Are you in High School, College, Masters, Bachelors or Ph.D and need assistance with your research paper? All you need is to ask for essay help written by a specialist in your academic field. When you buy an essay from us, we offer you an original, nil plagiarized and unique paper written by a dedicated writer who is PhD or Masters qualified. MyEssayServices.com is an experienced service with over 9 years experience having delivered over 83,000 essays over the years.

Military Deployment and Marriage Success

　　　　
Research Proposition

The objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between military deployment and the effect it has on the significant other. Since 2001, deployment has been longer and more frequent than in the past. In addition, military marriages have been under high levels of stress following changes in the deployment trends. The level of danger, the amount of stress, and the lack of communication could all be crucial factors that affect the success of a marriage. Marriages are at higher risks of separation and divorce. Under these conditions, maintaining a successful marriage requires effort and hard work to keep the marriage working. Both effort and work done in maintaining these marriages are hard under these conditions of stress.

Marriages under stress face challenges in communicating than couples relatively free from stress (Karney, 2007). On the other hand, couples facing chronic difficulties such as financial strain are at higher risks of facing divorce as compared to couples under supportive environments. More so, challenging events affecting couples such as natural disasters and separation resulting from work conditions such as deployment of military are associated with the elevated rates of divorce among the affected couples. I will perform a systematic review of literature on the effect military deployment has on marriage to answer the following research questions.

Questions presented:

To what extent does deployment has a significant negative effect on marriage that can be linked to divorce?
Does stress play a significant factor or is even the cause for separation for a couple where one member is deployed?
If so, are there general stress factors?

Literature Review

Impact of Deployment to families

Almost all military members are married. This implies that they their responsibilities of looking after their family members. In United States, at least 1.86 million children have either both of their parents working as military officers. In United States, the average length of deployments is 12-15 months. Within the past few years, this trend has changed. More deployments are done, and the length of deployments has also changed.

As a result, more families are facing the effects of deployment. Different effects of deployments are clear from observation of trends taking place in military families. Deployment cause emotional changes of military families. During the deployment period, both military officers and families experience a sequence of emotional changes (Karney, 2007). Emotional changes that they experience results from a sequence of situational changes they go through. Emotional changes begin from notification of deployment to post deployment (officer’s return, resetting and getting back to pre-deployment).

Pre-deployment is the period between notifications of the deployment to deployment period. During this period, it not only brings a feeling of anticipation of loss but also denial to the leaving military officers. The officers face a change in the daily schedule as he is required to train for more hours ads he tries to have his family affairs in order. This leads to an increase in arguments within the family. This has an effect to the children. Many children demonstrate regressive behaviors due to the change in relationships between parents (Karney, 2007).

During deployment (after the military officer leaves), the family experiences mixed emotions of anger, relief, loneliness, feelings of overwhelm and as well sadness. These mixed feelings result from the transition of strain that family members were having while the military was preparing for the deployment and when he leaves. In severe cases, family members may have the feeling of neglect after the spouse leaves. It is during this period that family members have difficulties in sleeping (MacDermid, 2006).

After deployment (period after the military officer leaves), family members adjust to the officer’s absence and develops new routines and ways of living. As a result, family members feel more in control of the situation and less overwhelmed by the officer’s absence. Communication challenges, which result from unreliability and failure of emails and other communication media used makes communication with the deployed family member difficult.

Different reactions from family members arise. Children’s reactions such as refusal to eat may make them be enervated. This leads irritability and sadness within the family. In serious cases, arguments resulting from different reactions among family members may arise. This makes spouses and children remain to be in search of temporary happiness in order to deal with these emotional changes. Among teenagers (children), they engage in aggressive behaviors such as drugs. On the other hand, it may lead to activities aimed at creating temporary happiness among spouses. These activities are aimed at erasing memories of the deployed family members (MacDermid, 2006).

The main source of marital problems between family members if failure of communication. On the other hand, separation may play a role in contributing to the family issues after deployment. After surveying different Canadian military officers, Hiew found out that wives perceived a loss of social support after their spouses were deployed. More study on family trends after deployment shows that separation of spouses contributed to poor physical well-being of family members (Hiew, 1992). This is due to continuous worries on the security and as well frequent relocation of the military officer during the period of separation. According to researchers, they highlight that separation is the most important tool in determining the effects of deployment to families.

