Military Review English Edition September-October 2014 | Page 94

In a different example, the period of transition at
the conclusion of the Vietnam War was more complex
because of the suddenly increased pace of technological change due to the advent of computers, military
culture shock due to a transition from a draft army to
the all-volunteer Army, and pervasive negative views of
the armed forces in general held by many in the civilian
society. Though the domestic environment and internal
military culture are very different than today, studies
on leadership from the Vietnam era nevertheless remain pertinent to the discussion of the ongoing changes
in the current Army.
Sociologist Dr. Morris Janowitz conducted extensive studies of the military before and during the
Vietnam War and published several books on the
military in transition. His analysis and findings are as
relevant today as when first published.
One of his works, titled The Professional Soldier,
presented a timeless characterization of the military
professional. Janowitz conducted his research amid
concerns that the rapid advancement of technology,
to include the introduction of nuclear weapons during
World War II, would deplete what Janowitz categorized as the “fighter spirit.” Admitting that this spirit
was difficult to define, he offered that “it is based on
a psychological motive, which drives a man to seek
success in combat, regardless of his personal safety.”12
This definition reflects the intent of the Army’s current
formulation of its warrior ethos.
Janowitz studied the warrior (fighter) spirit in
combat and concluded that “under these conditions
[combat] authority is based less on formal rank and
legal authority and more on personal leadership and
the ability to create primary group solidarity and small
unit effectiveness.”13 His studies also concluded that different leadership characteristics exist, and that increasing technology would transform military leadership
toward management and away from the heroic, inspirational leader that united units in combat.14 Of special
note, he observed that the application of managerial
leadership, necessary to deal with rapid technological
change, threatened to decrease the warrior spirit and
carry the Army away from the values that historically
had won the nation’s wars.
Comparing leadership styles, he observes that a
positive characteristic associated with managerial
leaders, besides a facility for effectively introducing
92

technological change, is the ability to innovate common
practices to increase effectiveness and efficiency.
In contrast, “the heroic leader is a perpetuation of
the warrior type, the mounted officer who embodies
the martial spirit and the theme of personal valor.”15
The downside to heroic leadership, according to
Janowitz, is a reliance on traditionalism that forges
ahead in face of the enemy without embracing technological innovation.
The truth of the matter is that the Army needs both
kinds of leaders to succeed. The reemergence of the
warrior spirit in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have
occurred without the presence of heroic leadership,
but the presence of military managers maintained the
fighting force by forcing technological change that ultimately decreased stress on the soldier.
From the improvement of basic Army system processes, through networked communications to the introduction of vehicles that better survive an explosive
blast, the managerial leader enables the heroic leader
the opportunity to better lead soldiers in direct combat with the enemy. Not only does the Army require
both kinds of leaders, but the leaders who can exercise
both managerial and heroic leadership have the capacity to maintain the warrior spirit at the conclusion of
combat operations.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Walter F. Ulmer Jr. 6