363 Bardera, M. P., García-Silgo, M. y Pastor, A. Stress management in the Armed Forces serving”. This, coupled with the disappointment that many citizens or subordinates feel regarding the actions of their leaders and the current backdrop of economic and social crisis, has led to the emergence of leadership models that, without departing from the core postulates of transformational leadership, entail the exemplary nature of a leader’s behaviour, as well as his or her morality and ethics, serving as a role model for followers. Such is the case for the ethical leadership proposed, for instance, by Brown, Trevino and Harrison in 2005, or the authentic leadership of Avolio et al. (2004). Furthermore, “apparently” long-forgotten leadership models have made a comeback, and despite their absence they are regaining prominence today. This is the case for shared leadership,28 in which the leadership function is assumed collectively by the group; as well as supportive leadership,29 which highlights leadership behaviour aimed at meeting the needs of subordinates and to provide the tools required to effectively carry out their work, a postulate that to a certain degree can be identified with the “individualised consideration” of transformational leadership. Despite the proven efficacy of these types of leadership as regards protection and reducing stress in the workplace, doubts remain as to whether these can be applied to rigid or excessively hierarchical organisational structures, which can be the case in the armed forces. If they are indeed implemented, there is uncertainty about whether they would provide the same level of protection against stress as in other organisations. Military leaders do not only task themselves with the protection and welfare of their soldiers. They also ensure that soldiers are prepared physically, technically and tactically, and this preparation must be commensurate with the characteristics of every single position held by their subordinates. Moreover, they must concern themselves with their own military training, as part of which they must marry their role as combatants, in tandem with responsibility for managing their staff, with all the vicissitudes that this may involve, such as family, economic or professional problems. They work in a changing context and have to adapt to and combine periods of training or instruction with deployment in operations areas for prolonged periods of time. The fact that military deployment is becoming increasingly more modernised is, to a certain extent, changing the traditional doctrine of “the art of warfare”, with ever-greater emphasis placed on high technology, alongside small combat units that are agile and extremely specialised. This obliges leaders to be ever more versatile and capable of applying their skills to a wide variety of contexts.30 Moreover, as Bass (1998) points out, the leaders 28 See: YUKL, Gary: Leadership in organizations, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall, 1998; PEARCE, Craig L. and CONGER, Jay A. (Eds): Shared Leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub, 2003. 29 RAFFERTY, Alannah E. and GRIFFIN, Mark A.: “Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, 2004. 30 BROWN, Robert and SIMS, Douglas: “Transforming in peace and war”, Military Review, May-June, 2005.
REVISTA IEEE 4
To see the actual publication please follow the link above