Separation, which results from deployment, is an indirect contributor towards divorce. Aspects such as spousal relations, financial and parenting support that arises from separation contributes to thoughts of divorce among many spouses. Studies of married Army members deployed overseas indicate that there is a decline in marital satisfaction during the deployment period. That is during the pre-deployment period, deployment period and post deployment period. Researchers indicate that marital instability is common during this period. Marital instability during the deployment period contributes to divorce of many families (MacDermid, 2006).

Survey shows that deployment occurs within a large context in early families. This implies that children mostly faced by deployment range from the age of 2-3 years. During this period, there is social mobility among children. Deployment leads to disruptions of normal routines within the family. This disruption affects children’s social association while at school and as well influences the spouse’s interrelationship with other people. This environment puts the spouse and the child at higher risks of mental ill health. This may contribute to desire of divorce as spouses search for suitable environments (Hall, 1985).

Stress from military deployment

Expectations and disappointments contribute to stress among family members. Challenges faced by the spouses during the separation period contribute to stress. Among many spouses, there are high cases of anticipation as the military officer is preparing for the deployment (Burrell, 2003). This may lead to continuous arguments among family members as they try to adjust to the leaving spouse.

During the transition period, spouses engage in different activities aiming at dealing with the absence of the family members. These activities aim at raising funds required to cater for their daily lives. During the preparation period, spouses have an expectation of spending, more time with the leaving military officer (MacDermid, 2006). However, their expectations may not be met. This is because the leaving military officer is required to train more.

As a result, he gets home while he is exhausted and requires time to rest from training. Researchers state that failure of meeting these expectations among many spouses leads to arguments among the family members (MacDermid, 2006). As a result, spouses end up having minimal expectations with each other. On the other hand, while the military officer returns from deployment, he gets home while he is exhausted (Gibbs, 2012). Therefore, the military officer requires a home setting that prompts a high adrenaline rush associated with a war theater.

Once this expectation is not met, the officer faces a challenge during the transition period. This makes the family members have a different way of carrying out their duties as a result changing the family setting (Karney, 2007).

On the other hand, there lie some stressors that the military officers face during the deployment period that affect their family life. Stressors such as pressure from their leaders and strenuous training, long working hours and lack of privacy during the deployment period are highlighted to influence the military’s attitude towards their spouses and responsibilities in the family. Witnessing injuries and deaths make military officers experience an intense trauma that contribute to stress and depression (Karney, 2007).

As a result, after the deployment period, they may demonstrate a change in their behavior and caring nature. As a result, spouses and children experience this change where some ends up opting for a divorce to save themselves from the non-caring nature of the spouse (Burrell, 2003).

Stress has an influence on the interrelationship that lies within a family. Families under stress are more prone to stress as compared to stable families. Stress arises from changes in roles, failure of meeting expectation and as well emotional changes experienced during the deployment period. Arguments within a family arise from feeling of insecurity and failure of family members. On the other hand, separation is another contributor towards marriage divorce (Gibbs, 2012).

　　　　References

Hall L, Williams CA, Greenberg RS. (1985). Supports, stressors, and depressive symptoms In mothers of young children. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 518-521.
Hiew, . C. (1992). Separated by their work: Families with fathers living apart.
Environment and Behavior, 24(2), 206-225.Hillenbrand, E. D. (1976). Father absence in military families. The Family Coordinator,25(4), 451-458.
Karney, B. R., & Crown, J. S. (2007). Families under stress: An assessment of data, Theory, and research on marriage and divorce in the military. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation
MacDermid, S. M. (2006). Multiple Transitions of Deployment and Reunion for Military Families. Purdue University
Burrell, L., Durand, D., & Fortado, J. (2003). Military community integration and its effect on well-being and retention. Armed Forces & Society
Gibbs, D. A., Clinton-Sherrod, A., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Interpersonal conflict and referrals to counseling among married Soldiers following return from deployment. Military Medicine, 177(10), 1178-1183.
Allen, E. S., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2011). On the home front: Stress for recently deployed army couples. Family Process, 50(2), 235-247.
Baptist, J., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Garrett, K., Nelson Goff, B., Collum, J., Gamble, P., & ... Wick, S. (2011). Military marriages: The aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) deployments. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 33(3), 199-214.

