saf-ntu military leadership term paper

NTU Matriculation no: N1200882F

SF0002 Term assignment dated: 28-07-13 1

SF0002 MILITARY LEADERSHIP TERM ASSIGNMENT

Task 1 (40%). Two significant insights: one each from lesson 1-4 and lesson 7-10

1. My very first insight came to me in a Lesson 1 paper entitled The Strategic

Corporal: Leadership in the Three Block War1, by Gen. Charles Krulak. The

Strategic Corporal struck me as amusing because in the SAF, corporals and “men”

are defined as just the opposite. To be “in man-mode” was to NOT be strategic,

lead or even think much. However in this day and age, many of these stereotypes

need to be changed. People of all ranks ought to be prepared to lead, think on their

feet, and make split-second decisions. On hindsight, these are probably the

considerations behind the phrase, “Every Soldier a Leader”.

2. I felt burdened to write on this as I had just finished my Vacation Attachment with

the Air Force Medical Services. There, I observed a phenomenon that I am sure

doesn’t only occur in the Aeromedical Centre. NSFs were treated very much like

aliens, continually looked upon with trained wariness and disdain. The reason why

many acted like men was simply because they were treated like men in the first

place. I was very troubled with this for a while, wondering if this was the standard,

until now. I intend to take this as personal doctrine because it strikes a deep chord

within me. No NSF should ever be made to feel that his years are being wasted by

the SAF. They matter, even though they are only in the force for a short while, and

I find that this has helped me to shape my leadership style. I realized that it is the

duty of an officer to make them feel valued, though it is much easier to think and

act otherwise. I am encouraged by the readings to not simply take the easy way

out, but to empower and help each individual to uncover the leader within. Positive

values and competencies can also be inculcated in the men. I believe that only



when SAF officers adopt this vision, can we proudly claim the ideal, Every Soldier

a Leader.

3. My second insight came to me from Chapter 8 of the Military Leadership textbook.

Kozlowski was quoted to have argued that “performance goals inhibited learning

and must be separated from learning goals”2. This intrigued me because the SAF

is full of performance goals such as ISO standards, IPPT timings, and Key

Performance Indicators (KPI). I have personnel telling me that in the SAF, “you can

do whatever you want as long as you get the job done”. Admittedly, it is hard to

grade and rank the processes, the learning, and the training without considering

the outcome as the elements involved are intangible and unmeasurable. However,

I realized we have a higher calling: to improve the organization and not just meet

expectations. After all, to paraphrase CPT Ng Zhiwen’s words, it might just have

been luck if these are met.

4. By definition leadership can be said to involve influence and change. These are

verbs, which mean they convey actions and processes. In retrospect, many of the

models studied also emphasize the process, such as the Input-Process-Outcome

model. I realized that I had been focusing too much on the results, which is not

surprising in our meritocratic and competitive culture. However, results are not

always representative of what teams actually need to accomplish in today’s

dynamic environments. The process of forming these teams is key, such that they

can be independent, adaptable, situationally-aware, and coherent as a team. In

this case, we can conclude that the journey is indeed the destination.

Task 2 (30%): My Potential as a Military Leader

1. Based on the personality test, I have ascertained that my level of agreeableness is

slightly high and that my levels of extraversion and conscientiousness are



slightly low. The latter two factors predict a slightly low potential for leadership

emergence while studies have shown no correlation between emergence and

agreeableness. Leadership effectiveness on the other hand can be predicted by

all three factors as they have equally positive correlation coefficients. As

agreeableness predicts slightly high while the other two predict slightly low

effectiveness, the overall prediction tends towards a slightly low potential for

effectiveness as well. The reason why I analyse these three factors together

however, is that they are either slightly high or slightly low which, like in the case

of extraversion where I scored 31 when the “normal” range is 32-33, means that

they can actually be deemed inconclusive and statistically insignificant.

2. On the contrary the remaining two factors, neuroticism and openness to

experience, are very high and high respectively. Based on known meta-analytic

relationships, the neuroticism factor predicts that my potential for leadership

emergence and effectiveness is very low, while the openness factor predicts the

opposite. Based on all the five factors mentioned above, I am less likely than others

to be an emergent or effective leader as they more or less compensate for each

other and average out. There isn’t any obvious or significant indicator as to how

my personality may affect my leadership.

3. With this, I realise that I must focus more on my motivation, experiences, self-

efficacy, values and competencies. Many other intangible factors also affect

leadership potential such as cognitive ability, as presented in Chan & Drasgow’s

Theory of Leader Development3. I will therefore need to bank on these personal

resources in order to boost my performance as a leader in spite of my “average”

personality. One way I can do that is to take up more leadership roles as these can



provide knowledge, skills and on-the-job experience. I will now briefly discuss my

self-assessment of competencies and skills based on Yukl’s TRC model2.

4. Upon review, I suddenly realized that 5 out of 6 of the TRC behaviours that I

demonstrate the most have to do with communication, whether be it task-oriented

like workflow coordination and the explaining of expectations, relations-oriented

like acknowledgement and support, or change-oriented like external negotiations.

