The Organisational Psychology of Ethical Military Leadership during Times of Crisis: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic

ABSTRACT This article sheds light on the positive impact of ethical leaders on their subordinates’ behaviours during times of crisis. The article focuses on the turbulent and abrupt changes taking place in military external operating environments which could negatively affect military personnel’s mental health and psychological wellbeing. Pandemics and humanitarian crises are an example of such external environmental turbulences. These environmental turbulences are explored from an organisational perspective, under which they are viewed as a form of organisational change associated with a psychological uncertainty that has a negative impact on individuals. This uncertainty must be treated wisely by military leaders in all sectors of the armed forces in order to manage resistance to change and to prevent the negative psychological consequences that could be generated by such uncertainty. This article thus analyses ethical military leadership as a means to addressing the negative psychological consequences caused by change uncertainty in difficult times. It explores the terms change, change uncertainty, and ethical leadership. Various recommendations are made in the discussion section to facilitate the organisational process of implementing ethical leadership across all organisational levels of the armed forces.


Introduction
This article aims to shed light on the positive impact of ethical military leadership on the psychological wellbeing and mental health of military personnel during times of crisis, such as pandemics. Consequently, it studies ethical leadership related to organisational change and military personnel's reactions to change from an organisational-psychological perspective. The aim is to understand better military personnel's psychological and behavioural reactions to change. It focuses on turbulent changes taking place in the external operating environments of military forces, which also have an impact on their internal operating environments as well as on personnel's psychological wellbeing, their mental health, and their military performance due to the high level of uncertainty associated with these changes. Military personnel are accustomed to difficult times in periods of both peace and war, and the literature has extensively investigated the effect of war on their mental health. The effect of non-military crises, such as pandemics and humanitarian crises, on military personnel's mental health and performance is, however, under-investigated.
The organisational psychology of organisational change: a journey through the concept of change Change is a key characteristic of organisations today (Kotter and Heskett 2008). External operating environments, for example, have a great impact on internal organisational environments (Dawson 2014). Contemporary organisations also tend to adjust their structures, operations, and processes to cope with rapidly changing external environments (Dawson 2014;Piderit 2000). The COVID-19 crisis is an example of a crisis that has increased the level of military personnel's perceived uncertainty. COVID-19 has also had a negative effect on their psychological wellbeing, mental health, and military performance (Sudom, Guérin, and Lee 2021). Dawson (2014) has, for example, focused on the robust relationship between external/macro and internal/micro organisational environments, where microenvironments are strongly affected by changes taking place in external environments. Change does not only have an impact on organisations, but also has a dramatic effect on the individual level of organisations where the personal lives and psychological wellbeing of organisational members are negatively affected (Herscovitch and Meyer 2002).
Change could be defined simply as new ways of doing things (Kotter and Heskett 2008). Abrupt change also tends to take place during times of crisis resulting in various sudden operational and psychological transformations. The sudden change in tasks, structures, and processes involved in these transformations produces uncertainty, which, at the same time, hinders efforts towards change (Piderit 2000). Uncertainty can be defined as the inability to make precise forecasts about the future (Bordia, Hobman et al. 2004) and is significantly associated with military personnel's resistance to change, hindering the success of change if not managed properly (Dawson 2014;Kotter and Heskett 2008;Lewin 1947). Uncertainty also tends to trigger resistance to change as it can generate learned helplessness (a sense of powerlessness arising from a traumatic event or persistent failure to succeed), anxiety, stress, absenteeism, and distrust (Morgan and Zeffane 2003;Hui and Lee 2000;Jackson et al. 1987).
The negative reactions of military personnel to change may lead to the failure of organisational change (Coch and French 1948). Thus, change management scholars have focused on formulating effective strategies to eliminate resistance to change (e.g., Dawson 2014;Kotter and Heskett 2008;Nutt 1986;Kotter and Schlesinger 1979;Lewin 1947). Such change resistance has also received extensive attention, as it is a negative behavioural response to change that may dramatically hinder the success of change (Kotter and Heskett 2008;Piderit 2000). For example, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) focused on the transformation of organisational members' resistance into behavioural support for change. Behavioural support for change could occur in various forms, such as cooperation or helping behaviours.