Authority Leadership Styles in the Military

Leadership and authority in a military context is an important aspect towards accomplishments of tasks. Similarly, leadership decisions made by the leaders is another vital determinant towards the survival of the military. The U.S. Navy has a high reliance on decisions from the leaders to the seamen (Berson, 2013). Conversely, the government and the leaders make a high investment on leadership development on their seamen. Apparently, according to the belief among the leaders, subordinates should have the authority and given responsibilities as leaders at the beginning of their careers as members of the Navy. More so, similar to other military groups in United States, the Navy requires its members to have a continuous growth of their leadership skills aiming at preparing them for their future careers as Navy leaders (Berson, 2013). Conversely, among the Navy branch of the United States’ military, leaders advocates development of their subordinates to future leaders (Hirbe, 2011). Consequently, there is high application of transformational leadership style focused on the development of leaders from the subordinates (Kennedy, 2012).

Application of leadership theories to the highlighted scenario

i. Contingency Theory

The theory states that a leader’s ability of leading a team has a dependence on the some situational factors such as a leader’s behavior. It suits the Navy leadership through its assumption that the performance of the military group relies on the interaction between the commanding leaders and the seamen (Hirbe, 2011).

ii. Situational Theory

According to the headship theory, leadership style applied in a team depends on the nature of the situation facing the team (Kennedy, 2012). Apparently, a leader may apply a dictatorship (directive) approach and as well a supportive approach. Apparently, in the scenario involving the Navy, in some cases, supervisors have several deadlines and tasks to accomplish. Conversely, in some situations they have a directive approach where seamen solely depend on orders from their supervisors in ensuring they accomplish their tasks (Berson, 2013).

In conclusion, the leadership theory that suitably explains the scenario is the situational theory (Kennedy, 2012). Due to the dynamicity of the Navy’s missions, situations often prompt leaders to adopt different approaches while leading their teams focused on accomplishing tasks on time. Thus, in some situations, there is the directive approach and as well supportive approach.

References

Berson, A. S., & Stieglitz, R. G. (2013). Leadership conversations: Challenging high-potential managers to become great leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hirbe, A. C. (2011). Contingency theory approach to the deployment of lean principles: The case of advanced research. S.l.: Proquest, Umi Dissertatio.
Kennedy, Kevin J. (2012). Devil in the Details: The Practice of Situational Leadership. Iuniverse Inc.

Military Leadership Styles Sample Essay & Outline

Abstract

Leadership is not about the leader's needs; it is about the needs of the people and the faction that one is leading. Leadership style is the manner and approach that is used in providing direction, implementing plans and motivating people. In order to provide good leadership, the leader must lead by example and communicate well with his or her team. When it comes down to followers, leadership style often includes both implicit and explicit actions performed by their leader. The military often relies heavily on a structured hierarchy of leadership in a bid to function optimally. Leadership is very important in any working environment but extraordinarily more important in the military. It involves influencing others to accomplish the mission by proving a purpose, motivation as well as direction. There have been several research experiments and studies that have tried to explore the best military leadership style in different situations. However, there has not been a definite style chosen. Therefore, it is of high importance to understand all the different military leadership styles used, in order to understand the effectiveness of each style in relation to the military. Hollywood movies often depicted military leadership to be an authoritarian style, which is not always the case. This paper is going to describe the various types of military leadership styles that exist and show their effectiveness.

Key words: Military leadership, authoritarian leadership, personal traits

Background Introduction

The power of leadership is used to direct the performance and morale of the soldiers, which is an important aspect in military culture. Research shows that soldiers in battle and under any condition follow a good leader. Military leadership is often built by developing experience, credibility and trust from the followers.

Historically, military leadership has been amongst the most ancient leadership forms. In fact, without military leadership, a group of soldiers might lead towards different solutions and, therefore, becoming confrontational and argumentative. There is a need to not only note but to also grasp the different leadership styles that exist in the military, in order to realize the most effective and efficient one. Many researchers (Renz, 2012) have often explored the link that exists between good leadership and unit performance. In particular, researchers have been able to examine good leadership prevents stress, minimizes stress as well as reduces adverse effects on the unit. Effective leaders often become flexible, to adjust properly their leadership styles as well as techniques for those people whom they lead without forgetting the demands that they face. Competent leaders often mix different elements of leaderships in order to match the different needs of the people involved.