5. On the other hand, for the behaviours that I least demonstrate, the underlying trend

is that of a dislike for being inflexible and tied-down. For example, I seldom plan in

detail as I prefer looking at the bigger picture and not prematurely tie things down.

As ascertained earlier, I am also not conscientious. Under task-oriented

behaviours, I also rarely delineate roles. As above, I hate being rigid as to who

does what, though I will make sure everyone has a general understanding of their

roles. Lastly, I also admit a love for micromanaging and a belief that if I want

something done well, I ought to do it myself. This makes me practice inadequate

consulting, opportunity-providing and confidence-expressing. These are areas for

improvement as I learn to focus more on empowering people.

Task 3 (30%): What leadership means to me & my purpose as a leader in the SAF

1. Leadership’s significance to me has not wavered or changed. I still believe that this

is what I have been called to do, and I still view it with all the pride I have. This

course has however, changed the way I consider and appreciate leadership, and

the ways in which I intend to adopt, practice, and demonstrate it.

2. For example, in the very first lesson we were introduced to the Fundamental

Attribution Error, of which I realized I was guilty of. Unknowingly, I had defined good

leaders as those who pulled through against the odds, these stories so reverently

romanticized through books and movies. This can be seen through my pre-course



statement where I placed a lot of emphasis on the leader achieving mission

success “in spite of its circumstances, its environments, and its context”.

Personally, this is a crucial learning point as I tend to spend considerable time and

effort analysing myself, attributing performance largely to my own actions. I had

sorely underestimated the significance of the context and other factors.

3. My definition of leadership as mentioned in my pre-course statement has also

remained unchanged. However, before the course if one was to bring up “military

leadership”, I would immediately consider great muscular men on horses. This

actually prompted me to exercise more often after signing on because I believed it

was my onus to conform to the stereotypical traditional army officer. Since

secondary school, I was also aware that I was more of a leader from the side or

from the back, preferring to influence people from amongst the people. This was a

bit of a worry for me as I thought I had to change my style to be one that led from

the front. However, after the course and after reading several of the supplementary

readings, especially Reassessing Army Leadership in the 21st Century4 by Major

Jason Pape, such pre-existing notions of leadership, and of leaders in the SAF

changed. Anyone had the ability to influence and lead, regardless of appearance,

role, or command position.

4. These are just some of the more significant changes in my approach to leadership.

I appreciate the course for broadening my view on these issues that are especially

pertinent to us people in command. Leadership might take an entire lifetime to learn

and perfect, but I will no longer be so easily caught guilty for not looking at the

bigger picture. Leadership styles may vary, but the very crux of it all remains

unchanged: to influence people around us towards mission success for the

betterment of our profession, the society, and our country.



References/Endnotes

1. Krulak, C. C. United States Marine Corps, MarineLINK. (1999). The strategic

corporal: Leadership in the three block war

2. Chan, K., Soh, S., & Ramaya, R. (2011). Military Leadership in the 21st Century.

(1 ed.). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia.

3. Chan, K., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and

leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 481-498.

4. Pape, J. M. United States Army, Military Review (2009). Reassessing army

leadership in the 21st century


SF0002 Term assignment dated: XX-XX-XX Appendix 1

Appendix 1 SUMMARY OF MY TWO SIGNIFICANT INSIGHTS FROM SF0002 Instruction: This template is to be completed and included as “Appendix 1” to your main paper. You are to indicate a statement of each of two “insights” and the primary SF0002 lesson in which this insight was gained or related-to.

Insight Statement of “Insight” in 1 sentence* [Suggest: Complete this statement “For me, a significant insight from SF0002 is/was…”]

SF0002 Lesson [this insight was related to Lesson # entitled ______]

#1 {from lessons 1 to 4}

For me, a significant insight was seeing so much emphasis on the duty of the officer to help create leaders in their men, empowering them even though they were NSFs with a limited service time.

Lesson _1_ entitled: Military Leadership – Past, Present and Future

#2 {from lessons 7 to 10}

For me, a significant insight is that performance goals were claimed to inhibit learning and must therefore be separated from mastery learning goals.

Lesson _8_ entitled: Leading Military Teams for Adaptive Performance in Complex Environments

* Note: An insight may be as simple as a new “idea” or “concept” or “way of thinking about an issue”, or even an “issue” or a “phenomenon”. Please elaborate on each of the two insights in your written term assignment. The elaboration (in the main assignment) should explain the “insight” or “new learning or realization” clearly and why it is/was significant for you in a personal or specific way (e.g., why this “new idea or learning” may affect your leadership).


Appendix 2

Appendix 2 FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF MY SELF ASSESSMENTS Instruction: This template is to be completed and included as “Appendix 2” to your written main paper. Please consolidate your scores from the measures administered and summarise the meaning or interpretation of the scores below. With this summary, you are to answer Task 2 which requires you to describe your “leadership potential” in terms of the ideas of leadership emergence versus effectiveness. Big Five Personality Factors

Factor Test

Score

Interpretation

Vs. Norms (e.g., “High” or “Low”

Implications (from SF0002 Test Interpretation Guide)

Extraversion 31

Slightly Low My potential for leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness is

slightly low based on the factor of extraversion. As this is most significant factor with the highest correlations, this is the most compelling result from the assessment.

