PARADOX AND CHALLENGES IN

MILITARY LEADERSHIP

Ronit Kark, Tair Karazi-Presler and Sarit Tubi

ABSTRACT

This chapter focused on challenges and tensions that characterize leader-

ship in the military context. It aims to identify and analyze key para-
doxes that are reflected in this unique setting, while exploring the
challenges, opportunities, and advantages posed by these core paradoxes
for leadership. It addresses different types of paradoxes, among them:
(a) shared leadership versus hierarchical leadership, (b) flexibility and
creativity versus conformity and discipline, (c) complexity and chaos ver-
sus simplicity and linearity, (d) hegemonic and prototypical leadership
versus leadership of multiple identities, and last (e) distant leadership
and exchange relationship versus intimate leadership and communal rela-
tionship. For each focal paradox, we uncover the dynamics, processes,
management tensions, and possible subsequent outcomes. We suggest that
leadership that is able to effectively attend to competing expectations and
paradoxical tensions is essential in the current hybrid and complex orga-
nizational structure and unique context of the military. The chapter draws
on interviews and prior research of leadership in the Israeli military,

Leadership Lessons from Compelling Contexts

Monographs in Leadership and Management, Volume 8, 159 187
Copyright r 2016 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1479-3571/doi:10.1108/S1479-357120160000008031
159
160 RONIT KARK ET AL.

as well as other global military contexts, to gain a more nuanced under-

standing of the challenges of modern military leadership.
Keywords: Military leadership; paradoxes; complexity; management
tensions; Israel defense forces

INTRODUCTION
Modern times hold much challenge to leadership in the military context.
To adapt to environmental dynamics, commanders need to foster compet-
ing demands. They seek to encourage autonomy and control, support indi-
viduality and teamwork, ensure flexibility and efficiency, balance creativity
and discipline, energize novelty and utility, and enable soldiers to reach
their limit and at the same time show social responsibility and attend to
their well-being.
The paradox literature has long recognized the existence of competing
demands, including tensions between novelty and usefulness, idea genera-
tion and implementation, cooperation versus competition, and exploration
and exploitation. Studies of tensions, dualities, and paradoxes have grown
steadily. More than three decades ago, Quinn and Cameron (1988) were
among the first to call for researchers to move beyond simplified either/or
notions and better explore the competing demands of leadership and
change. Since then, there has been extensive work on paradoxical and
hybrid frames showing that the ability to embrace multiple orientations at
the same time is a core feature of effective innovation (Garud, Gehman, &
Kumaraswamy, 2011), and that a dynamic equilibrium model can explain
the ways in which seemingly contradictory elements can coexist within
organizations over time (Smith & Lewis, 2011). These works, as well as
other, highlight the advantage and the need for leadership that can effec-
tively attend to competing expectations and manage tension in hybrids and
complex organizational structures (e.g., Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011;
Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Smith & Tushman, 2005).
In the modern military, a large, hierarchical and total institution, with a
clear structure and orders, that operates within a complex social, cultural,
and fast changing environment, the need to embrace paradox has become
evident. This chapter seeks to explore and analyze the tensions, challenges,
and opportunities posed by core paradoxes that primarily and uniquely
characterize leadership in the military context. We will focus on different
types of paradoxes, among them: (a) Shared leadership versus hierarchical
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 161

leadership, (b) flexibility and creativity versus conformity and discipline,

(c) complexity and chaos versus simplicity and linearity, (d) hegemonic and
prototypical leadership versus leadership of multiple identities (with regards
to gender and other peripheral situated identities), and last (e) distant
leadership and exchange relationship versus intimate leadership and com-
munal relationship.
For each focal paradox, we will attempt to explore and uncover the nat-
ure, dynamics, processes, management tensions, and possible subsequent
outcomes. Drawing on interviews and prior research of leadership in the
Israeli military, as well as other global military contexts, we will define the
different paradoxes and present specific examples of its dynamic and
the ways it plays out in military leadership.
Following prior research (e.g., Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;
Miron-Spektor, Erez & Naveh, 2011), we suggest that for effective leader-
ship in the military, there is a need for these paradoxical-hybrid frames to
simultaneously exist, by being held at different temporal and spatial con-
texts. We will refer to the ways in which these tensions may be nested and
managed across different levels of analysis: the individual, the team, the
unit, and the wider organizational structures, in different points in time,
and discuss the advantages and drawbacks of paradoxical frames for
military leadership. We will further suggest directions for future theorizing
and empirical exploration of the emergent nature of paradoxical dualities
interwoven in the context of military leadership.

THE CONTEXT OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP

Leadership is a contextual phenomenon, constantly evolving, changing,

and being applied in a specific environment. It is embedded within the
organization and affected by its main task, delegation of work and
authorities, the organizational structure and the organizational culture.
Accordingly, military leadership is both a theoretical and practical disci-
pline that is discernible from civilian leadership, and incorporates both
generic and unique context-based elements.
The context that shapes the military leadership is, first and foremost, the
core task of a military organization maintaining security. For this pur-
pose, members of the organization are granted legitimacy to use force
whenever necessary. This is an extreme context that is characterized by
danger and potential psychological, physical, or material harm to organiza-
tions members (mostly in combat units). Although this extreme situation
162 RONIT KARK ET AL.

does not typify all professions and units in the military, its symbolic and
structural repercussions apply to the entire military organization and mili-
tary leadership in general.1
Other unique characteristics are derived from the security and combat
tasks in military organization that also affect military leadership and shape
its unique challenges. First, military organizations are characterized by
their totality, controlling almost every aspect of the life of its members.
Subsequently, the dependency of the members on the leader is greater than
that in other institutions. This results in a system of expectations of military
leadership that is the broadest and most comprehensive one possible and
leads to a core expectation that the leaders address their subordinates from
both a task and personal perspective. A second major characteristic of the
military in the formal institutional structure. Militaries strive to achieve
their goals through organized professionals in a hierarchical manner. This
implies that the commander is a part of a defined hierarchy and that the
power structure in the military, which shapes the leadership practices, is
largely based on rank and chain of command. Third, the large size of the
military is also an important aspect. The size of military organizations
necessarily results in a situation in which each decision and command
issued by commanders, directly impacts a large number of subordinates.
This poses unique challenges and tribulations for leaders that have to enact
their command and make crucial and difficult decisions, at times in the
moment. This may be even more challenging for young commanders (often
at the age of 19 or 20) that have a wide responsibility for others. The large
size also contributes to the need to maintain discipline, command and to
reinforce the hierarchical structure and hierarchical leadership.
Derived from this is another unique characteristic of military leadership
the perception of leadership as core ability in a military organization and
military career. For example, the military doctrine of the United States
discusses military leadership as a force multiplier. In other words, when
leadership is effective, the organization is capable of acting in a focused, syn-
chronized manner, with efficient use of resources, and capable of achieving
the desired results (ADRP Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 [ADP], 2012).
Similarly, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) leadership doctrine defines
leadership as a foundational ethos around which all military activity is
organized (Doctrine and Training, Military Leadership & its development in
the IDF, 2013).
In addition to the organizational context, an understanding of military
leadership requires a study of the periodic context in which military
leadership currently exists, the changes in the area of operation as well as
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 163