Shedding light on the negative consequences of pandemics on military personnel: COVID-19 as an example This article adopts an individual level of analysis. Discussing the impact of COVID-19 on military personnel at the organisational level is beyond the scope of the current study. This section thus aims to focus on the psychological impact of pandemics, in general, and COVID-19, in particular, on individuals in the armed forces. These negative consequences may hinder their performance if not suitably addressed by an informed leadership.
The COVID-19 crisis has had a dramatic and widespread global impact on military personnel and civilians, causing negative social consequences and psychological distress (Reger et al. 2020;Sudom et al. 2021). There have been concerns, consequently, about an increase in the rate of mental illness, especially among high-risk groups (Reger et al. 2020). Various studies have reported several negative psychological and psychiatric consequences of COVID-19 that affect the public, such as anxiety, suicidal ideation, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (Czeisler et al. 2020;Rudenstine et al. 2021;Jiang et al. 2020).
Military personnel have a relatively higher suicide risk than to civilians (see Nir 2021; US Department of Defense 2019). They may be more vulnerable in crises due to their previous exposure to potentially stressful and traumatic life events, such as deployment, military training, and combat (Marini et al. 2020). Nichter et al. (2022), for example, conducted a seven-year longitudinal study, where they reported a higher suicide risk in groups of military personnel that suffer from social loneliness and those who suffer from thoughts of self-injury. Additionally, Hill et al. (2021) evaluated the pre-to-peripandemic changes in psychiatric disorders, where an increased rate of psychiatric distress and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) was reported. In fact, military personnel's uncertainty about the risk of pandemic-related mental health disorders and loss of loved ones was the main trigger of GAD and distress (Hill et al. 2021).

Psychological uncertainty as a triggering mechanism
Uncertainty is the root cause of the negative psychological consequences of COVID-19, as well as those of other crises. It tends to be associated with any form of change/organisational change (Kotter and Heskett 2008). Indeed, it has a significant negative effect on psychological wellbeing and on positive attitudes to change. Uncertainty exhibits positive link to stress (Pollard 2001;Schweiger and DeNisi 1991;Ashford 1988). It also has a positive association with turnover intentions (Greenhalgh and Sutton 1991). In addition, it is positively related to absenteeism and lack of intrinsic motivation (Hui and Lee 2000), learned helplessness (Martinko and Gardner 1982), and lower performance (Terry and Jimmieson 1999). Moreover, it is negatively correlated with job satisfaction (Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989).
Furthermore, uncertainty has a negative impact on military personnel's organisational commitment (Ashford, Lee, and Bobko 1989;Hui and Lee 2000) and trust in the organisation (Schweiger and DeNisi 1991). Commitment is a psychological force that tends to have the same nature, regardless of the target of such commitment (Herscovitch and Meyer 2002). This means that uncertainty may also be negatively related to military personnel's commitment to change, which, in terms of its nature, would be a type of organisational commitment. The negative repercussions of uncertainty are mediated by the absence of control that tends to be attached to uncertainty (DiFonzo and Bordia 2002;Bordia, Hobman et al. 2004). In fact, control refers to military personnel's beliefs that they can positively affect change either in the external or internal operating environments of their armed forces and influence its direction (Greenberger and Strasser 1986). Indeed, military personnel tend to suffer from lack of control during any change. Nevertheless, this lack of control is expected to be higher when people have no control over their internal and external environments because external environments have an influence on the internal operating environments, in our case of armed forces (Dawson 2014).
