设为首页 登录 注册
首页 中人社区 中人博客
查看: 1274|回复: 0
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[转载] 解构军队领导(军事评论杂志2004年度最佳)

[复制链接]

5

主题

4

听众

29

积分

书童

Rank: 1

该用户从未签到

注册时间
2004-10-31
最后登录
2006-9-19
积分
29
精华
0
主题
5
帖子
20
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2005-9-5 16:50:00 |只看该作者 |正序浏览
Deconstructing Army Leadership. L4 m- T! A7 }$ f" h8 {4 ] 2 t. f6 s8 m3 x) v8 C Colonel Christopher R. Paparone, U.S. Army! B" M2 b, y$ C8 U% Z# Y Instructor, U.S. Army War College6 h2 d# v% A0 U; C0 S , p5 |- N" H! B& E8 x. W4 F entists tend to forget that they are and that they are9 }2 H9 J9 D0 h5 w! ], ~ value-laden and not objective.)2 * A6 ~$ n4 S: y4 W; mThe key to this critical discourse is to identify underlying ' ^ \$ o+ A: g* Aassumptions that might be taken as fact and& V$ d# C& m) f) q then argue for alternative assumptions.3 The. d2 |9 x u4 I# k5 C" J deconstructive process “look[s] for those spaces k2 H2 [) O5 E' {. E5 G where the text is more likely to be submerging ‘its : r: N, c; p% c. _+ v6 Q. Wother.’ It is there that the text is attempting to construct. o8 _9 r3 ^3 Y6 A its own ‘truth’—where it can be shown to$ U% W$ t n" T, J/ W omit, ignore, or devalue its opposite—and where it( N9 ]5 z: c1 {2 E& q is likely to contradict its own claims.”4 9 O" e1 ?7 ]4 X% PTwo types of outcomes are possible after* s) f0 {; i3 E deconstruction. One is that the Army’s current leadership% ]' u2 }' ?. q5 C, S( G paradigm will be strengthened because the 8 h/ w4 P$ U5 E" D" I7 _, l" Oparadigm held up well to attack. If so, deconstruction % x$ w) [& Y+ X- x7 |will be a reinforcing process, and only incremental- K& p7 M1 O1 X) W* T changes to the Army’s theory will be necessary. * d" P* F) V9 e7 y. u, _* JWe can make quality improvements to understanding & m. e. ]8 M- A' m# dthe problems at hand within the limits of an 3 r7 {$ z( [. X, l+ \8 {" Y& Vincrementally improved theory of effective leadership. ( |" T! I5 j# t) S8 e- b: x! m( lThe second outcome is realizing that the Army’s! r% n# g9 G$ N7 }- f3 d assumptions about leadership are myths (or are at1 ?3 R& I8 V0 t/ D3 B& f7 P: P least socially interpretable and based on conflicting % h3 {3 H, Q5 W4 I' Kvalues), and that transcendence to a higher plane. S7 G. o/ p/ O% J- r of thinking is required to make new sense of the ! e1 N0 _8 g8 [) C2 jworld.3 l6 y; _/ @: W; ~/ {' C f5 z. g0 N Part of the greater societal paradigm is that we- R) _; i3 l+ m" O routinely process information to remove paradox; / [# v- b' Y0 x7 U Jthat is, we eliminate “contradictory yet interrelated; l: U5 }2 t- j+ I elements . . . that seem logical in isolation but absurd9 A' X! Y5 ?9 ?( j8 l: Y" e; s and irrational when appearing simultaneously.”5* n" n% M5 o. g) `4 L9 p [ But, when we conceptualize what the paradox is, o2 {- J% Y9 {4 f, Y: dthe act of conceptualization can serve as a transcendental - l, w8 x0 Q4 u& `9 G9 qmechanism—through a healthy dose of organizational8 J* s; d9 p" r: a0 H dissonance. Transformational change & |0 B2 G7 x; \5 ncan result from dissonance and incommensurability.$ G1 Y& r5 c* c y( b6 z; O: u& k We can reach new ways of framing the problems# A- K" z; \8 V! x; R8 u of paradox through synthesis and dialectical reasoning# v; M0 P. m: }8 y% C: A or by accepting paradox as a normal state of5 m$ t# H( X( N- t organization. ; j) N5 p3 ?6 FMirror Images and Circular Logic 3 d% k u- A, ?4 [+ X2 }. l) xThe Army’s leadership construct, rooted in the assumption. A [3 I; q7 q, \: P4 G3 u w2 s of hierarchy, is an example of the stratified ( |% ^' M: H% }% o+ V' o* {systems theory (SST) proposed by psychologist. s( s/ P1 p+ q% r) o Elliott Jaques.6 The essence of the SST is that) _2 z- P6 i5 q8 k hierarchy is the best way to organize for accountability 9 u) l0 N+ X5 V5 L8 K& _# M" Z# uand control. Discovering what makes leaders: l9 {- o' k! j7 H* ]3 U0 _ at the top of the hierarchy successful allows- n. F6 x, F7 {- e3 H# C4 g one to train and educate successors in those same ^$ i* g. B: U/ A# l# l: ^qualities.7 The theory espouses that strategic leaders# `- n6 |* m& O$ l: \7 [$ Q at the hierarchy’s higher echelons have frames 8 G; a. ~/ o9 p sof reference that are more— 9 ?- ^' ^" a3 Nl Interconnected, sophisticated, and actionoriented.5 Y( a5 A% v' b/ f( g l Likely to anticipate second- and third-order! ~; G; m# w1 H2 v# \ effects because their frames of reference contain c2 d, m: k: U+ Y complex adaptive systems (networks).' r& d- M/ G0 M l Oriented on the organization’s external environment. 