This research paper intends to examine the different types of leadership in the military and which military leadership style is most effective. In particular, it intends to look at the authoritative leadership or autocratic leadership used in the military and whether or not this style is relevant in the military for across the board implementation (Laver & Matthews, 2008). Authoritarian leadership is often extremely rigid and strict. It often gives the stereotypical boss who gives order to the different subordinates. This leadership style has often been used in the military in training when the drill sergeants try to teach obedience as well as respect to new recruits (Okros, 2010).

Kurt Lewin, performed the first major study of military leadership style in the year 1939 and was able to identify several different styles of leadership. This study has remained influential, and it managed to establish three major military leadership styles. The first style is authoritarian, in this style, the leader often tells his or her employees exactly everything to do and how to go ahead and do it (Peterson, 2009). The leader in this case does not need to get the advice of the followers. The second style is participative or as it is commonly referred to as democratic. In this style, the leader often includes the followers in the decision-making process. However, the leader in many cases normally maintains the final straw in making the final decision (Laver & Matthews, 2008). The final leadership style is referred to as delegate or laissez-fair style. In this style of leadership, the leader often allows the followers to make independent decisions; however, the leader is responsible for all the decisions made.

Previous Research and development of the thesis statement

Previous research shows that good leaders may not be able to have control over some stressors such as uncomfortable living conditions when it comes to deployment (Peterson, 2009). However, the leader is able to do several things in order to help prevent stress within their particular units. In fact, the leaders can provide clear expectations for performance, punishments and rewards in order to ensure equal performance as well as allow certain soldiers to exercise judgment over how certain jobs are supposed to be done (Hallams, 2012). Research has shown that soldiers often experience stress during deployment as they expect unchallenging events. Research shows that when stress occurs, units that often perceive their leaders as being supportive often perform better (Hannah, 2011). Therefore, it can be seen that the minimizing of stress often depends on the leaders. Units that often view the job that they are performing as being insignificant, showed lower levels of hostility (this was as a result of increase stress) when their leaders were supportive of them (Laver & Matthews, 2008). However, in contrast, the units that performed similar jobs but saw their leaders as being unsupportive showed extremely high levels of hostility. Therefore, soldiers with supportive leadership often show less stress as compared to soldiers that have decreased supportive leadership.

According to research, the style of leadership that is most prevalent in the military is authoritarian (Peterson, 2009). This, therefore, means that the person that is in a position of power often autocratically uses his or her judgment in order to direct the different subordinates without input from other members (Matthews & Brown, 1989). The autocratic leaders often leave very little choice as well as flexibility in how the problem will be solved. This style according to research might sometimes be flawed (Peterson, 2009). However, because of the nature and culture of the military, the soldiers might not know what to do with choices, freedom and flexibility in the military (Hannah, 2011). Further, it is extremely important to understand that many people that exist in subordinate positions often disdain any ambiguity because of fear of failure or even disappointment. Some of the soldiers have argued that it is easiest and best if they are told what to do, when and how. In fact, sometimes, authoritarian leadership might be required in the military (Laver & Matthews, 2008). However, in situations where resources and time are scarce the authoritative leadership style can often stifle creativity as well as cause inadequate, premature decisions and flawed to be executed. The different leaderships required in the military help enhance it and also makes it more effective.

The leadership theory that will be covered in the final paper is the authoritative leadership theory. This theory has been a classical model of military style leadership that is probably most often use, but often in some cases it is not effective. This leadership theory rarely involves praise and frequently employs criticism. There are those that have argued that it undercuts job satisfaction and morale. The military is often in crisis and, therefore, is the main reason that this classical model of military style of leadership is used. The military often needs urgent turnaround and this is the reason as to why the modern military has come to recognize its usefulness (Laver & Matthews, 2008). The sub-topics that will be discussed under the final paper will include the importance of the authoritarian leadership style. Additionally, the research project will develop a critical analysis of the drawbacks faced while using the style in these environments. The paper will as well examine other existing military leadership styles such as democratic styles, and the Laissez-Faire/free reign leadership style.

Leading is not just getting followers from point A to point B; it also involves getting from a point A to point B while developing the followers on the way. In the military, there is a need to have the qualities of discipline and responsibility (Shamir, 2000). This paper examines the different types of military leadership theories that exist and in particular examines the authoritative leadership theory and its effectiveness. The final research paper will dwell on authoritative leadership and its effectiveness in the military will be measured. Further, the best leadership style will also be examined, and its potential implications on the military assessed.

