MILITARY SYMBOLS
Student Name
School Affiliation
Course
Date
MILITARY SYMBOLS
The aspects of military status portray numerous outcomes, but influence advances the most fundamental necessities. Depicting the weapons of influence, authority depicts the viable strategy in military symbols. The analogy annotates that commands from a recognized military rank afford soldiers and stakeholders a valuable option to determine the course of action in a dire or security situation requiring approval or refusal (Caldini,2011, pg.4). Furthermore, the concept advance that consumers ought not to be blackmailed into purchasing commodities or returning favors. Also, compliance with authority is rewarding in military setting.
Military platoons organize around the status chain of command. Military ranks and status depict the overall individual reactions to commands and dictates the degree of influence the militias enjoy. Earning influence due to individual status and alignment to the powers increases the influence that an individual portrays. However, the strategies fail to illustrate consciousness, thus vitals for military leaders to be aware of their potential to shun prejudices of their capabilities to be associated with the entire force (Shulstad, 2009, pg. 15). Individual strengths are not the platoon’s strengths.
Power is coined to individual status and is characterized by influence. In contrast, assuming power does not always lead to earning respects from the followers (Lucas & Baxter, 2012, pg.20). For instance, there are individuals who are respected but do not hold positions of power, still there are leaders in powerful positions but are not always admired by their subjects. The disparities are due to individual conducts, behavior and executions of their mandates.
Military officers and organizations ought to consider the symbol of tolerance in leadership styles to ascertain and illuminate the necessities of the gradual changes in modern times. Allowing a degree of inferior ranks suggestion is among the significant decisions in realizing effective and amicable solutions to resolve disputes and concerns and attain an effective chain of command (Reeds, 2004, pg.9). The military profession demands absolute discipline, responsibility and accountability due to the delicate security and impacts it extends in the case of incapable leaders.
Bibliography
George E. Reed, “Toxic Leadership,” Military Review 84, no. 4 (July–August 2004): pg.5-10file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Reed_Toxic_Leadership_Unit_Climate_and_Organizational_Effectiveness_2014_._Read_p_3-10.pdf
Dr. Raymond A. Shulstad, Brigadier General, USAF, Retired, “Perspectives on Leadership and Management, “Air and Space Power Journal 23, no. 2 (Summer 2009): 11–18, http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/sum09/sum09.pdf
Jeffrey W Lucas & Amy Baxter. Power, Influence, and Diversity in Organizations. (December, 2012). pg.12-20. file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Lucas_Power_Influence_and_Diversity_in_Organizations_2012_._Read_p12-28.pdf
Robert B. Cialdini, How to Persuade People to Your Point of View. Influence the Psychology of Persuasion. 2011. Pg. 1-6 file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/Cialdini_Influence_The_Psychology_of_Persuasion-Getting_to_Yes_How_to_2011_._Read_p_1-6.pdf