the significant social, cultural, and technological changes that typify it

(Morath, Leonard, & Zaccaro, 2011).
Indeed, in the 1980s and early 1990s, the end of the Cold War heralded
a realization that the strategic military reality had been entirely trans-
formed, with armies being forced to cope with different, amorphic and
frequently evolving threats. The potential challenges faced by military orga-
nizations from hereon were believed to be focused on dynamic geopolitical
realities, transformation of the military career, technological developments
and changes in the practice of military leadership (Lindsay, Day, & Halpin,
2011; Pearce & Conger, 2003).
Militaries today are managing a spectrum of confrontations or a full
spectrum of operations (Morath et al., 2011). This type of coping requires
an ability to effectively operate under conditions that rapidly change from
peace and stability to outright war. For example, military units may fre-
quently operate in urban environments and fight a meticulously planned
ambush and then 1 hour later, cope with providing humanitarian civilian
assistance. Today, nearly every unit should be capable of performing a
wide array of operations following training in a designated period of time.
This type of challenge is referred to in literature as hybrid confronta-
tions or threats, a phrase that concisely conveys the complexity of the
areas of operation of modern militaries, the diversity of players involved
and the perpetual vagueness that currently blurs the traditional categories
of conflict. The uniqueness of hybrid threats lies in the fact that although
these threats have wide global connection they are thoroughly embedded in
the local populations in which the military organizations operate today,
and require interaction with both civilians and with local military and com-
bat forces (Cojocar, 2011). These global connections become even more evi-
dent in light of the workings of the modern mass media, which through the
power of pictures and videos, distributed by media and social networks
(e.g., facebook, twitter, and WhatsApp), also impact highly politics and the
home and international fronts. Making decisions that are frequently
required within moments might have devastating results, damage relation-
ships that formed with the local population and even trigger an interna-
tional incident with far-reaching implications. Commanders, and even
soldiers, must frequently cope with competing roles that provoke tremen-
dous internal stress (Morath et al., 2011). Many researchers believe that
whereas in past wars, chemistry, physics, and technological knowledge
were critical skills required for victory, the key to success today lies more
heavily in social sciences and humanities, which, although conventional,
remain valuable. Thus, the adoption of sociocultural perspectives will
164 RONIT KARK ET AL.

determine the results during crisis and peace (Fischer, 2004; Scales, 2009;
Williams, 2003).
In light of these challenges and work environments, an array of leader-
ship abilities is required to enable commanders to cope with the complex
environment and conflicting demands. Accordingly, many of the training
programs for commanders in various militaries are now focusing on devel-
opment of leadership to cope with complexities, tensions, and paradoxes.

THE ISRAELI MILITARY CONTEXT AND THE REVIEW

AND ANALYSES METHOD

This chapter addresses the paradoxes and challenges in military leadership

in the broad sense but is based on knowledge that was primarily compiled
within the context of the Israeli military. Unlike most Western democracies
at the end of the Cold War, Israel still operates within conflicts on almost a
daily basis. The Israeli military is characterized by a general mandatory
draft and reserve duty.
The specific case of Israel in addition to and as a result of its key and
unique position captured by the IDF in Israeli society constitutes fertile,
broad, and intriguing ground for contemporary organizational research.
Furthermore, the introduction of multiple case studies in the IDF and
further cases from other military contexts around the world, gathered from
reports and the literature, allows us to investigate the complex and diverse
implications of the paradoxes of modern military leadership. Subsequently,
the formulation of this chapter is based on military leadership in its broad-
est context but will focus on the Israeli context. It focuses on insights
gained from a variety of studies,2 multiple in-depth interviews, which were
conducted as part of various research projects in the Israeli IDF School for
Leadership Development. The research was largely conducted with qualita-
tive research method using in-depth, semi-structured interviews based on a
series of predetermined questions that were adapted based on the develop-
ment and dynamics of the interview (Shkedi, 2003).
These interviews, conducted by researchers from the IDF School for
Leaderships Research Division, involved different ranks of commanders in
the military-organizational hierarchy in a range of areas of operation and
expertise (e.g., commanders in front line and combat positions, comman-
ders in headquarters, junior and senior commanders, NCOs and officers,
etc.). This chapter will introduce paradoxes and challenges that were
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 165

revealed in these studies and will be supported by illustrative quotes from

the interviews. In this chapter, we chose to present paradoxes that capture
a significant place in current IDF leadership, but that are also significant
and critical to military management in other contexts and in other coun-
tries. Below we will discuss the tensions and paradoxes in the military con-
text and their repercussions with regards to leadership.

HIERARCHICAL VERSUS DECENTRALIZED

LEADERSHIP

Contemporary theoretical literature on leadership proposes various

models. A general distinction is made between models that address leader-
ship as characteristically individual, largely one individual who heads an
organizational hierarchy, and post-heroic models of leadership that
address it as a function of a social system that is manifested through var-
ious aspects in formal and informal positions in the organization, termed
decentralized or shared leadership (e.g., Carson, Tessluk & Marrone,
2007; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Pearce & Conger, 2003). These
forms of dispersed leadership see power and leadership as shared by both
the formal leader and the followers in different ways. The individual
centered and post-heroic models of leadership are not interchangeable. In
complex environments, identification of leadership with a single individual
(the formal leader) is one possibility that is juxtaposed with the impor-
tance of decentralized leadership as the collective property. A paradoxical
approach is based on the premise that the complexity of the environment
requires organizations to balance knowledge and skills that are found
throughout the organization in a leadership process. Accordingly, various
models of leadership (hierarchical or decentralized) can and should be
implemented based on the operational context, and particularly in light of
the organizational mission.
Concurrently, tension might occur in military organizations between
these two modes of leadership. On the one hand, the complexity in which
military leaders operate does not allow one individual to possess all
relevant knowledge. The leader is required to incorporate the knowledge
and skills that are located throughout the organization as a part of the
leadership process. On the other hand, a military organization contains
contextual-organizational forces that might inhibit and even hinder the
formation of decentralized or shared leadership. This as a derivative of
166 RONIT KARK ET AL.

the unique features of a military organization, which is an entity that oper-

ates under extreme and combat conditions, and emphasizes bureaucratic
characteristics clear division of labor, clear delegation of authority, and
a clear and rigid hierarchy.
A major obstacle in the formation of decentralized leadership in the mili-
tary is the dominant military leadership model that is based on the official
stance and position as well as their accompanying rank. Accordingly, there
are clear rules of operation with regards to behavior with higher and lower
ranking officers, based on the basic military principle of the chain of com-
mand. Within the confines of military operation, adherence to the chain
of command is rigid so that a team member will not consider skipping
from one position to the next in the chain of command and directly con-
tacting the commander of his own immediate commander: The civilian
system adopts a completely different hierarchical system. Headquarters work
is completely different. The head of my department cannot contact the head
of the division without me knowing about it. This constitutes a bypassing of
the hierarchy and short cuts (former IDF commander).3 These two princi-
ples, of rank and chain of command, create built-in barriers to the concept
of shared and joint leadership in the military. They comprise a refined
expression of the power structure in a military organization that generates
an easy, clear response to the question of who leads the unit or the team.
In other words, the leadership structure in the military is clear, enabling
specific members in the organization to wield greater power due to their
rank, position or role, even in situations in which they are not designated a
formal leadership role (Lindsay et al., 2011).
Another factor hindering implementation of the leadership models as
the property of the collective (shared leadership or dispersed leadership) is
the advancement model existing in the military, based on the notion of:
Up or Out. The underlying concept of this model is that an individual
can succeed individually in the military. If his or her performances are
good and he or she do all the right things (fulfills certain positions and
undergoes certain training), that will be rewarded by promotions. In this
culture, everyone understands that in order to advance, one must stand
out in terms of exceptional performances (Lindsay et al., 2011). This
model contradicts the concept of shared or decentralized leadership. An indi-
vidual who wishes to advance must lead by taking center stage and being
perceived as having personal responsibility for these accomplishments.
However, the complexity in which organizations operate today does not
allow the single individual to possess all the needed knowledge and skills.
These are dispersed among all officers in the organization.
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 167

