设为首页 登录 注册
首页 中人社区 中人博客
查看: 1295|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 |倒序浏览
Deconstructing Army Leadership( p1 I/ W1 U. Q$ y7 ?7 k 3 `- J0 R! r1 r: Q' fColonel Christopher R. Paparone, U.S. Army- j# _, k0 ~1 p( t- q Instructor, U.S. Army War College n: h: h$ Z0 y9 d. U. b( y k+ o) p& `% l r entists tend to forget that they are and that they are + G; H9 Q/ L8 d; A! v$ K/ O5 l3 S Bvalue-laden and not objective.)2 & w7 o' ?* u5 SThe key to this critical discourse is to identify underlying % ~+ s* W6 s9 X) M6 v. n3 Cassumptions that might be taken as fact and( h2 k$ ?! y+ A( L6 f: J then argue for alternative assumptions.3 The 7 s& D( ?' d0 _8 E# v8 ~deconstructive process “look[s] for those spaces0 l) b& c! A2 L" {( e0 m* ` where the text is more likely to be submerging ‘its ) o) ~2 P8 c& a" \other.’ It is there that the text is attempting to construct 0 R& ~0 n& M! ^, R2 \) a% g( Cits own ‘truth’—where it can be shown to % [, L+ R8 C: z6 Zomit, ignore, or devalue its opposite—and where it ( L1 F8 ~) X8 Jis likely to contradict its own claims.”4 " y+ ]7 u2 L# u( TTwo types of outcomes are possible after5 C4 M& J3 _5 L- V% ^ j deconstruction. One is that the Army’s current leadership ' v; [0 o/ `9 {1 I. pparadigm will be strengthened because the ) u. O9 Y7 A" [9 Z& V: Aparadigm held up well to attack. If so, deconstruction: _( [. N1 z& ?7 W- y# z will be a reinforcing process, and only incremental - q3 l8 v0 X- ]* Gchanges to the Army’s theory will be necessary. 7 r' |, h! l- `3 jWe can make quality improvements to understanding. U) v3 h( H- A the problems at hand within the limits of an 6 }- [" J' F- M2 N+ _- y( c5 a: v0 h9 Jincrementally improved theory of effective leadership. + j, }( Z( l8 T1 R) J; ]' uThe second outcome is realizing that the Army’s 4 z" ~/ \* |$ _! iassumptions about leadership are myths (or are at 0 X7 S& V7 o, Q7 P+ Sleast socially interpretable and based on conflicting9 ^, x2 `& A0 L4 B" B values), and that transcendence to a higher plane& ?6 D' t" Y( J; F of thinking is required to make new sense of the % p! ?( Y& \. t) Fworld.5 T6 Q$ _' j4 E9 O Part of the greater societal paradigm is that we' v/ ]$ n% O) r2 [; m" J* `- P& ^3 l routinely process information to remove paradox;& N/ O3 a- S$ m u5 F0 s that is, we eliminate “contradictory yet interrelated2 o. J' i# x" I) V( U9 r3 Y elements . . . that seem logical in isolation but absurd& A* @4 s9 q( ^0 D/ X" l4 Y and irrational when appearing simultaneously.”5# |4 f; b; `2 e s0 h/ d' b/ K0 J But, when we conceptualize what the paradox is, . a. Q/ n$ ]" J8 q7 o3 `, `$ kthe act of conceptualization can serve as a transcendental ' j. o3 w7 G- O5 f) m% `% F: I# g. Zmechanism—through a healthy dose of organizational/ X8 v( W: W2 ~9 a dissonance. Transformational change % E2 l% }# g1 ^! h! acan result from dissonance and incommensurability. 3 o3 y# q# u* w+ e. g2 h+ SWe can reach new ways of framing the problems : c' T5 y- {7 E- _of paradox through synthesis and dialectical reasoning8 o- z% u v8 v+ k8 p or by accepting paradox as a normal state of . c4 p9 j9 b# x- e/ R8 ^1 Corganization.- f9 I1 J5 @ @$ O2 J& B Mirror Images and Circular Logic! Z* l# R [; U( A. r( m The Army’s leadership construct, rooted in the assumption' U+ o {" D# p- E# \/ o( @* q of hierarchy, is an example of the stratified% h; _. b/ G3 c$ t' m systems theory (SST) proposed by psychologist ! d% ^/ n9 F9 @6 DElliott Jaques.6 The essence of the SST is that 6 }4 s/ v8 V6 O" A5 E7 v9 G) |1 phierarchy is the best way to organize for accountability 8 M) P7 s( H/ T! ~$ Cand control. Discovering what makes leaders 9 H N0 p9 t" {9 w. g5 sat the top of the hierarchy successful allows6 j9 h- X( J0 G6 ]3 L! ]2 \ one to train and educate successors in those same 1 N7 g0 b. {' j- w; A0 wqualities.7 The theory espouses that strategic leaders w- Z# c% s; Z6 l& w, R# b5 Kat the hierarchy’s higher echelons have frames 6 Q4 D9 n' ]. w! W1 _" ^, o8 Nof reference that are more— ) V; {. d* A5 u9 Pl Interconnected, sophisticated, and actionoriented.2 s2 F6 \1 G; ^6 r l Likely to anticipate second- and third-order2 d1 L3 `7 Y% U6 Q effects because their frames of reference contain- `( M* Y: q% c! M% I+ w1 ] J complex adaptive systems (networks).4 L& D- q5 u" I: `( i' ~: w l Oriented on the organization’s external environment. 