The lack of knowledge about current or future events represented by uncertainty undermines military personnel's ability to control such events (Bordia, Hobman et al. 2004). These feelings of paralysis and helplessness lead to critical negative consequences in military and military medical operations. For example, commitment to changea willingness to make efforts directed to ensure the success of the changeis crucially needed for the success of any form of change that military personnel might be confronted with during their daily training and operations. However, such commitment could be negatively affected by change uncertainty; without a proper understanding of the intricacies of the change and of what is expected in the face of change, it is difficult to gain someone's commitment to do what is required (Baraldi et al. 2010). Thus, the high rate of psychological uncertainty experienced during external environmental crises such as COVID-19, or any other pandemic or humanitarian crisis, could have a negative effect on military personnel's performance. The efficiency and effectiveness of daily military training and processes, operations and tasks would, consequently, be affected. This negative effect could be even more evident in the military medical sector, which is obliged to change its daily routines and allocation of resources during a time of pandemic.
Ethical military leadership as a change mechanism and strategy to address the negative repercussions of uncertainty Ethical leadership may be a method to deal with the negative repercussions of change uncertainty. The organisational-psychological component of ethical leadership should, however, be explored prior to discussing the therapeutic consequences of ethical leadership during times of change. Brown et al. (2005) were the first to develop a construct of ethical leadership, defining it as the "demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement and decisionmaking" (Brown et al. 2005, 120). This definition can be dichotomized and illustrated as follows: Firstly, "the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships" refers to leaders' ideal conduct that would be imitated by followers and would lead to their being perceived as ethical leaders. For example, warmth, trustworthiness, care, and honesty would result in leaders being perceived as legitimate and credible role models (Brown, Treviño, and Harrison 2005). Indeed, the term "normatively appropriate" was described by Brown and colleagues as deliberately vague, because what is considered normatively inappropriate is highly dependent on several contextual variables. For example, public speaking about certain organisational actions might be considered a normatively inappropriate behaviour in some cultures. Other cultures, however, might perceive it as a normatively highly appropriate behaviour.
The second pillar of the definition focuses on the promotion of ethically desirable conduct towards subordinates through an effective communication process (Brown, Treviño, and Harrison 2005). Ethical leaders should not only draw their followers' attention to ethics and make it salient. They must also provide them with support via procedurally and interpersonally fair processes (Bass and Steidlmeier 1999). Support is essential to motivate followers to engage in the desired, encouraged behaviour (Brown and Treviño 2006;Bandura 1977).
Reinforcement is the third component of Brown et al.'s definition. It implies that ethical leaders should reward ethical behaviour and discipline deviant ones (Treviño et al. 2003). The process of rewards and punishments is called "behavioural reinforcement" (Bandura 1978). The reinforcement process should be conducted on the basis of clear standards set by ethical leaders (Bandura 1977;Brown and Treviño 2006). Praising ethical behaviour is important as it motivates followers to maintain the momentum of the new desired behaviour (Brown and Treviño 2006;Bandura 1977).
The fourth element of Brown et al.'s definition is concerned with the prominence of decision-making. Decision-making refers to ethical leaders' responsibility for the consequences of their decisions (Bass and Avolio 2000;Brown et al. 2005). Brown et al. also believe that it reflects their tendency to make fair and moral choices that can be observed and imitated by others.
Ethical leaders can motivate their subordinates to see uncertainty as an opportunity rather than a threat, using their behavioural reshaping skills to form the behaviours of their subordinates during times of uncertainty. Consequently, ethical leaders are role models who can use their behavioural reshaping skills not just to promote ethically desired behaviours but, rather, any desired behaviours (Bandura 1977).
Ethical leaders may change their followers' perceptions about uncertainty in various ways. They must first act as role models who perceive uncertainty as an opportunity to learn new skills. From a social learning perspective, their followers would subsequently emulate their behaviours (Bandura 1977). Clear behavioural standards during times of uncertainty may be established in collaboration with subordinates. Ethical leaders are people-oriented and are expected to set standards that fit with their followers' abilities during times of uncertainty and change (Kalshoven et al. 2011). Followers are expected to be informed in advance about the positive outcomes of their positive behaviours to ensure a high level of motivation and persistence (Bandura 1978). Followers might also be taught to set clear performance standards to themselves to be able to feel the self-induced pleasure of achieving their own targets (Bandura 1977).