In affinity with the structural characteristics of a military organization, we

can also identify military-organizational values and ethos that shape military
leadership and that might hinder the formation of decentralized leadership.
Military leadership is largely formed and shaped by two interwoven values
role model and After me. These values reflect a perception of leadership
as a personal attribute, as an individual matter. Hence the difficulty in attri-
buting it to a group of people whose interaction gives rise to leadership.
Concurrently, even the military context includes various expressions of
decentralized leadership, even if this pattern is not declared. First, the
military leadership doctrine in various militaries explicitly refers to the
importance of collective, informal leadership. For example, the military
leadership philosophy recently formulated in the IDF emphasizes that lea-
dership ability may characterize individuals who were not appointed to
official command. Accordingly, commanders are trained to identify infor-
mal leaders in their environment and act, to the extent possible, to incorpo-
rate their abilities and skills toward achieving the main endeavor that the
leader is spearheading.
In the US Armys leadership doctrine, informal leadership is perceived
as a legitimate authority and plays a significant role in task completion and
organizational improvement. Informal leadership is considered to draw on
individuals knowledge, experience or expertise. The doctrine also addresses
collective leadership for a combined effect and resulting synergy when
leaders of various ranks make different decisions. The belief is that along-
side the configurations of classic leadership, military leadership also
involves the establishment of relationships with colleagues and other pro-
fessionals in the organization, that are designed to expand the influence on
organizational members.
This dual model is, in fact, reflected in the integrative mode of operation
that has become increasingly prominent in many militaries in recent years
due to the inability of the hierarchical organizational structure to cope with
the inherent uncertainty of the battle field. The need to operate in a joint
integrated system of all branches (land, sea, and air) requires commander
to connect to the various units and systems, and manage an ad hoc frame-
work. Subsequently, people in leadership positions must broaden their cur-
rent ties in the organization, forge partnerships (Uhl-Bien, Marion, &
McKlvley, 2007), wield authority with individuals who are not subordinate
to them and influence from a position of participant rather than leader
(Padan & Tubi, 2012).
Another evidence for the need for wider shared leadership is the
increasing involvement of staff officers in professional positions in
168 RONIT KARK ET AL.

the decision-making processes during combat, and particularly in light of

the changes in the conflict characteristics (e.g., operating within civilian
range). A discernible example of this is the 2009 decision by the IDFs Chief
of Staff to incorporate legal oversight during combat and preparations of
the army division as part of the operational entity. Another example is
the involvement of Intelligence officers in the decision-making processes
during combat. This is reflected in the transfer of Intelligence officers from
management positions on the home front to the combat front (Cohen,
2009). For example, an intelligence officer described his participation in the
leadership process in light of this development in his position: In assuming
responsibilities and in combat moral values senior intelligence officer
frequently made decisions that affected the operation today. Intelligence
officers find themselves occupied with issues that had once been the sole area
of the combat leaders (Cohen, 2009). Another staff officer emphasized in
his statements the flat leadership as well as weakness and blurring of the
hierarchy, since the army has become more professionalized: you work
with your counterparts, with staff commanders, and this requires completely
different, and occasionally more complex, issues in this respect, I manage
experts but in many cases, they manage me (Karazi-Presler, 2011).
In light of this, the skill to maintain and facilitate an ongoing steady
tension between hierarchical and decentralized leadership, in situations
in which leadership can be shared, is a significant characteristic that
contributes to commanders ability to shape, preserve and enact their
leadership efficiently in a complex and dynamically changing military
environment.

FLEXIBILITY AND CREATIVITY VERSUS

ORDER AND DISCIPLINE

Another tension in military leadership exists between action in light of the

clear and stable organizational arrangements and the needed flexibility of
the action. This tension is built into a military organization, whose assign-
ments create two paradoxical needs. On the one hand, one needs a regimen,
the creation of standards and bureaucratic procedures (arrangement). On
the other hand, initiative, breaking boundaries, creativity and even schemes
(flexibility) are required. An action that complies with organizational
arrangements can be interpreted as conformity, rigidity, or alternatively as
conservative and disciplined. Flexibility can be interpreted as adaptability,
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 169

creativity, innovation, action adapted to the situation or, in contrast lack

of organizational discipline and lack of professionalism.
Although action under the formal arrangements can be said to be
suitable and functional for routine times, flexible actions are suitable and
functional for combat. The distinction between routine situations and crisis
or emergencies is not dichotomous and the two situations closely interact.
The premise, then, is that there is constant overlap between the patterns of
action that are suitable for routine periods and those that are suitable for
combat. Hence, the formation of a paradox between the two ends of the
spectrum flexibility and order.
This tension becomes even more pronounced in contemporary military
leadership in light of the characteristics of modern conflicts. The reality, in
which militaries operate today of a rapidly and constantly changing nature
of conflict and threats, requires a rapid operational and mental
transition between various modes of action. This reality expands and
empowers uncertainty and instability, forcing commanders to demonstrate
flexibility of thought and action. To illustrate the rapid transitions, the
former head of the operations division in the IDF described 10 months in
the Gaza Strip as follows: December 2004 peak of the events, January
2005 the directive is to defuse tensions, February 2005 maintain calm,
April 2005 calm disrupted due to terrorist events, July August 2005
disengagement (IDF Conference for Behavioral Sciences, 1.11.2009).
The US military is also confronting a similar operational reality.
Accordingly, the 2008 version of the Military Operations Field Manual
(FM 3 0; FM 3 0 Operations, 2008) states that the army today must cope
with a full spectrum of operations. This type of coping means the ability to
act effectively in situations that change rapidly from a state of calm and
stability to all-out war.
Subsequently, according to the leadership doctrine of the US Army, lea-
dership that is adaptive is an essential response in coping with current and
future combat challenges (Cojocar, 2011).
US Army Commander General Odierno writes in the foreword to the
Army Military Doctrine document form 2012 (ADRP): simultaneous
operations in various environments require leaders of all ranks to under-
stand and quickly study the environment, to make calculated decisions
and to spearhead changes. Because there is no predetermined solution
to conflicts, military leaders must quickly adapt themselves to the situation
they face. Conceptual, structural and technical adaptation is required and
this requires an adaptive, innovative and creative spirit as well as a desire
to cope with unfamiliar risks and rapidly changing situations
170 RONIT KARK ET AL.

