Empowering Leadership in the Military: Pros and Cons

Abstract

The military serves as a vital bridge between strategic goals and societal values. This study aims to comprehensively analyze the potential and limitations of Empowering Leadership (EL) in the armed forces. Considering the current post-pandemic context and the geopolitical shifts in a volatile, uncertain, fragile, and complex world, we look at how EL can boost adaptability. We started by addressing military organization structure and evolution, followed by the EL concept and its impact on organizational performance. We discussed its benefits, progress, and role in modern military environments. The analysis points out EL benefits, despite the challenges posed by the military’s strict hierarchy, which can limit EL’s effectiveness, but concluded that this style can be effective when aligned with Mission Command. We analyze EL’s nuances in military settings, presenting three propositions and stating their potential, challenges, and limitations. This study offers insights into leadership dynamics in the military, highlighting the delicate balance between empowerment and traditional structures.

1. Introduction

Armed Forces (AFs) are “Janus-faced” organizations and do not exist for themselves and by themselves, i.e., on the one hand, they need to respond to the current and evolving strategic context; on the other, they must contribute to broader social values [1]. Considering the current context, being post-pandemic and a second Cold War [2], properly using resources through leadership is essential. To address the organizational context changes from the past decades, companies and organizations have shifted power from the traditional top-to-the-base into empowered teams with responsibilities formerly attributed to managers and supervisors [3]. As such, strategy and goals aligned more with social values, emphasizing the need for leadership to drive organizational success and fostering a sense of purpose and community among personnel. What about military organization? Did the AFs adapt to these new environments? Is the hierarchical structure compatible with empowerment? Military retention remains a significant challenge, intensified by dissatisfaction with work conditions and being intensified by civilian opportunities [4,5,6,7]. Addressing these topics may require a shift in leadership styles within military organizations. While military leadership is rooted in unchanging, fundamental qualities such as competence and character, leadership styles have evolved to adapt to changing circumstances. Here, we will present the strengths and limitations of Empowering Leadership (EL) in the current context, proposing EL as a possible evolution leadership style in the AFs.

In the social context, one key pillar of modern democracies is the military institution, which is complex due to its size, structure, and operational environment. Contextual characterizations like VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) [8,9] and BANI (Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, Incomprehensible) [10,11] aim to bring “order” to “chaos”, transforming the current context into a “workable” scenario. These frameworks are crucial for understanding today’s operational environments’ the uncertain and nonlinear nature, emphasizing the need for adaptive leadership strategies to address the challenges posed by the context.

To “navigate” these scenarios efficiently and effectively, leadership is essential to guide complex organizations, such as the military, through tough times. Initially, leadership studies focused on personality attributes, followed by an emphasis on behavioral characteristics [11]. Later, contingency theories and virtuous models emerged, centered on either the leader–subordinate relationship or the relationship with stakeholders [12]. One possible relationship strategy to achieve both efficiency and effectiveness in organizations is through empowerment. Empowerment involves transferring power from the person who holds it to the person who receives it. Through EL, leaders share power with followers to enhance their self-reliance and autonomy, aligning with organizational goals. It promotes employee initiative, self-confidence, goal-setting, problem-solving, and personal development [3]. Manz and Sims [13] proposed an EL concept related to a leader’s behavior authority delegated to their employee, promoting autonomy and self-decision rather than being controlled by a manager. Given its specificities, applying EL to the AFs presents a challenging paradox. On one hand, EL can potentially enhance military effectiveness by fostering critical thinking, adaptability, and innovation.

On the other hand, the inherent need for a rigid hierarchical structure to maintain discipline and order in the military’s complex and dynamic operational environments raises significant questions. How can the military balance the empowerment of individuals with the stringent demands of hierarchy and control essential for operational success? This tension points out the need for a nuanced approach to leadership in the military context, and arguably, empowering already exists in the form of Mission Command (MC).

This article presents three propositions that aim to explain the pros and cons. First, we discuss how EL enhances adaptability within the AFs in VUCA–BANI environments. Second, we examine the significant challenges that EL faces due to the rigid hierarchical structure of military organizations. Finally, we discuss the limitations of the indiscriminate application of EL within the military, considering its cautious nature and operational environment, but conclude that it is doable and beneficial within the frame of MC. Through these propositions, we aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential and limitations of EL in the military context.

The literature search method was structured in five steps. In the first, we searched for “empower or empowering” and “leadership or leader” (EL) and “military” in titles in the Scopus, EBSCO, and b-on databases, without any limitation until 2023. Despite widespread searching, results returned no articles, indicating that this could be the first to address this topic. The second step was to search for “EL” and “literature review” in article titles, finding four, five, and four in the databases, respectively. Only one was retained after duplication removal, and a triage focused on EL as the main topic without being niche-specific [14]. The third step was to expand the search for EL-related articles with “empower or empowering” and “leadership or leader” (EL) and “military” in title, obtaining 854 in Scopus, 989 in EBSCO, and 878 in b-on initially. Since the literature review provided an EL overview until 2013, we refined the search to 2013–2023, and after duplication removal, 306 remained. In the fourth step, in order to refine these results, we requested a panel of military and public administration experts to validate and suggest search words. The expressions “Military”, “Police”, “Security forces”, “Public administration”, “Public service”, “Public management”, and “Public resources” were the most relevant. This targeted search returned 23, 19, and 15 results on previous databases, and after selecting and considering public services content relevance, 11 remained. The research team considered that the chosen process and articles provided a solid foundation of knowledge on EL and its application in relevant contexts, allowing it to proceed with the article’s structure. The articles referred to throughout the text were chosen due to the author’s prominence, recency, citation number, and relevance within the cross-referenced literature.

2. Foundations of Military Leadership and Organizational Context

2.1. The Military Organizational Landscape: Structure and Legislation

2.1.1. What Is the Military’s Role and Integration in a Democratic Society?

The military’s role in a democracy has been addressed since ancient Greece. Despite there being no standard model for integrating the AFs into a democratic society, several shared principles exist [15]. They include indispensable prerequisites such as a clear and legal constitutional framework; a role of parliament in legislation on defense and security matters; hierarchical responsibility to and from the military and civilian organs; well-trained and experienced military corps; and several others like Maj. Gen. Kujat alluded to in his speech [16]. As such, the specific role of every AF is particular but with commonalities under these principles, as well as the protection of fundamental human rights. Additionally, ensuring a balance of power is crucial. The power separation principle aims to prevent two potential dangers: politicians with military ambitions and military with political ambitions.

The AFs’ inclusion in democratic societies is defined by structural legislation and regulations, from national strategic policies leveling down to tactical ones. On a structural level, for instance, in Portugal’s case, the Constitution is the fundamental document where all constitutional rights and obligations are established. Based on that, National Defense Law establishes principles, objectives, structure, and competencies for all sovereign organs and AFs Organization Law. From a strategic perspective and zooming in, programmatic governance instruments guide what to do and how to do it. One of these critical documents is the National Defense Strategy Concept originating the Military Strategic Concept, followed by others until the appropriate structure and forces are aligned with national objectives and context.

Additionally, international frameworks such as the European Union’s Strategic Compass and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Strategic Concept significantly shape the military’s integration and functions within democratic societies. These documents recognize relevant changes and threats for the member countries, providing a cohesive strategy that aligns national military objectives with broader international goals [17,18].

2.1.2. What Is the Relationship Between Civilians and Militaries?

As Antúnez [19] argues, current military operations are essentially population-centric. They must be conducted in a way that influences the will and decisions of the main actors of the operational environment, conditioning them to make their behavior compatible with the mission’s objectives. The unstable and intricate characteristics of the constantly evolving operational environment demand the transformation of capabilities to adapt to the human environment. While a manager’s leadership in a corporate environment aims for profit maximization, the commander’s leadership in a military environment intends to accomplish a mission, mostly with social and political repercussions, implying (at least the possibility of) casualties [20]. What distinguishes a commander from a manager is the commander’s authority to use force and sacrifice others’ lives to fulfill vital objectives defined by national strategy, along with the responsibility to care for the well-being of subordinates and apply justice according to military discipline regulations [21].