Neuroticism 22 Very Low My potential for leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness is

very low based on the factor of neuroticism/emotional stability.

Conscientiousness 36

Slightly Low

My potential for leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness is slightly low based on the factor of conscientiousness. As this is the second most

significant factor, with a similar level of correlation to leadership emergence as extraversion, it is also rather important, though it has the least correlation to leadership

effectiveness.

Openness 39 High My potential for leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness is

high based on the factor of openness to experience.

Agreeableness 38 Slightly High My potential for leadership emergence and leadership effectiveness is

slightly high based on the factor of agreeableness.


Appendix 2

Self-assessment of Task-Relations-Change behaviours (based on Yukl, 1999)

TRC Factor or Dimension

Which (2-3) behaviours do you demonstrate most for each TRC factor or behavioural dimension?

Which (2-3) specific behaviours do you least demonstrate for each of the TRC factors?

Task 1. Clearly explaining to all what results are expected for a task/project

2. Determining how to organize and coordinate work activities to avoid delays, duplication of effort, and wasted resources

1. Planning in detail how to accomplish tasks/projects 2. Providing a clear explanation of every member’s

responsibilities with regard to a task or project

Relations 1. Providing encouragement and support when faced with a difficult or stressful task

2. Giving others credit for helpful ideas and suggestions

1. Providing opportunities to develop others’ skills and to let them show what they can do

2. Express confidence in others’ ability to carry out a difficult task

Change 1. Negotiating persuasively with people outside the work unit to get agreements or approvals necessary to implement a major change

2. Proposing new and creative ideas for improving products, services, or processes

1. Describing a clear and appealing vision of what the team, unit, or organization can accomplish or become

2. Studying the products and activities of competitors to get ideas for improving things within my organizational unit/team


Appendix 3

Appendix 3

PRE- COURSE STATEMENT “WHAT MILITARY LEADERSHIP MEANS TO ME” Instruction: This form is to be completed prior to the start of SF0002, and is to be included as “Appendix 3” to your main paper. It should be used as a basis for you to answer Task 3, after having attended SF0002.

“What Military Leadership Means to Me”

1. I have already started reading through the course textbook, so my

answer may be a little biased and skewed. Before signing on, I took such

intangible and fuzzy ideals and ideologies with a pinch of salt, and didn’t

exactly take them to heart. “Purpose”? “Leadership”? Meh, I thought I

didn’t have time for such abstract and generalized principles. It was not

until recently that I really started considering these things and how they

mattered and applied to the profession I’ve dedicated my life to.

2. To me, leadership is the ability to command and supervise subordinates

and followers to complete a task or an objective. This is mostly done by

influence, as a person to look up to and follow, affecting their personal

values and beliefs. Leadership brings with it a lot of responsibility as

leaders are in charge of their men’s values, aspirations, ideals, visions

and goals as a team, working together to achieve a common desired

outcome. Without leadership, no organization, public or privatized,

governmental or non-governmental, military or non-military, will be able

to effectively and sufficiently respond to challenges and problems in order

to meet targets.

3. Being an officer requires us to lead, excel and overcome, the first of all

being to lead. To me, it is the cornerstone of this profession. It is what I


Appendix 3

have been called to do, and I view it with all the pride I have. It matters a

great deal to me, and I honour and respect the responsibility it brings with

it. In this day and age where change is the only constant, where even the

manpower and personnel change on a regular basis, leadership is a

fundamental asset utilized to help spearhead and direct these changes

occurring. It has to be harnessed to help propel the organization as a

whole in a strategic and sustainable way in order to more easily achieve

our primary mission of deterrence. This is the purpose of every military

leader in the SAF, the ideal to which many feel personally called upon to

help achieve.

4. Such issues of change and instability are faced by many, if not all military

institutions and organizations today. However, one of the key differences

that separates the Singapore Armed Forces from the rest is her

dependence on force multipliers. Singapore has very little land resources

as compared to her geographical neighbours, and also has one the

smallest populations. It is therefore no surprise that her armed forces are

also relatively small. In order to deter and if that fails, to obtain a swift and

decisive victory, Singapore will therefore have to rely a lot on its

technological advantages and capabilities that can help to maximize our

tactical advantages. Singapore will also have to rely a lot on her

manpower, particularly her leaders, not only those placed in roles of

command and control, but also the leader on the ground, or what some

literature has taken to calling, the “Strategic Corporal”. This aligns with

the institution’s conviction of Every Soldier A Leader. These reasons are

why the SAF places such a huge focus on leadership, creating a Centre


Appendix 3

for Leadership Development, and selecting regulars, officers and NCOs

based on leadership tests such as the SIT Test in BMT.

5. Military leadership means a lot to me as a regular, and to my adopted

institution as well. I believe we have a higher calling that we must respond

to for our men’s sake and for our country’s sovereignty. Leadership is a

core value that attempts to excel in spite of its circumstances, its

environments, and its context, by inspiring and influencing people around

towards a common goal in order to achieve mission success.

saf-ntu military leadership term paper

Documents