The perception of leadership development in the US Army is also direc-

ted at coping with uncertainty and development of adaptive leaders. For
example, the current approach that is strongly emphasized posits that mili-
tary leaders must dedicate more time in self-study and self-development
than they had in the past, primarily due to the constant changes and unex-
pected challenges that typify combat environments.
While the US military leadership doctrine emphasizes the importance of
flexibility and creativity as a means of coping with the features of the envir-
onment in which the commanders are operating, the field itself reflects
various manifestations of tension between the need for flexibility and adap-
tation and the need for order and disciplined operations. One tension is
attributed to the difficulty in creating and developing actual adaptation
despite its importance. One US military commander writes: What hap-
pened is that our unit became prisoner of its success because it relied on its
ability to meticulously recreate the military doctrine. Staff members
brought professional commanders to the unit, who did demonstrate excel-
lent operational abilities, but the major deficit lies in an organization that is
unable to think beyond the directives listed in the military doctrine
(Major Bruhl, 2012).
Another tension is attributable to whether flexibility and adaptability
are, in fact, relevant and functional characteristics for a military organiza-
tion. This tension is evident in the concerns raised by commanders, particu-
larly toward junior ranking commanders, with regards to the development
of adaptability among the leaders. One US military commander stated: I
dont know if I am interested in my junior staff being adaptive. I want
them to perform the job for which they were trained and in the manner in
which they were trained (Haplin, 2011). Similarly, an IDF officer asked
What commanders do you want in the army? Creative? Thinking? Outside
the box? Or do you want the managers to do what they are told to do, that
they always comply? Even in war? In combat? (Tubi & Gal, 2013).
Thus, a major challenge to effective military leadership now days is
holding on to the tension and allowing the simultaneous existence of both
flexibility and creativity in conjunction with order and discipline.

COMPLEXITY VERSUS SIMPLICITY

Much of the tension in military leadership is derived from the issue of

whether military leaders today are operating in a more complex environment
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 171

than had existed in the past or whether this complexity was always an inher-
ent characteristic of a military operation, in general, and of combat opera-
tions in particular. A discussion of this question is reflected in statements
made by IDF commanders, particularly with regards to combat and the
characteristics of conflict. On the one hand, commanders tend to perceive
combat as a simple matter. A unique situation in which there is no com-
plexity of considerations or factors that must be taken into account: The
world is black and white. There is a task. We need to perform the task in bat-
tle, things are simple- there is an enemy that must be confronted.
However, at the same time there is a perception that the battle field has
become more complex due to changes in the nature of the conflicts, among
them combat in civilian areas, difficulty in defining who the enemy is, the
need to take into account legal and image issues, and the concern with
diplomacy rather than just operational factors. According to one comman-
der in the IDF: The chaotic reality has changed since I was a young
commander. In the past, the classic elements of land and enemy were clear
military civilians border across the border. The reality today mixes
between our forces and the enemy, the uninvolved, the rival system. Trying to
do the simple things and it boomerangs on us. Yes, the commander should
simplify the reality for his subordinates but he must also confront the com-
plexity. Unlike the past, junior ranks must also cope with the complexity.
This tension is compounded among IDF commanders, particularly after
the Second Lebanon War. The military discourse following the Second
Lebanon War reflected a desire to get back to basics, a desire to return to
the tried and true doctrine. This expectation, some claim, reflects concern
that anything beyond the basics will confuse the commanders and the sol-
diers (Hazani, 2011). The desire to return to the fundamentals, then, reflects
a desire to return to the principles of action, the modus operandi, the per-
ceptions of action and traditional values. A distinct expression of this is the
attempt to return to the simple, clear language, based on the assumption
that if the language is clear and definitive, the commanders will successfully
cope with a reality that is uncertain, experiencing it as more coherent and
predictable (Shamir-Doner, 2009). This perspective is rooted in a belief that
the challenges of the last war and the lack of success therein is attributed to
vague perception of action and conceptualization that are not unequivocal,
nonlinear and therefore, lacking clear purpose (Hazani, 2011).
If we connect this to previous tensions and paradoxes discussed in this
chapter, the tension between the hierarchical leadership model and the
decentralized leadership model can also be said to be largely derived from a
discussion of the tension between simplicity and complexity. In other
172 RONIT KARK ET AL.

words, the discourse on a return to basics can be linked to a rejection of

the postmodern approach and related ideas that reflect complexity. The
return to basics philosophy accompanied by a rejection of the postmo-
dern paradigm also hinders a willingness to adopt new approaches to
leadership. These new approaches are rooted in the paradigm of complex-
ity, which is essentially a postmodern theoretical approach that focuses on
the formation of leadership (in a process) over natural (occasionally even
innate) leadership that belongs to the individual; a dynamic approach that
addresses leadership as perpetually evolving during interactions between
individuals in an organization; as a decentralized approach that does not
create a clear division of roles and in which a formal leader is not the only
source of leadership (Tubi, 2012).
Furthermore, the tension between flexibility and arrangement is linked
to the tension between complexity and simplicity. The need for flexibility is
largely derived from recognition of the increasing complexity of the area of
operation of commanders that requires them to diversify their modes of
thinking and action in frequently changing contexts. This is revealed in
statements made by former deputy chief of staff regarding the results of the
Second Lebanon War: The first point we erred as commanders was our
inability to change the general perception or mood primarily inside the
military. We failed to clarify and perhaps failed to understand ourselves that
the conflict with Hezbollah is not a direct extension of regular operations that
we performed in the six years prior to the war every level of command in
the military failed to realize and failed to do enough to broadcast and perform
in a manner commensurate with the changing reality (Kaplinski, 2009).
In conclusion, as we have seen there is an ongoing tension between the
commanders need to lead in a simplistic manner, while recognizing and
holding on to the complex characteristics of the environment in which they
operate. This also whets the need to act in a manner that is occasionally
nonlinear in nature. This tension is closely linked to the tension between
new and old, novel and traditional. In order for military leadership to suc-
ceed, these two approaches to leadership must be simultaneously adopted.

THE DOMINANT LEADERSHIP MODEL VERSUS

MULTIPLE IDENTITIES OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP

Another paradox is manifested in the tension between a dominant unitary

leadership model, with an ascribed identity attached to it, versus alternative
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 173

modes of enacting leadership and multiple identities. The military high-

lights a favored prototypical leadership model that incorporates an ideal
figure that embodies military leadership. This model is based on the notion
of the combat leadership and highlights the heroic, courageous, combative
leadership model. While, this leadership model holds an important func-
tional value that relates many times to effective accomplishments of mili-
tary tasks, there is a need to embrace other types of leadership that will be
discussed in the following paragraphs. This is a challenge, since leadership
behaviors that are incompatible with the dominant model of combat lea-
dership are perceived, at times, as leadership that is of less value. Thus, the
presence of a dominant leadership model might generate identity tensions
with regards to leadership of individuals and groups that do not implement
the dominant leadership model. These tensions are largely attributed to the
fact that the combat mission does not typify all professions and units in the
military, and subsequently, the symbolic and structural repercussions that
apply to everyone.
As we will demonstrate in this section, holding on paradoxically to both
a combat leadership model as well as alternative existing leadership models
and identities of the individuals and groups taking leadership roles, might
actually and ultimately contribute to the performance of the militarys lea-
dership core tasks, as well as to organizational efficacy.

