Military Review English Edition November December 2016 | Page 70

Conceptions of
Leadership

U.S. and African Models
Maj. John D. McRae II, U.S. Army National Guard

C

ultural understanding is a prerequisite for
effective interoperability, the gold standard to
which the U.S. military aspires as it operates
alongside partner militaries. Unfortunately, our history
reveals numerous instances where this standard was
neglected, usually leading to frustration, lack of progress,
and incomplete objectives. In Africa, a continent with
over two thousand languages and three thousand ethnic
groups, the cultural differences between the U.S. military
and our African military partners can be particularly
pronounced, resulting in insufficient plans to address
U.S. and partner needs.1 For bilateral and multilateral
events developed by the U.S. military, we must take into
consideration our partners’ specific conceptions of leadership and their force
Maj. John D. McRae II,
capabilities if the events
U.S. Army National
are to be truly feasible,
Guard, is assigned
acceptable, and suitable
to U.S. Army Africa
for the participants.
Command in Vicenza,
An academItaly, where he manages
ic research prothe National Guard’s
gram known as the
State Partnership
Global Leadership
Program. He holds masand Organizational
ter’s degrees in internaBehavior Effectiveness
tional relations from the
(GLOBE) program
University of Oklahoma,
created a model that
in management from
is employed by ethnoWebster University,
graphic researchers to
and in national security
study how leadership
and strategic studies
and cultural domains
from the U.S. Naval War
intersect across numerCollege. He is a foundous distinct dimensions.
ing member of the
Researchers using this
Military Writers Guild.
model consider nine
68

factors in their analysis: uncertainty avoidance, power
distance, societal collectivism, in-group collectivism,
gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation,
performance orientation, and humane orientation.2
This research model provides significant insight into
why certain cultures conceive of leadership differently.
For example, some cultures place a high value on “learning from mistakes,” whereas others have a much more
punitive mind-set with respect to errors.3 Other cultures
place a high value on the immediate, whereas others
consider a leader’s near-term emphasis to be rash and
impetuous. It is important to note these differences are
more than just stylistic. Accounting for a partner nation’s
cultural outlook is fundamental to constructing effective
theater security cooperation activities. To that end, some
broad cultural leadership attributes should be accounted
for based on existing research.

Leader Styles
One important dimension of GLOBE research is centered on the prevailing leader styles in different cultures.
Culled from a list of twenty-one leader attributes, the six
leader styles include
charismatic/value-based style,
team-oriented style,
participative style,
humane style,
self-protective style, and

•
•
•
•
•

• autonomous style.

4

When initiating fresh partnerships, it is helpful to
conduct an initial comparison between the prevailing U.S.
style and that of our African partners. It becomes apparent almost immediately that our approaches can differ
widely. GLOBE research shows the charismatic style is
most valued in the United States, with self-protective
November-December 2016  MILITARY REVIEW