer to

the link between styles and levels of performance and other relevant organizational

parameters. Data from a recent survey in a multinational headquarters (HQs)

replicate previous findings on leadership style concerning the preferences of the

subordinates for more participation in decision-making. Although multinational HQs

are in many ways unique organizations that could present unique leadership

challenges, too, the findings using traditional models of leadership show how

similarly, compared to civilian companies and public administrations, leadership

styles are perceived and evaluated by subordinates. Apart from that, the survey data

indicate that leadership style—quite different from what was expected—has no

significant effect on ‘‘organizational commitment’’ and ‘‘mission clarity.’’ The reasons

for that result are discussed against the backdrop of the peculiarities of the

organization under investigation.

1

Bundeswehr Center of Military History and Social Sciences, Potsdam, Germany

Corresponding Author:

Gregor Richter, Bundeswehr Center of Military History and Social Sciences, Zeppelinstr. 127/128,

Potsdam 14471, Germany.

Email: gregorrichter@bundeswehr.org

Armed Forces & Society

2018, Vol. 44(1) 72-91

ªThe Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X16682787

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

Keywords

military organization, professionalism/leadership, military effectiveness, military

culture, Europe

The major share of leadership research is devoted to particularly exam ining the

degree to which the led are involved in decision-making processes (Bass, 1990;

Neuberger, 1994). It does not matter at first what the decisions are about—for

instance, business routines, staffing, the future strategic approach to the market,

or decisions typical in military settings. The answer to the question what style of

leadership is the ‘‘right’’ one is of particular relevance to the military in comparison

with other organizations and can even be of vital importance because the lives of the

led depend on the decisions a military leader takes in an emergency. It is not least for

this reason that leadership is an essential element of the military.

The top training establishment of the German Armed Forces (GAF), for instance,

is called the Fu

¨hrungsakademie (Leadership and Staff College) and the organiza-

tional culture of the GAF is basically a leadership culture—Innere Fu

¨hrung. Par-

ticipation in the decision-making process is a central element of the GAF’s

leadership philosophy, Innere Fu

¨hrung (leadership development and civic educa-

tion), too. The Joint Service Regulation (Zentrale Dienstvorschrift [ZDV]) on Innere

Fu

¨hrung unequivocally requires this of the military leader: ‘‘I lead fairly. I make use

of the abilities and skills of my soldiers and involve them in my decision-making

whenever possible’’ (ZDV A-2600/1, p. 27). The extent to which subordinates

should be involved in the decision-making process is at least stated clearly in the

rules and regulations: Military leaders of the GAF should go by the participative

leadership style. It is therefore well worth taking a critical look at the alleged

features of leadership styles in the military.

Leadership and leadership styles have been prominent research topics in military

sociology and military psychology till today. Recent studies examined the contri-

bution of personal values in predicting the motivation to lead (Clemmons III &

Fields, 2011), explored the relationship between coping and transactional and trans-

formational leadership styles (Alarcon, Lyons, Schlessman, & Barelka, 2012), and

identified how cultural politics influence efforts to portray ‘‘leadership’’ in a military

setting (Hutchinson, 2013). This article presents and discusses the results of empiri-

cal leadership research done in a specific type of organization, the multinational

military headquarters (HQs). It begins with a short overview o f the research on

(nonmilitary) leadership style and an account of the state of research in multinational

military organizations. Previous studies in this field of military sociology provide

working hypotheses on the preference of leadership styles among the led and on the

factors that determine this p reference structure (antecedents). Subsequen tly, the

consequences of leadership styles on two selected organizational parameters, that

is, affective commitment (AC) and mission clarity (MC), are examined. An

Richter 73