Field Leadership versus Staff and NCO Leadership

At the beginning of the 1970s, Janowitz (1976) argued that alongside the
combat profession arose another major military professional specialization
administrative and technical specialization. In other words, along with
the significant role assigned to battle fields, the importance of white collar
military workers gained importance over the past two decades due to changes
in the definition of the goals of the military and their areas of operation.
As can be learned in detail from the introduction, the military during these
decades is no longer preparing for an all-out war but rather for continual
confrontations that constitute alternative warfare and low-intensity conflict.
As a result, the military must frequently achieve its goals through technologi-
cal sophistication. Moskos (2001) argues that the identity of the combat
soldier will still remain dominant in the military, but also alternative profes-
sions are rising such as the soldier scientist, the soldier politician, the officer
skilled in media management, and in the nuances of international diplomacy.
And yet, note that during this transition of the military professional from
174 RONIT KARK ET AL.

combat leader to administrative technician, the leadership element is largely

omitted.
The first example, then, of this paradox comes from interviews with
commanders in the IDF headquarters. Their perception emphasizes the
significant effect assigned to the central (almost only) model of military
leadership the combat leadership model. Their statements reveal that
commanders in the headquarters appear to continually compare the head-
quarters environment with the combat environment, and leadership in the
headquarters with leadership in combat. The interviews conducted reveal a
common image pertaining to military leadership that is entrenched in
officers awareness in the organization, among both those serving in a work
environment that is far removed from the field and among those who never
participated in it.
For example, a lieutenant colonel in the headquarters stated: There is
pressure in the headquarters, although this might not appear to be the case
from the outside. [] because you are not storming another fort. You dont
always see the operations in person. You dont always see the rescue of human
life, but there are missions that are important.
Constant idealization of the combat leadership model occasionally hin-
ders the organizations ability to view practices adopted by headquarter
officers as leadership practices.
The consistent comparison with the combat environment appears, to
create tension, the comparison with the combat leadership model occasion-
ally leads to a perception that the leadership in the headquarters is some-
what irrelevant, and that implementation of practices of leadership not
only does not help advance the mission in the headquarters but even hin-
ders it. An example of statements of a Lieutenant Colonel in the headquar-
ters: I can say today after five years in the headquarters that leadership is
required in the headquarters as well but a different kind of leadership! This is
something completely different [] you cannot come with tools that you
learned in the field. When you are in the field, you say perform! Good bye and
see you later! These are tools that simply do not work in headquarters [].
With a style of leadership that is useful in the field, you have no chance of
succeeding in headquarters.
A possible explanation of this tension can be attributed to the fact
that the leadership in the headquarters is perceived as task-instrumental
leadership, whereas combat leadership in the military is perceived as a
more heroic-ideological leadership. More specifically, whereas the
approach of combat commanders is socially and organizationally per-
ceived as an ideological approach that necessarily incorporates romantic-
collectivist values (e.g., contribution to society and to the country;
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 175

comradeship and unity), the approach of headquarter commanders is per-

ceived as being task-oriented and instrumental. This highlights a conflict
between the largely dominant heroic approach and the professional posi-
tions in the military.
Another direction revealed in context of instrumentality and tasks is evi-
dent in another area in the IDF NCOs. The military system defines
NCOs first and foremost as professionals, and as such, their promo-
tion relies on the professional knowledge and expertise that they demon-
strate in their work rather than on their experience in the battle field or
their experience and ability in command positions (Lexicon of IDF
Terminology, Mikbatz C, 2006, p. 23). This is essentially a semantic distinc-
tion but it does have far-reaching effects on the way in which NCOs value
themselves and on the way in which they are valued and judged. According
to the definition, and similar to the experience of headquarter officers,
NCOs are, first and foremost, professionals and should be measured as
such. A key aspect revealed in this definition is related to the organizational
requirement of NCOs to essentially adhere to somewhat narrow and pro-
fessionally oriented position, and their promotion in the organization
essentially depends on this, against expansion of areas of operation and
abilities required of commanders and leadership today.
Paradoxically, it appears that the perceived position of the NCOs them-
selves is far broader than that defined by the military system, since they
understand that in order to professionally perform their jobs, they must
lead their people. The actions the NCOs adopt, albeit under the guise
of organizational culture, lacks clarity and tension regarding what is
demanded of NCOs as commanders.
In light of the information presented in this section, it appears that
despite the tensions created by the comparison between the types of leader-
ship, the headquarters also serves as space that allows for the development
of an alternative image of leadership that is not rooted in the dominant
combat leadership model. Thus, despite the partial structural marginality
of the headquarters within the military organization, it allows for the adop-
tion of alternative formats of military leadership, such as leadership that is
based on professional, managerial and or academic expertise.
It also should be noted that many of the military commanders in their
professional advancement, as they go up the military ranks transition
between field and combat command to staff and headquarters positions.
These transitions between various management and leadership allow them
to experiment with and experience various different leadership styles. The
existing tension between these styles poses a challenge; however, it also
enables the expansion and mutual impact of these different styles.
176 RONIT KARK ET AL.

Female Leadership versus Male Leadership

A second example of the tension between the ideal leadership model and
other identities in the military is evidenced in the story of women who are
in leadership and influential positions in the military. As previously men-
tioned, the same abstract, ideal military leadership model, based on the
body of a male combat officer who puts his life on the line in difficult, dan-
gerous military assignments, is the model women in the military are com-
pared to and assessed by. The dominant social discourse, then, views men
as having stronger leadership potential than women, and are therefore
given more opportunities to demonstrate leadership (Boyce & Herd, 2003;
Kark & Eagly, 2010; Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
In spite of that, it is important to emphasize that woman in the military
acts consistently in an ambivalent context. Some of them are located in
powerful positions and perform important and meaningful duties. But at the
same time the military culture maintains differences between women and men
specifically in the context of leadership that creates dual experiences. A recent
research on women officers shows that the women officers interpretations of
their use of power were complex. On the one hand they talked about feelings
of empowerment, pride and taking pleasure in their ability to exercise power:
I felt like I was doing something very significant, [...] I felt like I was doing it well too.
I enjoyed the element of command, I wont deny it. I had 96 trainees in the course, I
had other officers and 96 soldiers under me, thats power! You know how it feels to go
on a training run when this whole large gang is following you? It gives you a feeling
that you are important, significant and influential. A leader. It strengthened my self-
confidence, gave me a feeling of competence, a feeling that I could do anything [].
(Karazi-Presler, 2012, p. 38)

At the same time, many of the women felt that they could use power
and authority only if they adopt patterns of commend and leadership that
were associated with militaristic and masculine combat leadership styles
(Sasson-Levy, 2006).
The central premise of the study is that this dual meaning is attributed
to the sociocultural link between masculinity and power, something that is
particularly discernible in the military context, which is a clear masculine
arena. In light of this, leadership in a military organization holds tension
and paradoxes for women and for demonstrations of feminine stereotypi-
cal behaviors for both women and men.
The research further raised a theme related to the paradoxical percep-
tions of soft power. Female officers frequently adopted leadership practices
or gestures perceived as soft and sociable in order to increase the chances
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 177

of getting legitimation from their subordinates. Concurrently, this enact-

ment of power can be seen as having boomeranged against them. While
seeking to increase their ability to influence, they were essentially limiting
it. An example of this is evidenced in the following interview with a female
officer, who discussed her attitude toward female soldiers who served under
her command: Some will say that I was a witch [] some will say that
that evil commander put me in jail. if you are too weak, this has reper-
cussions. The logistics of the brigade will not function. If you are too strong,
then that is a problem as well. In other words, a balance needs to be found,
something that is almost impossible to do. It is extremely difficulty
(Karazi-Presler, 2011, p. 67).
This finding corresponds with previous studies that sought to conceptua-
lize the experience of women leaders as being characterized by the double-
edged sword in different organizations (Eagly, Makhijani & Klonsky,
1992; Huppaz, 2009; Kanter, 1977; Kark, Waismel-Manor, & Shamir,
2012), as well as in other the military contexts (Silva, 2008).
Following the case studies that were introduced in this section, it appears
that organizational symbolic flexibility, which will enable the co-existence of
both masculine and feminine forms of leadership, as well as professional and
combat leadership models, will generate the legitimation of the enactment of
compound and multiple identities, as well as a variety of leadership styles.
This will enable to achieve optimal performance in this complex system.