9 @( l5 O: `# e; @. F8 Y8 " q' a5 I! E& I P+ g/ JThe academe has commented unfavorably on hierarchical # Z2 F. Y$ k- W4 g' X" @: ztheories of leadership because empirical $ M8 @" B: Z8 kevidence has led scholars and practitioners away# L$ o0 `5 E* B* J from assumptions about performance based on age7 b! ^% C. d) k9 h/ K0 f0 V8 x* \ and experience and the need for hierarchical accountability. $ x$ n; P( r+ i. ?; @/ r- {9 Indeed, the information available to# _! {- n" y w! H& H; f/ \ people who occupy high positions gives them significant 9 ^$ c' L/ `) tadvantages over those who do not have access & J) Y9 ^- a4 n7 r- p. ^to that information, which produces information! S8 W) \) F5 Z asymmetry. Thus, studies confirm that strategic - g. a( r$ _3 D# wleaders make better decisions, but such studies rely9 m0 f+ f9 E7 X3 r' s on circular logic; for example, the reason strategic: ^2 c7 H: o5 H, f0 {6 t leaders make better decisions is because they are 2 t' m0 w1 Y# z) M# qbetter informed, and they are better informed because2 K( o# v6 s8 a they are strategic leaders.) n$ j0 d o2 I" s( i) _ Because the Army is hierarchical, it is suitable to ! z, ]+ P, {+ Otheorize about leadership along these lines of thought." W) x, {$ D( \+ f: S, B& ~ This is the reality that SST deals with as a normative ' j, M0 s& F) f+ ^& r7 e7 uand descriptive theory of “what is,” but postindustrial. J$ S" @9 T U1 t organizations do not have much in common ; u+ \/ x5 D( j0 Ywith bureaucracies, with their layers of management : c4 @8 m) t2 {0 ?; N! y6 T5 sand stovepiped functional arrangements.2 v/ y! h' k- I8 r" M3 B* p In the 21st century, it is no longer acceptable to4 e9 s% p9 s4 j assume that a leader’s influence on effectiveness) {. |* |* {1 ]2 T is attributable to his position or rank. An understanding* V3 [4 W# T9 I: u% W, ^ of leadership requires a much broader, more complex- X" d2 C7 }* Z0 c3 x$ o view of organizational effectiveness. Perhaps+ j, |% j7 z3 b$ k4 \8 |3 i0 ] the Army’s hierarchical view of leadership blinds us " X% s% X+ f# _, h# s$ zto other interpretations. Gary Yukl, a leadership theorist," b$ g/ t, u$ V0 |5 u& N makes the point that “viewing leadership in terms, M1 z" O. W; g F, _' X* Q of reciprocal, recursive influence processes among1 m5 K: O6 S/ N; Z. w3 | multiple parties in a systems context is very different& L: w7 p4 H" l1 y+ W( A2 ]( I from studying the unidirectional effects of a 5 W3 s5 a ]: j( P; |single leader on subordinates, and new research5 T. e. z# U5 R1 o f methods may be needed to describe and analyze the: F5 P+ q4 f2 @5 \6 I complex nature of leadership processes in a social! J+ T) z3 i$ x1 s s9 Q% Y# U+ x system.”10 7 A- C D* B$ ?! L6 f7 l( S$ [Studies confirm that strategic leaders / ]8 i* T& U' T5 i4 ^: nmake better decisions, but such studies rely on; P# u" l r; O3 E6 S6 L8 S6 z circular logic; for example, the reason strategic/ k9 a, u! g9 ?( z' _+ P4 ~4 J leaders make better decisions is because they are& M. _# {9 N7 V. {, K6 X5 ~ better informed, and they are better informed ( `% U- Q' w$ v$ c$ x% d$ d8 sbecause they are strategic leaders. 7 O$ A! L6 P+ O8 W8 _DECONSTRUCTING 8 W; C# u8 N( ]" BARMY LEADERSHIP J; M& [/ U8 o/ o# M2 J3 E4 January -February 2004 l MILITARY REVIEW: `# g% X& K$ V Having invested heavily in its hierarchical interpretation- Z5 Y2 W L6 t1 a of leadership, in the late 1980s the Army0 U. V6 q2 ]" |8 o4 D sponsored studies of the characteristics and traits of : w) Q# Z0 W% v4 B* g2 @" z& nthree- and four-star generals. The studies defined . L" V7 K8 ?$ ieffectiveness in terms of the characteristics of “successful” 8 H% J" J$ b. Y* c6 c; Tleaders who had been promoted. In the4 z2 {- n/ m' c same tradition of research, the USAWC surveyed( e/ F8 D3 K$ k, R6 ~ general officers periodically to determine if officers6 Q/ v# n& s1 d$ @8 J" K( Y who were its graduates were effective as a result & Y& H- `( J# g/ g) a3 h, V8 {of the college’s efforts to mold them into strategic3 `6 H. t, u2 _ leaders.11 Because of this closed-loop thinking, the l: |( o6 U$ P% \$ h: dArmy generated a theory of leadership with an obvious8 b" p& H$ r9 G: x& J mirror-image problem. A leader is said to be/ p% Z. V* n* B- d, C0 F effective to the extent that he displays the characteristics; R7 d0 \4 O& {+ I; f: Q" L of those who are in positions of power (and, . f; \8 Z2 T& A, H% H$ C r% N6 ?therefore, presumed to be effective); this is clearly , m6 i6 w# Z* c' _1 L- G( ea case of circular logic. ! `; y8 F) C4 j4 aArmy Field Manual (FM) 22-100,
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册