Discussion
It seems reasonable to recommend that the mind of ethical military leadership delineted above be implemented across the different organisational levels of the armed forces. This implementation could occur via selection of military academy students, where personality tests and interviews could be conducted to choose individuals with greater potential to be ethical leaders in the future. Traits of ethical military leadership should also be incorporated into the military appraisal system across all organisational levels, not least to help choose commanders with a proven history of effective ethical leadership during their service. Promotion should not be based solely on seniority, technical factors, and physical factors, but also on behavioural factors. The aim of behavioural assessment should be to evaluate the ethical leadership performance of leaders with their subordinates. Ethical leadership development programs should also be an integral part of the implementation process in the armed forces. The impact of military leaders on their subordinate's psychological wellbeing during uncertain times should also be taken into consideration during promotion. The degree to which this is being done today, obviously varies from country to country and even from unit to unit.
Fair and ethical leaders have greater credibility during times of change, which motivates their subordinates to trust them and, hence, involve themselves in the ongoing change (Sharif and Scandura 2014;Morgan and Zeffane 2003;Li 2005). Leaders' credibility during times of crisis could be used as a core appraisal factor for promotion via surveys that could be distributed to subordinates during their commander's appraisal. Furthermore, ethical leaders motivating their subordinates to involve themselves in change should be a key behavioural criterion in the appraisal of ethical military commanders. In fact, ethical leaders tend to involve their subordinates in change and decisionmaking to make them feel empowered and confident (Fedor et al. 2006;Kalshoven et al. 2011). This involvement may contribute to addressing individual's feelings of helplessness and lack of control triggered by uncertainty during times of crisis . Indeed, subordinates' involvement in change enhances their sense of control during change and reduces their anxiety (Morgan and Zeffane 2003).

Conclusion
The COVID-19 crisis has provided various leadership lessons that might be useful in dealing with any future pandemics and crises.
First, psychological uncertainty tends to be associated with any form of change. The more turbulent the change, the higher is the level of perceived uncertainty. This uncertainty is a major trigger for various negative psychological and behavioural responses to change, which can affect the performance, efficiency, effectiveness, and reliability of military operations if not treated properly.
This leads to our second point: Ethical military leadership could be a remedy for the negative consequences triggered by psychological uncertainty, which has various negative psychological repercussions during times of change and crisis (Pollard 2001;Schweiger and DeNisi 1991;Ashford 1988). It could thus be a catalyst for successful cognitive, perceptual, and behavioural change during times of crisis, because individuals tend to follow moral leaders during difficult times (Li 2005). Uncertainty might, therefore, be transformed into an opportunity for psychological growth rather than a threat. This transformation could have a positive impact on military personnel's mental health, which could, in turn, affect their performance. Ethical leaders are able to lead this perceptual transformation process due to their cognitive role modelling and cognitive reshaping skills, which are supported by behavioural reinforcement (Bandura 1978).
Last but not least, ethical military leadership could also be an effective intervention for behavioural resistance to change, which can occur during any form of change and/or crisis. This resistance could occur during small-scale changes that may arise on a daily basis. Upgrading to new military technology is, for example, a form of change that could affect the efficiency of military training, operations, and performance if there exists resistance to such change. Resistance to change has also received extensive attention, as it is a negative behavioural response to change which could dramatically hinder its success (Kotter and Heskett 2008;Piderit 2000).
Finally, the armed forces should not rely on authoritarian leadership and command only, especially during crises, operations, and times of war. Military personnel need to feel that their leader is ready to make sacrifices and even die for them. Miracles can happen if a leader is perceived as an ethical role model during difficult times.

Research limitations
This article is grounded in an in-depth conceptual analysis, which needs to be supported in future research by empirical studies. This article is thus to be considered the first part of further work, which will lead to more empirical studies and consequent publications. Future research should empirically test the positive impact of ethical military leadership on subordinate's the behaviour of subordinates during times of crisis.