DISTANT LEADERSHIP AND EXCHANGE

RELATIONSHIP VERSUS INTIMATE LEADERSHIP
AND COMMUNAL RELATIONSHIPS

Another dimension that constitutes a challenge to modern military leader-

ship is the formation of social leadership distance between commanders
and subordinates as well as management through interactions with frater-
nity, friendships, camaraderie, and intimacy between commanders and
subordinates. Traditional leadership theories and management practices
tend to distinguish between the public sphere (e.g., the workplace, the mili-
tary) characterized by control, instrumentality, and rationality, and the
private sphere (the home), characterized by emotionality, spontaneity, and
intimate personal relationships. Recently, new models of relational leader-
ship have emerged that focus on close relationships, workplace intimacy
in leader follower relationships and communal exchange (Kark, 2011).
178 RONIT KARK ET AL.

Workplace intimacy has been defined as a relationship or an interaction

that takes place in the work context and is characterized by a sense of con-
nectedness related to self-disclosure and the sharing of what is innermost
with others. This implies experiencing a sense of the other as having an
empathic perception, a depth of understanding, a real sensitivity to what
matters, and a motivation to contribute to mutual well-being (Kark, 2011).
Leadership in the military, in general, and in the Israeli Military, more
specifically, is perceived as being characterized by what has been termed
the doing of distance (Anisman-Razin & Kark, 2012). This is defined as
the process in which managers and officers shape and enact their distance
from their followers in order to obtain a leadership position and to be able
to influence their followers. Although leadership in the army is character-
ized by distance as a mode to control and displace it has simultaneously
been found that there is much closeness and intimate relationships among
soldiers and between them and their commanders (Kaplan, 2006, 2007).
This is also evident in the prevalent use of the Hebrew word, reeoot,
meaning deep friendship and affection. That has been coined and largely
used to describe relationships among men in the IDF.
Commanders and soldiers relationships are often characterized as
instrumental exchange relationships, whereas intimate relationships are
perceived and defined as affective communal relationships. Based on
Goffmans (1961) distinction between communal and economic exchange,
Clark and colleagues compared and contrasted these two relational forms
(Clark & Mills, 1979; Mills & Clark, 1982). A central distinction between
communal and exchange relationships involves the rules governing the giv-
ing and receiving of benefits. In communal relationships, members are con-
cerned about the others welfare. They give benefits to please the other, or
in response to the others needs. In exchange relationships, members are
less concerned with the others welfare. They give benefits with the expecta-
tion of receiving comparable benefits in return in the future. In exchange
relationships, people keep track of individual inputs into joint tasks, since
it is necessary to allocate benefits in proportion to inputs. In communal
relationships, members keep track of one anothers needs, because benefits
are distributed to demonstrate concern or according to the others needs
(Ingram & Zou, 2008; Mills & Clark, 1982).
In the military, there is a major focus on monitoring leadership style and
on exchange relationship that is based on the followers performance.
However, at the same time there is also a strong focus on the friendship
and emotional bond, which is based on communal exchange relationships,
in which the leader and follower have an obligation to be concerned about
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 179

the others welfare and to give benefits in response to the others needs.
Thus, leader follower relationships that are characterized by workplace
intimacy, affective communal features and simultaneously distance and
instrumental exchange features are likely to coexist in the context of
military leadership.
A recent work on distance in the IDF focused on the importance and
affect commanders distance and closeness may have on the development
of soldiers. It highlights the tension commanders face in advanced profes-
sional army training courses by having to decide if to display the style they
are used to of showing a strong hand and distance or to become closer
and be a friend of the soldiers, allowing them to call the commanders in
their private names. According to this work in many professional army
training courses, it is most important that commanders give up their dis-
tance stance and become closer to the soldiers, since this can promote the
learning and development process of the soldiers. However, many comman-
ders refrain from the erosion of distance since this may highlight emotion-
ality and contribute to them being seen as more humane and less
commander like, challenging their leadership identity (Asido, 2013).
In the words of one of the commanders: The commander can find him-
self having to deal with emotions and not with command dealing with emo-
tions is not natural to the commanders and may be difficult for them,
therefore they may refrain from getting into such sensitive situations. They
may also dread being seen as soft and as focusing on emotions and not on
the army missions This can threaten the commanders image . He
further asserts: Decreasing leadership distance may expose the commanders
personality to the soldiers and he may be more exposed to the observant eyes
of colleagues and soldiers. Commanders in such situations fear to make mis-
takes and be seen by others, a situation they think will decrease their legiti-
macy to lead. (Asido, 2013).
Although becoming closer can take its toll, the commander, which heads
one of the professional technology training courses in the army acknowl-
edges the importance of closeness for the success of the course and the
learning process of the soldiers, stressing that when commanders decrease
their distance the commanders can form better mentoring relationships
with the soldiers and can facilitate the learning process, by drawing on the
commanders personal values and sharing his past experience. In his words:
During training, the relationship between commander and subordinate is cri-
tical, for a system that enables the command distance during the training
stages to be reduced. The importance of lessening the command distance lies
in expansion of discourse of the doctrine, and professionalism, which is
180 RONIT KARK ET AL.

learned in training to the personal lessons of the commander his values,

his philosophy, past mistakes and even successes experienced under his
command. He highlights that this form of close relationship is crucial for
the success of the training course.
This demonstrates the existing tension between closeness and distance in
the military command. Another aspect that demonstrates the orientation of
distance and exchange versus closeness, friendship, and communal relations
is portrayed in the understanding of relationships among leaders and their
followers in combat versus headcounter roles.
One of the sources of power and influence among leaders lies in their
social networks. These networks are considered social capital. Bourdieu
(1986) defined social capital as the aggregate of the actual or potential
resources, which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or
less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.
Whereas Coleman (1988, p. 98) viewed the creation of social capital as a
process that facilitates individual or collective action, generated by net-
works of relationships, reciprocity, trust, and social norms. Social capital
may therefore be used as a highly valuable resource in establishing a lea-
ders ability to influence. Its importance is primarily reflected in the crea-
tion of mutual trust, cooperation, personal commitment to achieve
organizational goals (Wisecarver, Schneider, Foldes, & Cullen, 2011).
In the IDF, officers tend to perceive the networks and bonds in the
combat units and the field as stronger and as more existent and needed
than those among professional-staff commanders. This understanding of
professional headquarter officers largely reveals the distance from their
professional colleagues, and also indicates the lack of social capital.
Many commanders believe that it is difficult to create collegiality,
camaraderie and strong bonds between commanders and their soldiers
in the professional headquarters, believing that the latter requires task-
individualist orientation. For example, one officer states: In my opinion,
the issue of colleagues in the field is far more acute, closer, tighter. You
depend on them and they depend on you. In the headquarters, its a comple-
tely different story. You can be in a neighboring sector and you are far
from it. Its a completely different story. Its distant (Lieutenant Colonel,
general staff).
In contrast, the interviewees believe that in a combat environment, col-
legial closeness is assigned tremendous importance, where generally the nat-
ure of social networks that creates combat officers is strong and significant
in their ability to influence during military service and afterwards in civilian
life. As a part of the combat military ethos, it is rooted in strong
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 181

