Enable breadcrumbs token at /includes/pageheader.html.twig

Disruptive By Design: B-24 Bomber Production

Dr. Jennifer A. Miller is the technical director, comptroller for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, Washington, DC. She is a certified project management professional, certified government financial manager, and a certified defense financial manager with both acquisition and health care specialties. She is also a member of the Society of Defense Financial Management’s Washington Chapter, the Association of Government Accountants’ Northern Virginia Chapter and AFCEA International.

Dr. Jennifer A. Miller compares the leadership challenges in the mid-1940s and today. Credit: Flash Vector-stock.adobe.com

I find a comparison and contrast of the mid-1940s and present-day leadership challenges interesting.

First, the obvious. Contextual pressures for performance at international levels created major differences between the mid-1940s and the present. While we have minor and major conflicts today, world wars are not yet driving the nation’s leadership to draft soldiers, ration supplies or call private sector manufacturing goliaths to assist with wartime production needs. Granted, I’m speaking of the United States rather than all countries worldwide.

As such, innovation and marketplace competition allow leaders to rise from industry, rather than urgent needs. The mid-1940s allowed awe-striking endeavors of industrial capacity and capabilities to impress, intimidate and eradicate future sources of conflict. Today, sources of conflict have morphed mediums (e.g., land, sea, space, cyber), creating broader contexts for it to cultivate.

Differences aside, similarities include leadership challenges to meet present and future needs in the most strategic manner possible. Like then, challenges include time and resource constraints, plus being human. Leadership of the mid-1940s explored potential, rising to challenges and building achievements, while modern-day leadership struggles to garner similar acknowledgment and approval ratings regardless of dominate party in political administration.

Shifting perspective, we might envision or compare inspiration, empowerment, initiative and communication between leaders and followers in the mid-1940s to now. For instance, I consider self-interest a lesser priority in the mid-1940s relationships between leaders and followers, as defined by scholars Gary Yukl, Jennifer George and Gareth Jones in Leadership: Building Sustainable Organizations. Leaders of early multinational corporations shifted organizational priorities to express support and loyalty to the nation, inspiring and empowering employees through simplistic communications using verbal and nonverbal means.

Today, leaders navigate more media of communication, and efforts to share inspiration, empowerment, initiative and intent are fragmented in transmission. We have unusual dynamics in play, such as remote, tele-, and hybrid-work environments. In the mid-1940s, leader and follower relationships seemed stronger, more intimate and value-bearing.

Building on different ideas leads to pondering conceivably different impacts, considerations or challenges that leaders faced in the mid-1940s versus our current time regarding innovation, change and teaming. I posit innovation, change and teaming positively supplemented the challenges leaders faced in the mid-1940s.

Conceivably, different impacts, considerations and challenges they faced back then include diversity management among socially accepted perspectives for male and female workers, state unemployment rates, the state of technology and exploration, and diversity in teams.

Today, there are movements supporting diversity, equity, inclusivity and accessibility that didn’t seem to exist in the mid-1940s—although the present administration has moved to eliminate these programs.

Leadership dynamics considered in the mid-1940s, which may or may not apply now, are plentiful. In the mid-1940s, I believe “political correctness” (i.e., conformity to prevailing opinion) was less of a concern and the work ethic for physically laborious work was higher. A sense of achievement stemmed from a long day of physical work. Further, relations with other nations drove pride in nation-supporting work and a feeling of contributing to a greater good for soldiers overseas in conflict.

Leadership dynamics were likely less complicated than today, with fewer distractions of intermediaries, workplace diversity technology and psychological study, as seen from the scholars Yukl, George and Jones. Today, we are flooded with multiple news sources, social media and slews of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methodology studies ranging from attention spans to mandated work locations to zeroing in on the productivity plus peace. The 1940s were simpler, less studied times.

Other considerations worth taking into account when comparing leadership between the mid-1940s and now include the matter of self. In my opinion, the presence of inherent self-interest remains with individuals regardless of role or practiced abilities. Another consideration regarding modern leadership includes an abundance of study and research theories for improved leadership understanding and application.

For example, leaders and followers have existed for centuries, yet comprehension and efforts to capitalize on leadership and relationships have been a focus only for a limited time.

Lastly, among the key leadership lessons learned over time, one is that leaders today combine vision and skill to accomplish unpredictable and unforeseen realities through dynamic exchanges and experiences with followers.