The thesis of the final research project is, authoritarian leadership in military environments is the most effective leadership model in comparison with democratic and Laissez-Faire/free reign leadership styles.

Implication of the research to the society

Research on military leadership has a high significance in the modern society. Based on the strong attention paid on the performance of military agents when deployed to other regions to combat terrorist group, results from the study will provide answers to the underlying questions about the leadership styles used in military contexts.

Similarly, while evaluating the importance of authoritarian leadership over democratic styles, data reviewed will build the gap between theoretical results from other research carried out and real life application of the inferences developed.

Unlike other research projects relying on first hand data, the final project will review, other works carried out on military leadership. Application of secondary data in the research paper will mainly focus at helping the public and other researchers develop comprehensive relationships between the diversified results. The approach is crucial since it will mainly attribute to the differentiating aspects of military leadership in real life applications.

Normally, military leaders face challenges while implementing their philosophies during deployment periods. Despite the strong pros attached to the autocratic headship style, it as well presents some cons. While the project develops advantages of authoritarian leadership in military, it will as well highlight on the drawbacks of the headship style. Through the combined analysis (both pros and cons), the society will have the opportunities of critically understanding the factors fueling the decisions made by military leaders.

Advantages of authoritarian headship style in a military environment

Often, military operations are dynamic in nature. Strategic planning is a significant contributor towards success of military operations. Military operations require fast decisions. Similarly, as developed earlier, these environments rely on decisions made without making consultations. Aimed at fast accomplishment of tasks, military leaders need to have a fast decision-making attitude. While applying authoritarian style, they have massive opportunities of having fast and effective decisions thus facilitating their task accomplishment.
Military operations are stressful in nature. Therefore, leaders need to apply a leadership style that focuses on task performance. Additionally, they need to lessen the burden on the militants of making complex decisions. Through authoritative style, federal military agents have opportunities of increasing their skills while pursuing their tasks thereby benefiting the military troop.

Unlike other environments, military environments require high precision and fewer mistakes. Thus, troop members to have a common vision of accomplishing their tasks while deployed in different parts. Similarly, while combating terrorists, accuracy is essential as it may contribute to loss of innocent lives. Consequently, these situations require leaders who utilize autocratic leadership models.

Drawbacks of authoritarian leadership model

While autocratic leadership is beneficial, in some situations, it is problematic, not only to the leader but also to the military troop. Since leaders make decision without consulting troop members, they may face resistance from troop members. Additionally, in cases where leaders rely on autocratic leadership solely, they are at high risks of making poor decisions. They display lack of creativity thus, poor solutions to issues facing the military troop.

However, despite the drawbacks presented by the leadership model, its use in military environments is increasing. As displayed in the Hollywood movies, autocratic leadership require wise elements and high headship skills.

Annotated bibliography

1.Leonard Wong, P. B. (25 August 2003). Military leadership: A context specific review. The Leadership Quarterly 14, 657 – 692.
The article by Leonard is relevant in the final report since it offers a variety of reviewed articles on military leadership. While focused on the leadership model used in military situations, the authors demonstrate the role-played the military leader and how they manage tasks fueling accomplishment of their missions. Military leadership demonstrate high levels of strategic planning. Through the comprehensive demonstrations of the substantial changes in strategic leadership made in the article, it increases its credibility in the final project. The source is relevant while evaluating autocratic and strategic leadership.

2.Paul T. Bartone, S. A. (March 2009). Big five personality factors, hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 498-521.

Often, autocratic leadership require strong leadership traits. Additionally, while pursuing a mission, leaders face influences from a variety of psychological factors. These factors as well influence the performance of the US military (Bartone, March 2009). The source is relevant in the final project as it evaluates the level of intellectual abilities required for an autocratic leader. Seemingly, it increases its credibility when it evaluates the relationship between leadership effectiveness and personal traits (Bartone, March 2009).

3.Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leadership in the Profession of Arms.

Autocratic leadership model applied in military environments experiences both positive and negative impacts from influences encountered during its implementation. As develop by the author in the article, these factors influence the overall performance of the troop gauged on the mission (Hannah, 2011). The article is a credible source for the final report as it contributes to the comprehensive evaluation of factors influencing authoritarian leadership (Hannah, 2011).

4.Okros, D. A. (November 2010). Leadership In The Canadian Military Context. Cfli Monograph 2010-01.