Considering the Cold War period, the different postures between civilian and military societies were noteworthy. Institutional theory focused on military organization, but in 1957, Huntington developed a theory addressing civilian and military societies [22]. He argued that civilians could exercise control over the military through subjective control, where civil power over military affairs is maximized, or through objective control, minimizing military power. The latter was considered preferable, achieved through professionalization, a volunteer force, and granting autonomy to comply with the task [22]. However, civilian control over the militaries has two imperatives: the functional, do whatever is necessary to repel the threat, and the societal, in line with national values, institutions, and ideologies. The latter generates tensions between civilian and military strategies to address asymmetric and kinetic warfare because societal imperatives change faster than functional ones [23]. Although harmonization through subordination to civilian society diminishes tensions, it is necessary to consider the objectives and operational environment expected from the AFs.

2.1.3. How Is the Military Operational Environment?

Understanding the complexities of the military operational environment is vital for comprehending leadership dynamics within the AFs. According to military history, the environment became complex after the technological advance in the XVI century (fire weapons introduction), allowing a significant increase in armies and making command and control a complex leadership skill [24]. Nazri and Rudi [25] identified several contexts associated with the military operational environment, described as dangerous, hyperphysical, combat zone, critical, stressful, and other similar terms. Kacala [26] describes the operational environment as a set of conditions and factors affecting adequate capabilities and commander’s decisions, proposing three dimensions: physical, informational, and systemic. Considering the physical dimension as the domains of land, sea, air, and space, and the systemic one covered by the system and organizational theories, the informational dimension has three sub-dimensions: physical (different from the physical dimension), informational, and cognitive. Physical encompasses the infrastructures and equipment; informational refers to processes, content, and effects; and cognitive refers to personal factors and how information is perceived, the most critical sub-dimension. Furthermore, the social imperative, which aligns closely with civilian values, often encounters challenges in communicating with society about functional imperatives, especially those concerning military operations [27]. This disconnect can complicate the public’s understanding and support of military activities and decisions.

In examining the military operational environment, it is essential to consider theories such as Complex Systems Theory and the concept of Power Law Distribution [28,29]. Complex Systems Theory offers insights into understanding military organizations’ adaptive and self-organizing nature within complex environments. Surace [28] explored the application of Complex Systems Theory to military organizations, highlighting how leadership effectiveness is linked to adaptability and innovation. Moreover, the concept of Power Law Distribution indicates the system’s self-organization ability when facing disordered states, which is critical for understanding resource distribution and strategic decision-making within military contexts.

Furthermore, the unique characteristics of the military operational environment foster career ascension and specialization from a tactical to a strategic level. Unlike more relaxed civilian contexts, where career progression may follow different trajectories, military competencies are cultivated through rigorous education and training programs to enhance performance in any scenario [20]. This emphasis on skill development and specialization underscores the importance of understanding the complex dynamics of military organizations, as elucidated by theories such as Complex Systems Theory and Power Law Distribution.

Overall, the military operational environment is a multifaceted and dynamic arena that requires adaptability, innovation, and specialized skills to navigate effectively. Understanding its complexities is essential for developing effective leadership and achieving operational success.

2.2. Navigating the Contemporary Military Environment: Challenges and Perspectives

2.2.1. How Has the Geopolitical and Strategic Context Evolved?

Knowing the evolution of the geopolitical and strategic context is crucial for understanding the dynamics of leadership within the AFs. This evolution can be analyzed through various theoretical lenses, including Global Systems Theory and Complex Adaptive Systems. Global Systems Theory provides insights into the interconnectedness and interdependence of global geopolitical structures, emphasizing how changes in one part of the system can reverberate across the entire network. Similarly, Complex Adaptive Systems offer a framework for understanding the adaptive behavior of military organizations within the broader geopolitical landscape, highlighting their capacity to self-organize and respond to emerging threats and opportunities [30].

In 1994, Dandeker [1] considered that modern warfare military institutions could face uncertainty in new times, potentially supplanted by peaceful ways of industrialism. He provided insights into what challenges to face and what changes could happen. In advanced societies, soft power and economic competition would replace hard power due to the end of a bipolar conflict between two nuclear superpowers, and regional and ethnic conflicts would be the new focus through peace-making and peace-keeping missions. This shift aligns with Global Systems Theory, highlighting the importance of non-military factors, such as economic and political structures, in shaping global stability and conflict. Several aspects would influence the new times: (1) the end of the Cold War; (2) globalization and regionalization; (3) the relation between political authority and the modern nation-state; (4) challenges to sovereignty; (5) public opinion regarding military and political decision-making. On this last one, three key aspects were identified: the humanitarian impulse of domestic public opinion, economic constraints in a complex security risk environment, and challenges to the culture of the AFs due to societal pressure to implement social equality and individual rights. The 1990s was a period of radical changes for advanced societies, including institutions adapting to the post-Cold War strategic context and changing social values and expectations [1].

These adjustments were very accurate until 2019 when the COVID-19 pandemic forced new changes on a global scale. The Russo–Ukrainian War and other recent tensions and conflicts profoundly influenced organizations, particularly the military. According to Complex Adaptive Systems, military organizations must adapt dynamically to these new conditions, demonstrating flexibility and innovation in response to rapid and unpredictable changes in their operational environment. Not all tensions and conflicts are military-based. Some are due to national and economic power struggles and competition for global leadership [31]. Rivalries between the United States and China have led other nations to align themselves with one of the superpowers (USA, China, or Russia), and the ideological division between the West and East is turning into an emerging second Cold War [2]. Another factor supporting this idea is the current arms race that can be seen in the annual report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which shows an increase in spending for the 2022 period of 3.2% [32]. Despite different calculation formulas between the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and NATO, the sum of defense budgets from NATO members is already 3.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and rising, being close to the highest ever 4.5% of GDP during the Cold War Era.

2.2.2. What Is the Geopolitical and Strategic Context Today?

Military retention has been a persistent challenge despite the spending, as evidenced by various studies over the years. A 2013 NATO report highlighted that while financial incentives and career development are crucial for retention, they often fall short of long-term commitment [4]. By 2016, the research identified dissatisfaction with military conditions and attractive civilian alternatives as critical reasons for personnel leaving [5]. In 2022, the U.S. military reported declining public interest in service, recruitment shortfalls, and the need for updated retention strategies [6]. This issue persisted into 2024, as European nations struggled to retain soldiers amidst geopolitical pressures and competition from the private sector [7]. These findings suggest that while efforts have been made, the leadership style within military organizations could significantly address some of the underlying retention challenges.

The Job Demand–Resources (JD–R) model suggests that job performance and well-being are molded by the balance between job demands (e.g., workload, operational stress) and resources (e.g., leadership support, autonomy). In high-pressure environments like the military, it is crucial to ensure that personnel have adequate resources to prevent burnout and maintain resilience. This model underlines the need for constant resources to address the psychological and physical personnel needs, particularly those in demanding or remote positions [33].

We have witnessed the unexpected evolution of the geopolitical and strategic context. For many years, people transitioned from a Cold War Era environment under the VUCA framework until, in 2019, the pandemic drove us again to a period of structural shifts. Besides that, we are witnessing the return of war to Europe, pushing us into a new Cold War period [2].

The Army War College introduced the VUCA acronym in the late 20th century to describe the “multipolar new world order” being applied to describe the strategic environment in the business world, particularly after the 2008 global financial crisis [8,9]. Since then, other conceptual models have arisen, such as BANI [10,11]. In this context, brittleness arises from reliance on single dependence points and the unwillingness or inability to have capability or resources in excess. Anxiety refers to helplessness because there are no perfect solutions. Nonlinear is due to the disproportionality between the cause and effect. Incomprehensible means that yesterday’s answer and solutions are no longer suitable for tomorrow [11]. Regardless of the several names and attempts to define reality, all aim to provide a framework to create or adapt tools for the proposed context, which, despite the framework, can be understood as very complex and constantly changing.