camaraderie and fraternity between soldiers. This type of close knitted rela-
tionship and networks facilitates leaders effective performance in the battle
field (Shachaf, Winshel, & Pizmony-Levy, 2010).
To summarize, army leadership is challenged by conflicting forces of dis-
tance, formalities and exchange relationships, versus close-emotional bonds
that link combat soldiers contributing to camaraderie, friendship and
the need to build close and at times intimate and mentoring relations with
soldiers and colleagues. This simultaneity of distance and closeness and
embracing the tension between them is needed in order to perform well in
an ever changing and complex current military settings. Navigating
between these forces and holding on to both are most challenging for mili-
tary leadership.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter focused on challenges and tensions that characterize modern

military leadership. This analysis, based on case study of the Israeli military
and its applications to other militaries, has allowed us to focus on the para-
dox and paradoxical management required for leadership in a complex
environment. Paradox refers to contradictory yet interrelated elements
that seem logical in isolation but irrational when appearing simultaneously
(Lewis, 2000, p. 760). Adopting a paradoxical lens makes it possible to dif-
ferentiate between contradictory elements as well as integrating elements,
thus enabling their co-existence (e.g., Gebert, Boerner, & Kearney, 2009;
Miron-Spektor, Gino & Argote, 2011; Smith & Tushman, 2005). The grow-
ing literature on paradoxes in organizations offers important insights on
how leaders cope with tensions and contradictions, and suggest that
the ability to embrace tensions and paradoxes is critical for effective leader-
ship, decision-making processes, innovation and to overall organizational
performance (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2004; Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis,
2011).
Based on these approaches of paradoxes, we examined tensions and
challenges that are reflected in the context of military leadership in the
entire military organization, as well as tensions that are reflected at the
team-level leadership and at the individual leader level. An integrative ana-
lysis of the paradoxes that typify current military leadership indicates sev-
eral implications for the performance of commanders as military leaders.
The chapter clearly reveals that complex systems, such as military systems,
182 RONIT KARK ET AL.

inherently incorporate paradoxes and tensions that may be construed as

being conflicting and contradictory. For example, we showed that com-
manders must act according to clear and even rigid organizational arrange-
ments while also remain flexible and creative, in order to adapt to a
dynamic and unstable context. Superficially, both extremes of tension
appear contradictory but in light of the task of maintaining security and of
combat as the militarys core task, both ends of the tension spectrum must
be sustained. Actions require absolute discipline and clear, uniform and
accepted rules but the same actions (maintaining security and combat) are
highly dynamic and require the ability to show flexibility, creativity and
constantly change. Similarly, we showed that commanders actions must
demonstrate an understanding of the complexity and chaos of the environ-
ment but should also rely on experience to create order and simplicity for
themselves and for their subordinates.
The above analysis reveals that paradoxes can exist on different levels
of organization: the entire organization, team or unit level, or the indivi-
dual level. With regards to the entire organization, the paradox might be
maintained and exist when there is a split of the conflicting forces in
different sections of the system. For example, the professional leadership
in the headquarters holds one aspect of the paradox, while the combat
leadership holds another aspect. In this manner, when the different parts
of the system meet and display joint action (action in which the combat
commanders and headquarter commanders cooperate), the tension
exacerbates. Concurrently, this type of model that involves a split of the
paradoxes in the functional and operational sections of the system may
create conflicts, power struggles and hierarchies between the various sec-
tions holding on to the separate elements of the paradox if not properly
managed. Another situation occurs when each commander on the indivi-
dual level is holding both ends of the paradox and maintains a regular
dialog between them, resulting in the systematic action being more inte-
grative. Constant awareness of the paradox in unit commanders actions
might also prove limiting and paralyzing over time. For this purpose,
there are other options of dispersing the existing paradoxes in military
leadership over varying levels of action (combat and professional work),
as well as on different organizational levels (the individual level, the team
level and the entire system).
The effort to maintain a paradoxical leadership frame and to constantly
maintain the hybrid tensions can, as noted above, hinder the ability to act,
make it more complicated and less clear, occasionally posing a burden for
commanders. At the same time, the adoption of the paradoxical approach
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 183

of military leadership is unavoidable in the current complex reality, and in

extreme situations in which commanders are responsible for human lives
and quality of life of broad civilian populations. The paradoxical approach
brings with it numerous advantages to leadership in a military context,
including the ability to meticulously review and question the action, the
ability to broaden the ability to think and adopt a broad range of possible
actions. The constant struggle and tension between the two different ele-
ments of the paradox allow for investigation rather than automatic, dog-
matic action, that is occasionally perceived as the typical action of military
leadership. This leadership complexity can generate more positive results in
a complex field of action that includes the assumption of tremendous
responsibility by military commanders.
The dimension of time and dynamic nature of the paradoxes over time is
a subject that requires discussion when trying to understand leadership in a
specific context (Shamir, 2011). The paradoxical approach and tension
between the various segments of the action simple versus complex, hier-
archical versus shared leadership, discipline versus flexibility, distance ver-
sus closeness can exist simultaneously but it is possible that over time, in
the short-term or long-term, there will be a volatile transition between one
dimension to the next. This movement over time can also facilitate concep-
tual flexibility and a higher level of adaptiveness and effectiveness of mili-
tary leadership.
Finally, the chapter above reveals that despite the clear and necessary
advantages of a paradoxical-hybrid leadership in the army, the ability to
experience, cope and lead in a manner that will always address the para-
doxes is complex and a burden for many commanders. In order to allow
commanders to lead in a dignified manner, which would allow room for
paradoxical thinking to exist, leadership training is critical as is commander
oversight in the field and spheres of action. The training and oversight that
support this manner of thinking will allow commanders to learn, gain
experience, and study its advantages and disadvantages, including develop-
ment of expertise in transitions between the ends of the paradox, as well as
simultaneous hold on to both ends. In addition to the command training
courses, messages conveyed by senior levels are highly important, as is
forming an organizational culture that respects, facilitates, and rewards
paradoxical leadership as the optimal mode of action. Without this type of
support, commanders and the system will always lean toward overlooking
the complexity and turning to clearer and simpler channels of leadership
that do not facilitate strong coping with the challenges currently being
faced by militaries worldwide.
184 RONIT KARK ET AL.

NOTES

1. Other organizations, such as the police or fire force, may have some character-
istics that are similar to the military while other that are distinct, suggesting that
some of our analysis may apply to other similar organizations as well.
2. The findings in this chapter are based on four different studies that were con-
ducted by two of the authors as a part of their work in the Research Division of the
IDF School for Leadership. In each study, between 15 and 25 in-depth interviews
were conducted.
3. This quote is excerpted from research by Yeger-Zelinger, Shahaf, and
DellaPergola (2011).

