The Relationship of Leadership and Accountability

Leadership and Accountability
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date
Leadership and Accountability
The United States army values soldiers that exhibit accountability while executing their duties. Accountability means that one is answerable for own actions, meeting deadlines, and adhering to instructions (Cantero-Gomez, 2019). Accountability in the army force is attributable to army success, especially when undertaking a particular mission, such as saving people stuck in a disaster. But to exhibit accountability, one must have leadership skills. This skill is essential for ensuring that an organization, individuals, or teams achieve their intended objective. In the Army profession, leadership is an ingredient for discipline and teamwork that later these attributes culminate into safe environments that benefit all citizens. According to Clark (2018), leadership and accountability are prerequisites to soldiers’ success. Proper leadership in the army force is guided by the four R’s; the right time, the right uniform, the right place, and doing the right thing. In light of these revelations, it would be essential to understand accountability inclusion in leadership, particularly from the U.S. army perspective.
In the Army force, a leader can be any soldier, even those without any ranks. One must understand what needs to be done and strive to ensure everything is done accordingly. For example, rankless soldiers can make accountability and leadership prevail in the army by ensuring each instruction from the top authority is respected and actualized. Besides, accountability comes in by the soldiers understanding the repercussions of action and being ready to embrace it. A perfect example of this assertion is when war commanders took difficult yet compelling decisions during the colonial era. Accountability in leadership is evident by leaders becoming strategic in their choices. This element is linked to army forces being successful in their missions. For example, Armed Forces Journal (2012) concedes that General George C. Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff, was successful in World War II due to his strategic leadership. This revelation implies that understanding what to do is vital in achieving accountability in an army force setting.
Leaders are responsible for setting the ground about the behavior and performance required to be exhibited by the soldiers. When leaders take responsibility for their achievements and failures, it positively hits soldiers. More precisely, soldiers are hard-pressed to emulate their boss and strive to be like him in their serving capacities. This move determines m...