Despite the non-agreed notion regarding the name of the era we live in, the most consensual framework is that we are in the fourth revolution. Mrugalska and Ahmed’s [34] literature review regarding Industry 4.0 presents several definitions from different research areas and where the concept incorporates different technologies (machine, electrical, operational, and information) to create effective, efficient, sustainable products and services. The results showed that to strive for Industry 4.0, we must adopt those technologies, as demonstrated by the pandemic, but it has costs. Civilization is developing rapidly, with problem-solving thinking based on Artificial Intelligence (AI). This shift requires responses by improving the quality of human management to boost organizational credibility with information efficiency, communication, and technology, which requires leadership [35].

Even the most prominent military organizations, such as NATO, face significant challenges in this rapidly evolving context. These include protecting critical underwater infrastructure from coercive tactics, countering terrorist organizations, and addressing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by North Korea. The threat of hybrid operations, especially from China and Russia, further complicates NATO’s strategic landscape. Additionally, the Alliance must reinforce defenses against Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) threats while managing security challenges in its southern neighborhood, including instability and irregular migration. These multifaceted threats necessitate a structured and adaptable response, integrating military and non-military tools [36].

2.3. The Evolution of Military Leadership: Traditions and Contemporary Perspectives

2.3.1. How Has Leadership Evolved?

Although references to the term leader could be traced as early as the 1300s, scientific research started in the 20th century. This research has numerous studies and approaches regarding leadership effectiveness, prompting several ways of grouping leadership evolution theories. For example, King [37] considers nine eras, and Benmira and Agbola [12] propose four.

Although we have no intention of analyzing leadership evolution in this article, as Lincoln stated, “If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it [38]. For that, we consider Benmira and Agbola’s [12] four moments, the first being the Trait Era. Starting with the Great Man theory (1840) and evolving to Trait theories (the 1930s–1940s), authors considered that the leader was born with specific characteristics and personality traits, aiming to identify them. During the Behavioral Era (1940s–1950s), the idea that leaders were made was explored, emphasizing the leader’s behavior. Then, the Situational Era, where Contingent and Situational theories were grouped (the 1960s onward), focused on specific conditions where leaders should access context and decide the best style to match leaders with the situation. The last, the New Leadership Era (the 1990s and beyond), contains Transactional, Transformational, and other theories, considering leadership as a complex process between the players instead of a top–bottom approach like the previous ones. In Transformational theories, leaders encourage, inspire, and motivate followers, which is used when organizations need to be revitalized. Transactional theories rely on authority as motivation through punishment and reward and are best used in mature organizations. Other theories were developed onwards, being a field in constant evolution.

According to Costa and Rouco [20], leadership studies have been conducted from a micro to a macro level through three theoretical lenses: leader-focused (me), follower-focused (you), and collective-focused (us). Besides those lenses, leadership needs to be analyzed in the military context, considering a highly complex environment characterized by stress and risk.

2.3.2. How Is Leadership Understood and Influenced by Individual and Social Characteristics?

Analyzing individual and social characteristics also fosters leadership knowledge. As King [37] mentioned, leadership is one of the most complex and multi-dimensional phenomena. Despite the lack of a universal and accepted definition, perhaps because leadership is studied in different fields of knowledge, it should be easy to agree that the leadership process should energize people into action, develop followers into leaders, and transform organizational members into agents of change.

Since social sciences focus on what makes a good leader and generally do not address the origins and adaptive functions of leadership, King et al. [39] studied human and animal leadership and followership, offering ways of understanding, predicting, and improving the ability of one (or few) to steer the behavior of many. They recognize that leadership is almost inevitable whenever two players are present, where the first to act increases the likelihood of becoming a leader, becoming more complicated in stable social group species when conflict is introduced. In nature, individuals are more likely to emerge as leaders if they have particular characteristics that allow them to make the first move, like size and strength. Another factor for leadership emergence is motivation because the one who needs the resource tends to lead. Leadership correlates strongly with autonomy and ambition. Another correlated characteristic that inspires followership, enhanced by social feedback, is boldness [39]. In dominant species, dominant individuals tend to enforce followership due to solid influences establishing their importance in the group and becoming the alpha male. In humans, dominance is also correlated with leadership, usually measured in a social status where males usually score higher than females. This dominance partially explains why male leadership is (still) more common in human societies. Finally, having expertise or unique knowledge also increases the likelihood of followership being more common in aged elements. In human research, ages correlate with domains requiring expertise but not risk-taking and bravery [39]. These insights have significant implications for military leadership that operates in a “raw” and complex environment.

2.3.3. What Is Military Leadership, and How Is It Shown?

Military leadership is the expression of legal authority and power delegated by law to a commander. It enables them to coordinate, influence, and control the resources at their disposal, with leadership being a command component [20]. In a military context, command refers to the legal and constitutional responsibility of the AFs, encompassing decision-making, leading, and controlling military forces. Leadership, while an inherent element within the command, focuses more on influencing and inspiring others toward achieving a common goal. The essence of command is its individual and human expression materialized in the commander’s intention. While all commanders are expected to exhibit leadership, not all leaders necessarily have command [21].

Leadership in military organizations is always present due to a very well-defined structure, where one military has organizational influence and responsibility over another, similar to natural hierarchies observed in various species, as referred to by King et al. [39]. Military leadership has three essential elements: influence, purpose, and personnel. Influence is based on loyalty and hierarchy; objectives or purpose are associated with values. The purpose of military leadership is to guide and motivate team members to achieve mission objectives while enhancing organizational efficiency through positive influence, clear direction, and strong character projection by the leader [21]. The personnel element has specific qualifications, functions, and career paths based on the military structure and culture [35]. According to Kacala [26], military leadership is conditioned by human resources, values, distribution of power, and the ability to use that power in line with its essential elements.

Throughout history, military campaigns led by great commanders like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar are examples of contemporary military leaders, highlighting the importance of strategy, leadership, and tactical skills in successful military operations [40]. Military traditions and practices remain fundamental in today’s AFs, including ceremonies and rituals that reinforce camaraderie, honor values, and commemorate fallen comrades. Maintaining a robust hierarchical structure, rigorous discipline, and continuous physical and mental training are priorities to enhance resilience and readiness. Military values such as courage and loyalty are constantly emphasized, along with respect for ethical codes and laws of war. Using uniforms and insignia maintains a connection with military history and identity, reinforcing members’ sense of belonging and pride. These traditions preserve cohesion and effectiveness and serve as pillars for the continuity of military culture over time.

While the traits theory is considered an old concept, the literature suggests it is still widely used in the military. Nazri and Rudi [25] proposed a military leadership framework based on four propositions. First, leaders are carefully selected from the general public, emphasizing their attributes and traits despite enrolling in a development process. Secondly, military leaders are responsible for performing effectively in any military scenario, being in an extreme environment replicated to develop the leader to military standards. Thirdly, military leadership is structurally designed to provide experience to the operational environment, and, lastly, the military leader is expected to achieve objectives, performing and exercising leadership based on military guidelines, principles, and standards. Traits and attributes will still be important in future military settings.

The evolution of military leadership reflects the AFs’ adaptation to changes in the global landscape. According to Vieira [41], military leadership has three levels. The first is direct leadership, where leaders command face-to-face, exemplifying “do as I do”. The second, organizational leadership, involves coordinating and managing units within a larger structure. The third level is strategic leadership, which occurs at the highest echelons and involves influencing organizational culture, making long-term decisions, and allocating resources in a volatile and complex global environment.

The literature indicates several interpretations regarding military leadership manifestation, some related to “military leadership skills”, and others expressed through “military leadership competencies”, proficiency being also highlighted [20].

To better understand it, we will concisely compare military leadership with leadership in other organizations. Leaders make crucial decisions. A successful manager can earn billions for a company, while a successful commander can shape a nation’s future on the battlefield. However, unlike managers, mistakes made by generals can lead to the deaths of many innocent people. Ultimately, military leadership is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that involves the ability to inspire, guide, and develop personnel within a structured and hierarchical environment, but chaotic. The interplay between tradition, strategic adaptation, and individual leadership qualities defines the unique landscape of military leadership today.