REFERENCES

ADRP Army Doctrine Publication 6-22. (August, 2012). CAC-LD&E- combined arms cen-
ter for leader development and education, CAL Center for Army Leadership.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2004). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organiza-
tional ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4),
697 717.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organiza-
tional ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4),
696 717.
Anisman-Razin, M., & Kark, R. (2012). The apple does not fall far from the tree: Steve jobss
leadership as simultaneously distant and close. In M. C. Bligh & R. Riggio (Eds.),
When near is far and far is near: Exploring distance in leader-follower relationship. San
Francisco, CA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Asido, N. (2013). The reduction of the commandership distance. Mirrors of Leadership, 4,
64 71. [Hebrew].
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Boyce, L., & Herd, A. (2003). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite
military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles, 49(7 8), 365 378.
Bruhl, J. (2012). Gardner-leaders: A new paradigm for developing adaptive, creative and hum-
ble leaders. Military Review, 92, 41 45.
Carson, J. B., Tessluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investi-
gation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
1217 1234.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal-attraction in exchange and communal relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12 24.
Cohen, R. (2009). The king, the prophet and leadership dilemmas in modern battlefield.
Mirrors of Leadership, 1, 16 20. [Hebrew].
Cojocar, W. (2011). Adaptive leadership in the military decision making process. Military
Review, 91, 23 28.
Coleman, S. J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95 120.
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 185

Dacin, M. T., Dacin, M. T., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and
future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203 1213.
Diefenbach, T., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2011). Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of
organization. Organization Studies, 32, 1515 1537.
Eagly, H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3 22.
Fischer, M. (2004). Recovering from violent conflict: Regeneration and (re-)integration as ele-
ments of peace building. In A. Austin, M. Fischer, & N. Ropers (Eds.), Transforming
ethno political conflict: The Berghof handbook (pp. 373 402).
FM 3-0 Operations. (2008, February). U.S. Army Report.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2011). Complexity arrangements for sustained
innovation: Lessons from 3M corporation. Organization Studies, 32, 737 767.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2009). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important
to combine opposing action strategies. Organization Science, 21(2), 593 608.
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN:
Bobbs-Merrill.
Halpin, M. (2011). Historical influences on the changing nature of leadership within the mili-
tary environment. Military Psychology, 23, 479 488.
Hazani, A. (2011). The connection between social processes and the operation doctrine of the
IDF. IDF Journal Marachot, 435, 18 25. [Hebrew].
Huppaz, K. (2009). Reworking bourdieus capital: Feminine and female capitals in the field of
paid caring work. Sociology, 43(1), 45 66.
Ingram, P., & Zou, X. (2008). Business friendships. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28,
167 184.
Janowitz, M. (1976). Military institutions and citizenship in western societies. Armed Forces
and Society, 2(2), 185 204.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kaplan, D. (2006). Public intimacy: Dynamics of seduction in male homosocial interactions.
Symbolic Interaction, 28(4), 571 595.
Kaplan, D. (2007). Folk models of dyadic male bonds in Israel culture. The Sociological
Quarterly, 48, 47 72.
Kaplinski, M. (2009). IDF before the war. Military and Strategy, 1(2), 19 28.
Karazi-Presler, T. (2011). Between long-lasting empowerment and consistent trauma: perceptions
of power of female military officers in Israel from the perspective of Time. Masters thesis,
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan [Hebrew].
Karazi-Presler, T. (2012). Other leadership required: Perceptions of leadership and influence
among male and female officers in an HQ military framework environment. Mirrors of
Leadership, 5, 38 60. [Hebrew].
Kark, R. (2011). Workplace intimacy in leader-follower relationships. In K. Cameron &
G. Spreitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (Vol. 32,
pp. 423 438). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kark, R., & Eagly, A. (2010). Gender and leadership: Negotiating the labyrinth. In
J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology.
New York, NY: Springer.
Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does valuing androgyny and femininity
lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role, transformational lea-
dership and identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 620 640.
186 RONIT KARK ET AL.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of

Management Review, 25, 760 776.
Lexicon of IDF terms, cluster c. (2006). Training and doctrine section, Operations Division,
IDF. [Hebrew].
Lindsay, D. R., Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2011). Shared leadership in the military: Reality,
possibility, or pipedream? Military Psychology, 23, 528 549.
Military Leadership and its development in the IDF. (2013). Training and Doctrine Section,
Operations Division, IDF. [Hebrew].
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Communal and exchange relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-
detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. The Academy
of Management Journal, 54, 740 760.
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks:
Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational.
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 216, 216 240.
Morath, R. A., Leonard, A. L., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2011). Military leadership: An overview and
introduction to special issue. Military Psychology, 23, 453 461.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional
approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of
Management, 36, 5 39.
Moskos, C. (2001). Towards a post-modern military? Democratic Culture, 5 4, 213 233. [Hebrew].
Padan, C., & Tubi, S. (2012). Jointness in the IDF. IDF Journal Marachot, 443, 18 26.
[Hebrew].
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of
shared leadership. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing
the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 1 18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Quinn, R., & Cameron, K. (1988). Paradox and transformation: A framework for viewing
organization and management. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and trans-
formation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 289 308).
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspec-
tive on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510 531.
Sasson-Levy, O. (2006). Identities in uniform: Masculinities and femininities in the Israeli
military. The Hebrew University Magnes Press and Eshkolot Library, Jerusalem.
[In Hebrew].
Scales, R. (2009). Clausewitz and world war IV. Military Psychology, 21, S-1.
Shachaf, K., Winshel, O., & Pizmony-Levy, O. (2010). The person who stands in the back, on
the side or in front is the leader?! Mirrors of leadership, 2, 12 28. [In Hebrew].
Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously in
leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 307 315.
Shamir-Doner, R. (2009). IDFs language in the space between simplicity and complexity. IDF
Journal Marachot, 423, 48 53. [Hebrew].
Shkedi, A. (2003). Words that attempt to touch. Qualitative research-theory and application.
Tel-Aviv: Ramot. [Hebrew].
Paradox and Challenges in Military Leadership 187

Silva, M. J. (2008). A new generation of women? How female ROTC cadets negotiate the
tension between masculine military culture and traditional femininity. Social Forces,
87(2), 937 960.
Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of
organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381 403.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision-making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic
paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592 1623.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. (2005). Senior teams and managing contradictions: On the
team dynamics of managing exploitation and exploration. Organizational Science,
16(5), 522 536.
Tubi, S. (2012). Leadership and complexity: Can they go together? Mirrors of Leadership, 5,
60 77. [Hebrew].
Tubi, S., & Gal, L. (2013). An analysis of leadership and its development in the Israeli army.
Internal Document, The School of Leadership Development [Hebrew].
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKlvley, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298 318.
Williams, T. (2003). Strategic leader readiness and competencies for asymmetric warfare.
Parameters, 33, 19 35.
Wisecarver, M., Schneider, R., Foldes, H., & Cullen, M. (2011). Knowledge, skills, and abilities
for military leader influence. Technical Report, U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Yeger-Zelinger, H., Shahaf, K., & DellaPergola, S. (2011). Watching from the stands:
Seniority phenomena in the eyes of senior veterans. Images of Leadership, 4, 72 85.
[Hebrew].
This article has been cited by:

1. Michelle C. BlighIntroduction: Exploring Compelling Contexts Through

Paradox, Tension, and New Approaches to Leadership 1-27. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF]
2. Claudia Peus, Susanne Braun, Birgit SchynsConclusion: Leadership Lessons from
Compelling Contexts 465-479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]