The objective of the final research project is to evaluate authoritarian headship applied in different military troops. In the article, the author demonstrates Canadian Force scenario where he highlights the issues faced by Canadians’ military officers (Okros, November 2010). In his research, he demonstrates different leadership models out of which he selects authoritarian style as the most ideal model for military troops. The source is credible for the final research project as gives a vivid understanding of theories and models applied in military headship. Its credibility boosts when the author develops a performance evaluation-demonstrating authoritarian as the ideal model of leadership in military environments (Okros, November 2010).

5.Sean T. Hannah, B. J. (2013). Relationships between Authentic Leadership, Moral Courage, Ethical and Pro-social Behaviors.

Sean et all has their article evaluating leadership models based on their environments. In their work, they analyze important personal attributes that gear the overall performance of a leader. The article demonstrates moral courage as a core trait in leaders that contribute to the overall performance of authoritarian headship (Hannah, 2013). The source is relevant to the research project as it has an all-inclusive attitude while developing the relationship between personal traits and leadership models applied in different environments. Precisely, it is a credible source for the final project as it highlights the role played by an autocratic leader in sustaining the overall performance of a military troop (Hannah, 2013).

Reference

Aronson, E. (December 01, 2001). Integrating Leadership Styles and Ethical Perspectives. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L'administration, 18, 4, 244-256.
Sean T. Hannah, B. J. (2013). Relationships between Authentic Leadership, Moral Courage, Ethical and Pro-social Behaviors
Bartone, P. (March 2009). Big five personality factors, hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance. Leadership & Organization Development. 30, 6, 498-521.
Brigadier Nick Jans, O. (2012). Leadership in a time of disaster – a short paper on a profound experience. Centre for Defence Leadership & Ethics, Australian Defence College.
Hallams, E., & Schreer, B. (January 01, 2012). Towards a "post-American" alliance? NATO burden-sharing after Libya. International Affairs, 88, 2.
Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leadership in the Profession of Arms.
Hannah, S. & Sowden, W.J. (2012). Leadership in the Profession of Arms. In Michael Rumsey (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Leadership, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hannah, S., Avolio, B. J. (2011). The relationships between authentic leadership, moral, courage, ethical and pro-social behaviors, Business Ethics Quarterly 21 (4), 555-578.
Kreiser, C. M. (January 01, 2012). Fiasco at Fredericksburg: Lincoln changed horses in 1862: would the Union army finally change course? America's Civil War, 25, 5, 54-57.
Laver, H. & Matthews, J. (2008). The art of command: Military leadership from George Washington to Colin Powell. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
Matthews, L. J., Brown, D. E., & Institute of Land Warfare (Association of the United States Army). (1989). The Challenge of military leadership. Washington: Pergamon-Brassey's International Defense Publishers.
Okros, D. A. (November 2010). Leadership In The Canadian Military Context. Cfli Monograph 2010-01.
Omorogbe, E. Y. (January 01, 2012). The African Union, responsibility to protect and the Libyan crisis. Netherlands International Law Review, 59, 2, 141-163.
Peterson, J.B. (2009) Military leadership: In pursuit of excellence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Renz, B., & Thornton, R. (January 01, 2012). Russian military modernization: Cause, course, and consequences. Problems of Post-Communism, 59, 1, 44-53.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Brainin, E., & Popper, M. (March 01, 2000). Leadership and Social Identification in Military Units: Direct and Indirect Relationships¹. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 3, 612-640.
Stern, E. K., & Saathoff, G. (January 01, 2012). Crisis leadership and military community resilience. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management.
Trexler, E. C. (January 01, 2012). Changing hands, Fairfax Court House. Fare Facs Gazette : the Newsletter of Historic Fairfax City, Inc, 9, 3.
Uhm, P. J. M. ., & Schoenmaker, B. (January 01, 2012). Military Leadership in a Changing World. The Oxford Handbook of War, 332-345.
Ulmer, J. W. (March 07, 2005). In Focus/Leadership Styles: Comparing Military and Business Leaders. Leadership in Action, 25, 1, 18-19.
Wong, L., Bliese, P., & McGurk, D. (25 August 2003). Military leadership: A context specific review. The Leadership Quarterly 14, 657 – 692.
Leonard Wong, P. B. (25 August 2003). Military leadership: A context specific review. The Leadership Quarterly 14, 657 – 692.
Paul T. Bartone, S. A. (March 2009). Big five personality factors, hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 498-521.