Military leadership is well-defined, grounded in unchanging, fundamental qualities such as competence, character, and a profound sense of responsibility. However, while these bedrock qualities remain constant, leadership styles have evolved, adapting to changing circumstances and challenges. This suggests a dynamic interplay between enduring principles and evolving practices in military leadership [42].

2.3.4. What Have Been the Critical Transitions in Military Forces to Reach Their Current Form?

The evolution of military forces to their current form has been marked by critical transitions, deeply influenced by the shifting balance between traditional institutional values and modern occupational characteristics. Moskos [43] explained how the militaries were evolving from one institutional model to another that resembled an occupation with “normal” job characteristics, generating much discussion around this claim. He presented the institutional and occupational characteristics, proposing the first with higher values as duty and honor in a vertical organization, where compensation was based on rank and seniority, with family integration, status, and military justice. The second is a more horizontal organization based on market principles, with compensation based on skills and workforce, using civilian jurisprudence. Moskos proposed a pendulum shift between the two, and even today, it is impossible to say that either model was fully established as most military organizations are somewhere between the “military family” and the “military business”.

Rouco [21] states that a profession requires advanced training in a specific domain, serving clients’ interests. On the other hand, a vocation is seen as an internal call or passion, often associated with a sense of purpose and personal satisfaction that transcends professional tasks. While a profession is what one does for a living and is close to the “military business”, a vocation is more about what one feels called to do related to the “military family”. Militaries have become more professional, and those pendulum shifts are aligned with strategic, social, and economic changes and contexts. In this context, specific operational characteristics of the military, such as its unique command structure or the nature of its missions, may facilitate a displacement between military and civil perspectives. This means that how military operations are conducted and perceived can influence how civilian occupations view the military. While the institutional model overcomes the occupational during an operation, due to some secrecy associated with operations, civilians may see the military as just another job [44]. These organizational transitions have significant implications for military leadership because they must navigate these evolving structures, balancing traditional hierarchical values with modern professional and market-driven approaches.

This is where EL becomes particularly relevant since it can help bridge the gap between these shifting models by fostering an environment that supports both traditional values and modern innovation. Integrating flexible leadership styles that encourage empowerment and adaptability is crucial for the military to respond effectively to contemporary challenges and operational demands.

3. Unveiling Empowering Leadership

3.1. Understanding Empowerment

3.1.1. How Does Empowerment Affect Organizational Performance?

Military leadership is fundamentally characterized by a hierarchical structure emphasizing discipline, loyalty, and duty. Differing significantly from corporate leadership, military leaders are often required to make quick decisions in lethal environments under pressure, demonstrating high resilience and decisiveness. The integration of empowerment within this framework can further enhance these leadership qualities.

The empowerment concept applied to the work context can be traced to the 1980s and, due to its complexity, can mean different things to different researchers. In this context, we will consider the process of fostering perceptions of self-effectiveness and self-reliance in employees by eliminating conditions that foster feelings of powerlessness and facilitating positive changes in attitudes and behaviors across various organizational settings [3].

Today, organizations require knowledgeable, skilled, and committed employees to sustain or achieve superior performance. Working methods constantly change, and employees are pressured to achieve higher productivity. Scholars have agreed that empowerment gives employees discretion over some task-related activities and can be conceptualized from a structural or psychological perspective [45]. The structural perspective focuses on organizational and managerial processes related to informal power and information sharing, resource access and control, and reward. Based on the cognitive empowerment model, the psychological perspective focuses on how subordinates or employees perceive and experience their work, using four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. When these cognitions are perceived as positive, they increase psychological empowerment. These four dimensions are additive [46], and if any is missing, the empowering experience is limited [47].

3.1.2. How to Effectively Empower?

To implement effective empowerment, it is essential to integrate empowering practices with appropriate leadership methods. Providing autonomy and access to information and communications technology are key strategies to empower individuals [48]. Vu [45] outlines four approaches to empowerment effectively: Common attitude; Organizational support; Knowledge and learning; and Fundamental recognition. These approaches create a supportive environment where employees feel valued and capable. Additionally, Spreitzer [47] identifies five cognitive characteristics that can empower employees: a sense of competence; a sense of self-organizedness; a sense of being practical; a sense of being meaningful; and a sense of trusting others. Such attributes contribute to greater employee engagement and motivation in their roles. Coun et al. [48] support these findings, aligning with Spreitzer’s earlier work and suggesting that employee empowerment directly influences performance [45]. By integrating these strategies and approaches, organizations can foster a more empowered and high-performing workforce. Effective empowerment ultimately involves granting autonomy, ensuring access to necessary resources, and fostering a supportive organizational culture. Leaders can significantly enhance employee performance and organizational success by focusing on empowerment’s structural and psychological aspects.

3.2. Clarifying Empowering Leadership

3.2.1. What Is Empowering Leadership, and What Differentiates It from Other Concepts?

An important aspect of leadership is achieving objectives, but it also involves inspiring and developing people. As previously discussed, leadership has been widely studied, leading to multiple theories and concepts rather than a single unified definition. Consequently, various leadership styles and tools can sometimes be misunderstood or confused with one another.

Although the concept of EL is difficult to credit to a single author, it emerged as a leadership form with facilitating and supporting characteristics. It is commonly attributed to Manz and Sims [13], referring to their book The New SuperLeadership—Leading Others to Lead Themselves in 2001.

Pearce and Sims [49] outlined four foundational theories that inform the principles and practices of EL. Firstly, they proposed behavioral self-management, suggesting leaders should promote self-management behaviors among subordinates to achieve organizational objectives. Secondly, they highlighted social cognitive theory, emphasizing the reciprocal relationship between individuals and their environment, where leaders model self-leadership behaviors for subordinates to follow. Thirdly, cognitive behavior modification suggests that followers can learn from mistakes without negative stigma, viewing them as opportunities for growth. Lastly, participative goal-setting research suggests that involving employees in goal-setting leads to enhanced performance levels.

EL is a style where leaders share power with their followers, aiming to enhance their self-reliance and ability to work autonomously while aligning with organizational goals and strategies. It facilitates employee initiative, self-confidence, goal-setting, and problem-solving, promoting responsibility and personal development [50].

According to Contingency Theory, the effectiveness of leadership styles like EL depends on situational variables and must be adapted to different operational contexts [51]. For example, EL can enhance adaptability and decision-making autonomy in decentralized environments. However, in high-stakes missions requiring rigid control, EL must be applied cautiously, ensuring a balance between empowerment and the strict chain of command. This aligns with the evolving understanding of leadership in conflict settings, where strategic positioning and emotional dynamics play crucial roles [51].

According to Cheong et al. [51], there are two perspectives regarding the EL literature: one focuses on the managerial practices based on a socio-perspective, where the leader has an empowerment behavior with various dimensions being those identified by several authors; the other is psychological empowerment, which is a different concept from EL, although sometimes blurred, being the latest a set of leader’s behaviors that can foster psychological empowerment and one of its antecedents. Those perspectives align with empowerment perspectives: structural and psychological.

Some leadership styles, such as Transformational, Inspirational, Visionary, and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX), can be confused with EL due to their similar characteristics. Transformational Leadership can be defined by the word “Transformation”, focusing on followers’ motivation and transformation within the organization’s vision. Inspirational Leadership can be described by the word “Inspiration”, captivating followers regardless of a clear vision for the future. Visionary Leadership is characterized by the word “Vision”, providing long-term direction to followers. The LMX model is identified by the word “Relationship”, emphasizing the interaction between leader and member. In contrast, EL is defined by “Autonomy”, emphasizing empowerment and individual responsibility, fostering an environment where followers have the autonomy, resources, and responsibility to make decisions and execute tasks independently [12,52,53,54].

