Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore the military team members’ (mid-senior multinational officers’) perceptions of shared leadership and analyze the facilitation of shared leadership in military teams.Design/methodology/approachThe sample size was 20 interviewees that participants must hold leadership positions at the mid-senior management level and from NATO member countries. To analyze the data, the authors used Gioia’s thematic analysis methodology (Gioiaet al., 2013) and manual coding rather than computer usage for the analysis, due to the small data pool and their proficiency in literature.FindingsComplexity and the new information era force military organizations toward the change and that with shared leadership they can even change the organization’s culture. The final framework highlights five main dimensions that emerged from mid-multinational military officers’ experience: driving forces of change, triggers to shared leadership, specific cases shared leadership, operational team environment and operational team characteristics. Results of the study supported that driving forces of change comprised the primary factor affecting shared leadership in military project teams.Practical implicationsThe Headquarter environment (strategic and operational planning) and planning were critical factors for the successful implementation and development of shared leadership in military project teams. Thus, military organizations could easily implement the shared leadership approach in the military research teams and planning teams.Originality/valueThe authors present a framework of leadership change context for military teams, which depicts how shared leadership could be implemented differently in military teams.
Highlights
The military environment is more complex than ever; each year the military field grows with the range of weapons, and the amount of equipment used is increasing
Three dimensions belong to perceptions related to the military Project teams (Driving forces of Change, Triggers to Shared Leadership (SL), Specific Cases SL for Military Teams) and
There was a consensus that, due to the operational environment and characteristics of the operational team, vertical leadership must remain for operational teams
Summary
The military environment is more complex than ever; each year the military field grows with the range of weapons, and the amount of equipment used is increasing. The military environment has changed dramatically as technological capabilities have grown in all spheres. TPM and people to adapt in the face of increasingly dynamic and demanding environments (UhlBien and Arena, 2018; Sweeney et al, 2019). Emerging challenges, such as the rise of a new generation of communications technology, unmanned ground vehicles and Artificial intelligence (AI), have caused the military environment to become more complex and prolonged, involving more states, non-states, private and hybrid actors. While the environment and equipment are changing, what about the leadership? Is traditional leadership in this context meeting new requirements and adapting to change? While the environment and equipment are changing, what about the leadership? Is traditional leadership in this context meeting new requirements and adapting to change?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