5 {- N1 s! K9 n+ @* Z5 O8 6 M T' i ]3 ~% PThe academe has commented unfavorably on hierarchical: p( ?, E( n6 a/ l+ i theories of leadership because empirical7 y; l3 H# K7 w" B3 n evidence has led scholars and practitioners away3 p2 y: T7 c* i from assumptions about performance based on age ) a' W2 A4 n+ Z, `$ kand experience and the need for hierarchical accountability.3 J9 T1 N8 H% T4 Z 9 Indeed, the information available to; J3 u$ o- h: x7 `7 k' K0 P people who occupy high positions gives them significant9 _$ I9 Y: T/ o' S ~ advantages over those who do not have access " G. E9 R: {9 Pto that information, which produces information , n& L5 u' c/ {1 |asymmetry. Thus, studies confirm that strategic! j+ Q5 V) o* N, V2 O$ v- M+ e leaders make better decisions, but such studies rely5 {& J9 }- j3 P% W on circular logic; for example, the reason strategic 9 G3 r, [$ {. ?leaders make better decisions is because they are ( B( e# Q1 u/ q1 g0 [3 Nbetter informed, and they are better informed because* {: U% ?, F& y; w- ~- P they are strategic leaders.9 P y, V. [8 Q. h# } Because the Army is hierarchical, it is suitable to . M! N ^+ \% }- j8 ?: Ttheorize about leadership along these lines of thought. 7 _' U9 k) w8 ~! V2 V; FThis is the reality that SST deals with as a normative4 i5 P7 E: E1 r' W8 q and descriptive theory of “what is,” but postindustrial! y. U% b1 {9 Q organizations do not have much in common + k2 W/ Z/ z8 c9 q* vwith bureaucracies, with their layers of management5 K) d7 ~# m- V* M and stovepiped functional arrangements.. w! h1 L# S4 C' M( @- t D In the 21st century, it is no longer acceptable to5 h. Q- M( l- Y assume that a leader’s influence on effectiveness , \% G$ \# h8 E6 Q# g) gis attributable to his position or rank. An understanding & ~3 k V2 C0 p% y. Q1 Qof leadership requires a much broader, more complex ) M, h4 Q& C: j. H( z4 z0 u1 Mview of organizational effectiveness. Perhaps) E% m& O! n% b; M the Army’s hierarchical view of leadership blinds us" i8 O1 u; f4 l9 w$ S to other interpretations. Gary Yukl, a leadership theorist,) n/ G3 k2 a* E' N) Z: s& y# n makes the point that “viewing leadership in terms " E8 v5 r. K0 K- nof reciprocal, recursive influence processes among 9 {" ~* j" w# i7 z8 [multiple parties in a systems context is very different" `* N: D) J% f# e) b from studying the unidirectional effects of a4 }- f: J/ y6 @- ^ single leader on subordinates, and new research/ r1 R* z" }; s) d+ } p5 c4 L methods may be needed to describe and analyze the$ G; n) A+ f& n7 U6 k3 S complex nature of leadership processes in a social0 C7 X5 I% G* b7 t( ^. u" }& w b7 B& r system.”10 + _% @1 v0 s* S1 {% }$ C kStudies confirm that strategic leaders & g1 v# z4 x- `6 R' b9 U0 D- e% e6 Fmake better decisions, but such studies rely on+ H/ \- h2 q! ~8 A8 s& {+ J# H circular logic; for example, the reason strategic % s, `' L5 v8 E4 j2 Lleaders make better decisions is because they are ; D* Y* X6 E! s* w; D( `better informed, and they are better informed9 t. S- _. R$ \" }9 q/ } because they are strategic leaders.+ j1 K# K3 p5 n/ V# K4 O DECONSTRUCTING 0 a1 o/ I t: R0 VARMY LEADERSHIP ) D' L B$ L. b8 w8 b- k) l4 January -February 2004 l MILITARY REVIEW ( z3 U/ o: B. {9 K5 Z" YHaving invested heavily in its hierarchical interpretation " T! b- m4 x( P5 T! c$ nof leadership, in the late 1980s the Army ; m' d$ u+ k* k- t4 G" f4 R' ]! Dsponsored studies of the characteristics and traits of7 |+ H6 m* ] \/ S+ ~/ b' y! m" Z; H three- and four-star generals. The studies defined! d4 H, h! M% n* a) x effectiveness in terms of the characteristics of “successful” , G+ R$ \, F3 q9 vleaders who had been promoted. In the % L" Z5 O3 u. ]" {8 O- `same tradition of research, the USAWC surveyed5 E2 n) A: A! Q2 a9 l) u) ~ g general officers periodically to determine if officers* P6 @+ F% v# R T0 k( u& _9 @ who were its graduates were effective as a result + R" p3 e- w8 f& d7 [of the college’s efforts to mold them into strategic4 H l/ w2 z0 l. m+ @. |0 e. P F leaders.11 Because of this closed-loop thinking, the4 Y) r; ^7 }. Q$ Y% ^/ D2 s8 P* M Army generated a theory of leadership with an obvious 3 z" C) [" F8 S1 U5 Lmirror-image problem. A leader is said to be 7 x7 l- a4 L/ |% p) eeffective to the extent that he displays the characteristics/ z% W2 ~& _) }- f7 U' O& M of those who are in positions of power (and, 2 [0 h3 Z/ z. Ltherefore, presumed to be effective); this is clearly 6 z9 Q. D4 a# l( Da case of circular logic.$ s9 z9 |: y, p. p7 r, v Army Field Manual (FM) 22-100,
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册