3.2.2. What Are the Identified Characteristics Associated with Empowering Leadership?

Expanding upon the distinctive traits of EL elucidated earlier, let us dive into the identified characteristics associated with this leadership style. Cheong et al. [51] used five models in a framework to analyze EL and its effectiveness. Among more than one hundred dimensions, some can bring advantages while others may not be valuable. Despite EL results being presented as most beneficial, humane, and virtuous, its effectiveness can be questionable to some degree. The identified benefits, such as self-leadership, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, self-efficacy, leader–member exchange, and self-perceived status, can also deliver what was called “Too-much-of-a-Good-Thing”. The authors noted that after some beneficial variables reached an inflection point, they stopped being linear and positive, causing either waste or undesirable outcomes. These adverse effects were job-induced tension associated with self-efficacy, functional resistance related to performance, turnover intentions, cynicism, time theft linked with psychological empowerment, and laissez-faire leadership regarding leader effectiveness.

Cheong et al. [50] also demonstrated that work support and facilitation of followers’ autonomy were considered EL core characteristics. Mónico et al. [55] also found that EL related positively to knowledge sharing and team performance, but throughout a more extended period than other antagonistic leadership styles. Several studies by Vu [45] also demonstrated a significant relationship between organizational performance and empowering employees, obtained by fostering creativity and innovativeness, promoting achievement, productivity, and growth, and being connected to organizational commitment. However, for EL to be effective, it needs to be accepted, and the employees must find the delegated responsibilities motivating, as their perception of responsibility is closely tied to their view of the leader’s competencies [26]. While delegation can be adaptive and efficient in some situations as it brings gains in organizational engagement and belonging, it could become destructive for the organization in other situations. In addition, responsibility and accountability must also be considered before delegation, as, for instance, the military operational environment can be chaotic and lethal [46].

The JD–R model provides a valuable framework for understanding how leadership can act as a resource to balance high job demands. Abdurachman et al. [33] argue that integrating leadership with the JD–R model significantly enhances individual performance in institutions by ensuring that personnel have access to the necessary resources to meet operational demands. Although the article does not directly address empowering leadership, due to its characteristics, this leadership style can also benefit from the insights of the JD–R model by fostering resilience and performance when properly resourced.

Unchecked EL can manifest negative consequences despite its virtues, significantly when the empowerment exceeds a sustainable level.

3.2.3. How Does the “Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing” Effect Impact Organizations?

The concept of “too much of a good thing” proposes that “too much” EL can lead to unintended results, even in environments where it is usually beneficial. Despite the findings regarding positive outcomes, as Cheong et al. [50] presented, while EL promotes autonomy, it can also cause turnover intentions and resistance to change. Zhang et al. [56] expanded on this by demonstrating that “too much” EL may lead to unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB), where employees overwhelmed by autonomy may feel pressured to act unethically to meet organizational goals. Their research also highlighted those high levels of job orientation among employees—where obligations to the organization, mission, and code are entangled—can increase the occurrence of UPB, especially when leadership is perceived as pragmatic [56].

The study by Dennerlein and Kirkman [57] also reveals that EL can lead to increased moral disengagement and UPB among employees, particularly in the presence of high hindrance stressors. These stressors include administrative hassles, bureaucratic constraints (red tape), conflicting instructions and expectations, unclear job tasks, inadequate resources, and interpersonal conflicts such as coworkers’ disputes and office politics. The interaction between empowering leadership and these stressors significantly predicts moral disengagement, suggesting that leaders must consider the context and stressors their employees face to mitigate potential adverse outcomes.

Yam et al. [58] investigated the unintended consequences of EL and revealed that deviant behaviors among followers are particularly pronounced in individuals with a weak moral identity and a strong desire for dominance, as the sense of psychological power gained from empowerment transcends work boundaries, influencing both work-related and non-work-related deviance. This is relevant because, despite the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) encompassing a broader range of behaviors and personality characteristics, a study by Diller et al. [59] found a positive correlation between this triad and leadership levels. Individuals exhibiting these traits are more likely to occupy leadership positions. Several studies highlighted that followers with high moral attentiveness are less likely to engage in deviant behavior. In contrast, those with high moral disengagement are more prone to such behaviors when empowered [58,59,60]. Additionally, the studies highlighted the importance of cultural context [58,59].

This underlines the importance of a balanced approach to EL that fosters autonomy without sacrificing ethical standards or organizational cohesion.

3.2.4. How Can Organizations Incorporate Empowering Leadership?

The challenge of integrating EL effectively into organizations, especially hierarchical ones, involves adopting practices that promote empowerment while maintaining necessary oversight. Historical examples, such as General Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II and Admiral Horatio Nelson during the Battle of Trafalgar, highlight how military leaders use strategic planning, resilience, and boldness to achieve their objectives [24]. Incorporating EL within the military framework can enhance these traditional leadership characteristics.

Integrating EL as a strategy within organizations involves adopting various practices and approaches to promote an environment conducive to empowerment. Scholars suggest that leadership style is another strategy for empowerment, among commitment, communication, employee inclusion, a reward system, clearly defined goals, managerial strategies, training, the delegation of authority, formation of bipartite committees, sense of trusteeship, employee suggestion scheme, and interaction with top executives [45]. In today’s resource shortages and remote work environment, shifting from top-down supervision to an indirect and empowering form of leadership can be compelling but challenging in the military world. This approach involves power sharing, encouraging and supporting employees without direct interference, and providing them with room to grow [48]. Adopting EL as a strategic approach enables organizations to leverage the strengths and capabilities of their employees, promoting resilience, innovation, and superior performance. Creating an environment where employees feel valued and autonomous allows organizations to navigate challenges more effectively and achieve their strategic objectives. While EL may appear to contradict traditional military principles of strict hierarchy and command, this integration will be explored below.

4. Empowering Leadership Booming in Military Environments

4.1. Benefits and Progress of EL in Military Settings

4.1.1. Why Are Evolution and Innovation Mandatory in Modern Organizations, Including the Military?

Most military work is executed by singletons in a group environment, stemming from the dynamic nature of their operations and the rapid advancements in technology and strategy. Therefore, knowledge regarding processes to facilitate teamwork, well-being, and collaboration is essential. As previously discussed, understanding individual and social characteristics influencing leadership is crucial for fostering an environment supporting evolution and innovation.

Evolution and innovation are mandatory in modern organizations to respond to the rapidly changing environment. These needs are linked to the capacity to absorb the latest technology, which increases efficiency and effectiveness. For instance, recent research by Šimanauskienė et al. [61] conducted at the Military Academy of Lithuania found a strong correlation at the commander’s (top manager’s) level between factors such as Intellectual Stimulation and Delegating, Rewards and Delegating, Delegating and Support for Innovation, and Support for Innovation and Rewards. For military officers (middle-level managers), two strong correlations were found between Reward and Delegation, and Delegation and Support for Innovation. These findings highlight the importance of EL in fostering an environment adequate for innovation and evolution, ensuring that military organizations remain adaptable and effective in the face of rapid technological and strategic changes. It also suggests that the empowering leadership dynamic works differently at several hierarchical levels.

4.1.2. How to Adapt Military Organizations to the Current Environment and Challenges?

Militaries are essentially effective. To survive efficiently and effectively in Industry 4.0, transformation is needed from mechanical to digital, forcing a radical change in organizations related to culture, work systems, and operations. Efficient management and leadership, external pressure on resource allocation, decision constraints due to resources, and quick solutions are some of this era’s characteristics [34]. In Industry 4.0, modern leaders must prepare organizations for complex changes in all components of society, and the military is not excluded. Furthermore, modern society’s problems, such as aging and regional depopulation, have changed the way of thinking and working.

