Through the years when I have worked with leadership trainings and development I have used several different theories and models. Somebody once told me that a critisism towards many of these theories and models were that they were done on army personell and students. The claim was then that they were not so relevant for the every day workplace.
So why the study of army leaders and staff? Well, lets clear my guess about the students first. When I was a student myself we were often invited to participate in different tests. I guess it was because it was cheap, or at least cheaper, to use students and we often had free time in the day to spare.
When it comes to army leaders and other people in the military I am more certain that one of the reasons many have studied them is because behaviors and patterns that are more subtle in the every day work place become more obvious under those conditions. A conflict that might be hard to spot the dynamics of at the office because it is so subtle, like a group questioning its leader, can be so much more clear in a military situation. There the stress is higher or more connected to life and death, so a questioning of the leader there can be quite brutal.
For example one of the most widely used theories on group dynamics is the FIRO-theory, Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation. That was conducted during the late fiftees on army leadership and personell during the Korean war. It has then been used to illustrate group dynamics and leadership around the world.