On the other hand, developing digital systems, easy access to information, and elevated connectivity and interaction are signs of progress, as illustrated by Japan’s Society 5.0 concept. This concept proposes new solutions to modern problems centered on a technologically based human society [35]. For the military, adapting to Industry 4.0 means integrating advanced technologies like AI, robotics, and the Internet of Things (IoT) to enhance operational efficiency and decision-making processes. For example, the use of AI for predictive maintenance of equipment can prevent failures and reduce downtime, thereby increasing mission readiness. Similarly, IoT can facilitate real-time monitoring and logistics management, improving the supply chain and operational effectiveness. In the context of Society 5.0, the military can benefit from a more human-centric approach that leverages technology to improve the well-being and capabilities of its personnel. This could involve using augmented and virtual reality for training simulations, which provide realistic and immersive environments for soldiers to develop their skills without the risks associated with live training exercises.

EL plays a crucial role in this transformation. By promoting a culture of innovation and continuous learning, EL encourages military personnel to embrace new technologies and methodologies. Leaders who empower their subordinates foster an environment where experimentation and adaptation are allowed and encouraged. This is essential in a rapidly changing technological landscape where rigid adherence to traditional methods can be detrimental. The rapid pace of technological advancement often creates a disconnect between ongoing innovation and the ability of hierarchical structures to adapt, leading to a misalignment that can hinder organizational effectiveness.

Moreover, in addressing complex challenges, categorized by Rogers et al. [62] as wicked problems—such as global climate change, stem cell research, and terrorism—the military must adopt a holistic and adaptive approach. These challenges resist linear solutions and require innovative thinking and collaboration across domains. EL enables military organizations to navigate these wicked problems by fostering creativity, collaboration, and resilience among personnel.

To further illustrate the potential of EL in enhancing military adaptability, we propose the following:

Proposition 1.

EL improves adaptability in the armed forces.

EL enhances adaptability in the military by decentralizing decision-making, which increases organizational resilience and agility (as will continue to be demonstrated). This approach empowers personnel at all levels to respond swiftly to dynamic and unpredictable scenarios. In environments characterized by complexity and volatility, such as those described by VUCA–BANI, EL grants personnel more control and autonomy, reducing stress and fostering confidence. It promotes continuous learning and adaptability, leveraging collective intelligence for effective problem-solving. By fostering a culture of trust and initiative, EL ensures that military forces can maintain operational effectiveness and respond decisively to emerging challenges. Integrating empowering leadership with the JD–R model in military environments is crucial for ensuring that personnel are not overwhelmed by job demands. Abdurachman et al. [33] emphasize that military leaders must provide stable resources to complement high operational demands. When supported by sufficient resources EL can significantly improve individual performance and organizational resilience in high-stress environments.

4.1.3. Does Empowerment Already Exist Inside Military Organizations?

Special Operation Forces (SOFs) are empowered, strong-minded, motivated, and dedicated forces, usually outnumbered, achieving a highly successful rate in missions where regular troops would not succeed. McRaven [63] identified six principles for successful special operations: 1. Simplicity; 2. Security; 3. Repetition; 4. Surprise; 5. Speed; and 6. Purpose. If Special Operation Forces succeed by applying the same principles to the military organization when operating in a BANI environment, the organization should also achieve higher performance: Simplicity by having processes and plans straightforward; Security by protecting the organization’s information; Repetition by practicing essential techniques and receiving feedback to be able to adapt (evolve); Surprise, fostering innovative culture; Speed, streamlining decision-making and execution for quick responses whenever possible; and Purpose, aligning all efforts with organizational values. Therefore, applying the EL style, already embedded in special operations principles, to the military organization makes it more agile and, thus, more efficient and effective. This does not mean having an army of SOFs. It means learning the lessons from a highly effective, efficient, and empowered force already embedded in the organization, innovating, and adapting in all suitable areas and at the right time.

Another empowered group within military organizations is the helicopter Search and Rescue (SAR) crews, who operate under high uncertainty and demanding conditions. Despite sharing similar elements and operating in environments with critical factors, it is essential to clarify that SAR, Personnel Recovery (PR), and Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) are different and can be easily confused or misused.

According to the Joint Air Power Competence Centre [64], PR is the combined efforts of military, diplomatic, and civil sectors to recover and reintegrate isolated personnel. This involves using all available resources to ensure the safe return of individuals in distress, being the military component usually performed by SOFs and dedicated helicopter crews, particularly in hostile environments, such as during Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) missions. As stated in the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue [65], SAR focuses on recovering distressed individuals, doable in maritime and terrestrial environments, often falling under the broader PR framework in military contexts. On the other hand, according to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency [66] ED Decision 2023/007/R, HEMS refers specifically to medical emergency services provided by helicopters, crucial for rapid response in critical situations where time and mobility are essential.

Despite their differences, all these operations share the necessity to perform under physically and psychologically demanding conditions and have uncertainty factors associated, such as patient compliance, weather, temperature, distance, and access to location. Regarding maritime SAR, there are other uncertainty factors identified by Liu et al. [67], including ship drift, draft, and detection associated with the environmental aspect of the operation. This demonstrates the complexity of the operation and, consequently, the physical and psychological demand [68].

Helicopters play a crucial role in SAR missions due to their unique characteristics, such as their low-altitude search ability, hovering ability, and quick response ability, which allow people to be recovered in less time than other extraction assets [67]. A typical SAR crew includes a pilot(s), systems operator, rescue personnel, and a Physician, who might be a paramedic in the UK, for example, or an aeronautical nurse in Portuguese military SAR operations.

Comparing Grissom et al. [68], which focuses on assistance from a HEMS crew in a SAR operation, with Christensen et al. [69], which focuses on SAR assistance in HEMS operations, a significant difference is highlighted. A SAR crew’s “above and beyond” mentality and attitude is noticeable, placing themselves at higher risk and operating in degraded environments. Military SAR usually provides rescue in situations where the civilian system cannot dispatch a helicopter having on board a physician able to deal with a mixed group of emergencies. Moreover, inherent uncertainties in helicopter operations, including single- or multiple-asset rescues, crew qualifications, and helicopter performance, necessitate robust risk mitigation procedures.

Liu et al. [67] propose a table of events and associated crew actions, highlighting the critical decisions and actions required during missions. In “Rescue and Distress” actions, it is noticeable that these decisions often involve independent life-and-death choices, underscoring the necessity for crew empowerment in these situations. Griffiths [70] points out the benefits of paramedic empowerment, differentiating between training (protocol memorization) and education (understanding “hows” and “whys”), which fosters informed decision-making.

Hodgetts [71] suggests the ADOPTER framework (Agile, Decisive, Outcome-focused, Politically aware, Tolerant of risk, Empowered, and Rewarded) to enhance innovation and learning from field experiences, as applied during the COVID-19 crisis. This framework emphasizes SAR crews’ empowerment to make critical decisions independently, reinforcing their essential role and the need for autonomy in high-stakes environments.

In the military, there is another “framework”, which is the MC. Some argue that empowerment has existed in the military since Napoleon [72], while others refer to World War II. However, all refer to the same “tool”, now defined as MC [73].

MC is a leadership philosophy that empowers military personnel to operate in uncertain environments through trust, shared awareness, and understanding of the commander’s intent. It is guided by the framework of Centralized Command—Distributed Control—Decentralized Execution (CC-DC-DE). The Five C’s, Character, Competence, Capacity, Cohesion, and Capability, are cultural attributes that enhance the capacity to operate according to six MC principles, applicable to all aspects of service, and dictate the actions required of commanders and personnel in operations. These key principles include providing a clear and concise statement of the operation’s purpose, desired end state, and what must be accomplished to succeed (1. Provide Clear Commander’s Intent). Commanders and subordinates work together to create a shared understanding of the operational environment, the organization’s competence, and its ability to accomplish the mission (2. Create Shared Understanding). Subordinates are encouraged to proactively apply inventiveness and creativity when existing orders no longer fit the situation or when unforeseen threats or opportunities arise (3. Exercise Disciplined Initiative). Building teams through mutual trust, essential for effective team building and mission accomplishment, is fostered overtime through shared experiences (4. Build Teams Through Mutual Trust). Commanders must balance the tension between protecting the force and accepting and managing the risks inherent in mission accomplishment (5. Accept Prudent Risk). Mission-Type Orders (MTOs), which focus on the objective of the operation rather than the specifics of how to perform assigned tasks, are used when appropriate to empower subordinates to make decisions based on the commander’s guidance (6. Use MTOs When Appropriate). These principles must be ingrained in the organization’s culture, shaping how personnel view themselves and their role in achieving objectives [21,52,73].

4.2. Challenges and Limitations of EL’s Journey in Military Realms

4.2.1. What Are the Modern Challenges Military Organizations Face, and How Do They Adapt?

In response to the contextual shifts in today’s knowledge economy, organizational structures are flattening and decentralizing. This necessitates leaders relinquishing hierarchical positions and adopting influence strategies grounded in knowledge, recognizing employees as knowledgeable associates rather than mere subordinates [3]. However, despite the need for empowerment and adaptation, military organizations encounter unique challenges in implementing EL practices effectively despite the imperative for empowerment and adaptation. These barriers stem from the inherently hierarchical and traditional nature of military structures, which often resist decentralization and the empowerment of subordinates.

Moreover, modern military operations’ complex and dynamic nature presents additional difficulties. Traditional hierarchical structures, which have proven to work over time, may need to be revised to address the rapid changes and uncertainties of contemporary conflicts and security challenges. To better understand and manage these impediments, military organizations must balance maintaining operational discipline and agility while fostering a culture of empowerment and innovation. This requires rethinking traditional command and control paradigms and embracing decentralized decision-making processes that empower frontline personnel to adapt and respond effectively to evolving threats. By acknowledging and addressing the resistance to change, the complexity of modern military operations, the maintenance of operational discipline, and the need for innovation head-on, military organizations can harness the full potential of EL to enhance operational effectiveness and adaptability in an increasingly complex and uncertain world.

Considering that Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs) refer to individuals’ subconscious beliefs and expectations regarding traits and behaviors that define effective leadership, it presents another challenge. These theories are molded by personal, social, and cultural experiences and extensively influence how leaders are perceived and evaluated. Key factors identified in ILTs include Sensitivity, Dedication, Tyranny, Charisma, Strength, Masculinity, Intelligence, and Creativity. The study revealed that many of these factors remained stable over the 20 years since the original study in 1994. However, there were also some changes, such as the emergence of the Creativity factor and the reorganization of some characteristics among the existing factors. An important finding was that broad characteristics still did not reference women, indicating that the “think leader, think male” bias persists (gender bias). Understanding ILTs is crucial because they can impact the acceptance and effectiveness of different leadership styles in structured organizations like the military [74,75]. EL focuses on sharing power, encouraging autonomy, and fostering a participative environment. In the military, where traditional leadership is often characterized by strict chains of command and clear authority, EL has the potential to challenge these standards. Applying ILTs in this context helps explain how pre-existing beliefs about authority and hierarchy might impact the acceptance of EL. Military personnel familiar with a top-down structure may initially resist EL due to its perceived incompatibility with conventional military leadership.

We present our second proposition after identifying the challenges modern military organizations face.

Proposition 2.

The rigid structure of the AFs hampers EL.

EL implementation faces significant challenges in military organizations due to their rigid hierarchical structure supported by the historical evolution of military leadership. Traditional command and control frameworks, while effective in the past, now hinder fast adaptability and innovation in the face of modern complexities. EL, emphasizing autonomy, collaboration, and individual contributions, struggles to integrate within these structures. The dynamic nature of contemporary military operations further complicates this integration, as traditional command paradigms may struggle to adapt. Balancing operational discipline with empowerment presents a delicate challenge, requiring a cultural shift towards flexibility and decentralized decision-making. Overcoming these challenges is vital for harnessing EL’s potential to enhance operational effectiveness in today’s complex security landscape. By addressing the implicit beliefs and demonstrating the benefits of EL, such as increased motivation and innovation, it is possible to gradually shift perceptions and integrate EL more effectively within military organizations. It can also be addressed through the application of Contingency Theory. In military contexts, particularly in decentralized environments like SOFs and SAR, EL can increase adaptability and decision-making autonomy, aligning appropriately with contingency theory’s emphasis on situational leadership. However, in critical missions that require more rigid control, EL should be parsimoniously applied, balancing empowerment with obedience to the chain of command. This dual approach underlines the importance of flexible leadership strategies according to military scenarios.

4.2.2. How Can Leadership Shape the Organization’s Transformation?

The inherent conservatism of military organization and structure does not facilitate message transmission. Changes often occur in a coalition with civilian experts and “maverick officers”: “The only thing harder than getting a new idea into the military mind is to get an old one out” [76]. The organization is cautious and slow to incorporate lessons learned mainly due to two structural conditions: stability and consistency. Expensive financial and organizational costs and the discomfort of changing an existing, proven, and successful approach in chaotic and lethal operational scenarios also influence [77].

Despite what was presented, those reasons cannot be used for stagnation or involution, considering that the military organization fits into the single-loop and double-loop learning typology [78]. This dichotomy of organizational learning has been expressed through several terms but with a reasonable consensus regarding learning processes and outcomes. As such, single-loop learning occurs when error is detected and corrected without interfering with organizational values. Double-loop learning occurs when corrections are made after observation, acting on deeper values, norms, or practices. In third-loop learning, groups or individuals learn how to learn, potentially driving profound organizational transformation despite its inherent complexity and disruptive nature. Although third-loop learning can be disruptive and potentially harmful if poorly managed, when effectively conducted, it can lead to a profound and significant transformation in organizational culture, allowing for more effective and resilient adaptation to the constant challenges and changes in the military environment.

These typologies complement each other. While single-loop learning is widespread in the military, for instance, in the debrief after a military flight, double-loop could fall into inertia due to its complexity unless actions are consciously taken [78,79].

Organizational learning is fruitful, based on inside and outside inputs, providing a sense of “Evolution” instead of “Revolution” [78]. Furthermore, considering learning as recursive and relational where context matters, significant performance improvements can be made by enabling current competencies to be used more effectively and embracing transformation.

After assimilating single-loop learning, the military is very sensible and capable of dual-loop when leaders have a holistic awareness and comprehension of recognizing the changes around them. Although the specific application of third-loop learning in military organizations is not widely documented, there are indications that the concept is being explored and applied in some military contexts [80]. Military organizations tend to be cautious (and slow) in changing learning habits due to the associated costs and reluctance to change procedures, as proved by blood [81]. Being one of the oldest organizations capable of anticipating external dynamics [35], it needs to be able to operate in new environments and, as such, to have people prepared to do it.

Through leadership, long-term success can be achieved through employee creativity, innovation, and organizational culture. Four behaviors were proposed to shape innovation and evolve: 1. Idealized influence, where leaders set the example and earn trust and respect; 2. Inspirational motivation, being team spirit fostered by the leader; 3. Intellectual stimulation, when new problem-solving approaches are encouraged; and 4. Individualized Consideration, where leaders mentor and empower employees [61]. For example, to address the challenges referred to, NATO is transforming itself to integrate new technologies and strategic approaches to ensure readiness and efficacy through several projects in the face of evolving security challenges. The NATO Warfighting Capstone Concept (NWCC) emphasizes the need for adaptation and evolution, integrating new technologies and approaches to ensure the readiness and effectiveness of NATO forces. The Alliance’s commitment to digital transformation aims to improve efficiency, interoperability, and cybersecurity, incorporating emerging technologies and protecting information systems. Additionally, NATO invests in CBRN defense capabilities, ensuring operational effectiveness in environments with these threats. To combat hybrid threats, NATO has developed strategies to counter disinformation, protect democratic processes, and enhance cyber defenses, strengthening the Alliance’s resilience and response capabilities [36].

4.2.3. How Can EL Benefit the Military Organization in Achieving Its Goals?

Considering the previously mentioned benefits, EL can (and should) be considered a tool to achieve the abovementioned purpose and overcome eventual conditions. However, it must also address the three essential elements of military leadership (influence, purpose, and personnel). On the one hand, loyalty cannot be subverted by pseudo-empowered personnel deciding to question the hierarchical structure in a lethal environment. On the other hand, truly empowered personnel should understand the context, have critical thinking, and, thus, be empowered in their decisions and actions. Therefore, military institutions would perform better if they encouraged more transformational and less transactional leadership by empowering their militaries in due time.

Despite this, EL cannot be mindlessly applied in a military context as a revolutionary way of leading, not only due to the slow and cautious military nature but essentially due to the operational environment where it needs to be prepared to act. It is a tool to provide effective and efficient decisions in several layers of the leadership structure. It can provide cohesion, growth, and commitment but must uphold discipline. To achieve this essential condition, the empowering process must be adequate, i.e., clearly attributed and accepted by both leader and follower, by actively and consistently performing second-loop learning and considering this tool in the scenario analysis.

Military leaders must be aware of technological trends, projected threats, and relevant actors with the potential to change future warfare and understand the implications, adapting the military instruments of power. One example of this leadership vision is NATO’s North Star, the NWCC, looking ahead until 2040, anticipating an operational, persistent, simultaneous, and boundless environment [82]. However, as the recent war in Ukraine showed, significant conflicts are still a possibility, and it has anticipated the need to operate in both traditional and modern environments, deciding on a multi-domain operation and being supported by emerging technologies. This empowers future commanders to operate in a dynamic environment, delivering decisive effects. EL creates future leaders who can operate efficiently and effectively in a 4.0 industry for a 5.0 society despite political dependence and military adversity to change. EL can significantly enhance military organization outcomes by fostering a culture of critical thinking, adaptability, and innovation among personnel. By encouraging transformational rather than transactional leadership, EL enables military leaders to better navigate complex and dynamic operational environments. For instance, during NATO operations, empowered leaders who understand the strategic context and make informed decisions can more effectively counter hybrid threats, manage cybersecurity challenges, and integrate advanced technologies. This leadership approach aligns with initiatives such as NATO’s Warfighting Capstone Concept [83], which emphasizes adaptability and technological integration to ensure readiness and efficacy in future conflicts.

Additionally, EL supports the development of leaders proficient in both traditional and modern warfare, as seen in the recent conflict in Ukraine. Making swift, informed decisions in multi-domain operations has proven crucial here. Ultimately, EL cultivates a resilient and innovative military force capable of achieving strategic goals in a rapidly evolving security landscape.

Despite EL’s acknowledged benefits in enhancing military effectiveness, its application must be carefully considered due to the unique operational requirements and cultural norms within military organizations. Integrating it into MC is a proper way to achieve this.

EL dimensions, as identified by Cheong et al. [50], align effectively with the principles of MC. Leading by example aligns with the MC principle of “Provide Clear Commander’s Intent”. Leaders who lead by example set clear standards and demonstrate core values, ensuring team understanding of operational purpose and objectives. Coaching supports the MC principle of “Build Teams Through Mutual Trust”. By training and guiding, leaders foster mutual trust over time, which is crucial for team cohesion and mission success. Informing relates to the MC principle of “Create Shared Understanding”. Leaders who keep their teams informed ensure shared awareness of the operational environment, organizational capabilities, and mission goals. Participative decision-making aligns with the MC principle of “Exercise Disciplined Initiative”. Involving subordinates in decision-making encourages the proactive use of creativity and disciplined initiative to adapt to changing situations. Showing concern contributes to the MC principle of “Build Teams Through Mutual Trust”. Leaders who demonstrate care for their team’s well-being and success reinforce mutual trust and team cohesion [52,73].

Therefore, considering the comparison made above, we state the following proposition:

Proposition 3.

EL within the military, when executed through the formal structure of MC, enhances effectiveness, reduces risk, increases operational efficiency and increases satisfaction among personnel.

MC’s principles enhance effectiveness by providing a clear commander’s intent and fostering shared understanding, ensuring all team members align with mission objectives. Risk is reduced through disciplined initiative and trust-building, as empowered personnel can adapt to changing situations and make informed decisions. With MTOs and participative decision-making, operational efficiency increases, enabling quick, decentralized task execution. Lastly, satisfaction among personnel rises through mutual trust and showing concern, creating a supportive environment where individuals feel valued and capable of contributing meaningfully to the mission.

MC principles support a culture of continuous learning and adaptation. Through clear communication and feedback loops, teams can monitor performance, learn from experiences, and apply lessons learned to future operations. EL, through MC, prepares teams to handle high-stakes and critical situations more effectively, ensuring that teams are ready to act decisively and appropriately when it matters most.

By empowering individuals to make informed decisions and contribute meaningfully to the mission, EL promotes a culture of accountability, adaptability, and continuous improvement, enhancing overall effectiveness and readiness in dynamic military environments. The phrase of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, “Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum”, or its commonly used adapted version in military units, “Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum” [84], emphasizes the importance of preparing military personnel for challenging contexts, and that can be done through EL, in the proper context and timing as exemplified by SOFs and military SAR crews. In these examples, there is a continuous process ensuring that individuals are empowered, aiming to cultivate high performance in challenging environments.

In addition to enhancing operational effectiveness, EL represents a valuable approach to addressing the persistent challenge of retention. When implemented effectively, it mitigates potential negative behaviors associated with specific traits (the dark triad) since EL fosters a culture of trust, transparency, and ethical behavior. EL encourages personnel to align with organizational values. Recognizing ethical behavior and enhancing moral identity promotes a supportive environment, helping individuals feel valued and, potentially, reducing the influence of self-centered attitudes. Additionally, through power distribution and collaborative decision-making, EL diminishes the need for dominance, creating positive relationships within the team. This addresses issues like dissatisfaction related to working conditions and work–life balance and cultivates commitment and job satisfaction among personnel. Finally, this leadership style may be another “tool” to reverse the trend of declining retention rates.

5. Conclusions

This article contributes to scientific discourse by examining the application of EL within military contexts, marking a potential first attempt in this domain. It emphasizes the necessity for a nuanced leadership approach that balances empowerment with essential command and control structures. The study offers military leaders’ insights into fostering adaptability while maintaining essential discipline and hierarchy. When applied judiciously, EL practices enhance operational effectiveness and mission readiness, provided they are tailored to the specific needs of military contexts.

However, there are limitations. The broad scope of the population studied and the dynamic nature of the environment considered present challenges to generalizing the findings. The complexity and diversity of military operations also introduce variability in applying EL practices, highlighting the need for further empirical research.

The article explores three propositions: First, EL has the potential to enhance adaptability within the AFs by fostering autonomy and agility in non-emergency contexts (Proposition 1). Second, EL encounters significant obstacles within military hierarchies, where entrenched cultural norms, centralized authority, and demands for operational discipline decrease its effectiveness (Proposition 2). Finally, EL’s application cannot be universal across military contexts due to the cautious nature of these organizations, the exigencies of high-risk operations, and the strict hierarchy (Proposition 3). EL must be applied preemptively within the MC framework, balancing empowerment with discipline, which is paramount for effective military leadership, ensuring innovation without compromising operational excellence.

In future research, empirical studies could focus on validating the propositions from this article since the conclusions are primarily drawn from theoretical analysis. Expanding the scope of leadership studies to include a wider variety of sectors beyond the military can be beneficial, as long as military specificities are considered. It could provide valuable insights, helping to refine the applicability of EL in military contexts and present additional opportunities or challenges in adapting leadership strategies to different environments.

To effectively adopt EL in traditionally hierarchical military structures, it is paramount to integrate it incrementally, mainly through familiar frameworks like MC, which already emphasize decentralized decision-making. By addressing implicit beliefs and demonstrating the benefits of EL, perceptions should gradually shift, facilitating an effective integration within the military organization. EL should maintain clear boundaries and alignment with the commander’s intent and be applied in environments where autonomy is appropriate. Moreover, leaders should be trained to balance empowerment with supervision and establish crucial feedback mechanisms to avoid potential risks such as UPB, ensuring that autonomy enhances adaptability without compromising discipline or ethical standards. This strategy reinforces the importance of flexible leadership strategies in different military scenarios.