The idea may be controversial and cynical, that under certain circumstances, the fighting effectiveness of soldiers and an army can equal that of a professional army. For any military institution, effectiveness in combat is not only determined by the degree of psychological commitment among soldiers and officers. It is also dependent on the divulgence of organizational culture of each service unit towards the preparation and waging of the conflict. The Malvinas (Falklands) War of 1982 is a specter of conflict between the organized and the unorganized. In this war, two types of armies confronted one another: Argentine army, which constituted principally of conscripted soldiers, and the British army, a professional and all volunteer force. Critical evaluation of the conflict showed Argentina lagged and lost the war in spite of having advantages over Britain.  Best state of art ammunition, modern aircrafts and proximity to the islands, nothing could camouflage the sheer hopelessness of the leaders. The absence of a visionary leader made the difference. It is his traits, his command, his communication, his emotional intelligence, his interpretation, his command, his judgment, charisma, his coordination and interrelation between his followers that shunned their victory. Analysis also revealed that the Argentinean conscripts had poor motivation, communication, and commitment in their strategy and involvement for fighting the war. This article would reflect the importance of leadership and his communication strategies to win over followers and ensure that effective leadership communication is the source of successful outcomes.

Leadership in Falkland Conflict

Britain and Argentina fought the Falkland War in 1982. Before the war started, it had been was a win-win situation, for both countries. They had the expertise and technical knowledge to fight and win the war. There were some extra advantages for Argentina, as it was closer to Falklands than Britain. Then why did Britain win the war? Key factors of victory were professionalism, committed soldiers and leadership attitude. On paper, Argentina had an extra edge, in material, planes, supply lines, military, and ships. For example, British had sent their elite troops, such as Special Forces, Paratroopers, and Commandos well trained to combat in the terrain. Argentine leaders kept their elite troops in the mainland, fearing a Chilean invasion and sent troops untrained troops to fight the war. Under such circumstances, conscripted soldiers in the absence of proper training and equipment had to fight against both the enemy and lack of leader foresight.

Our analysis would thus conjure the Falkland Island Case as a study, which highlights the fact that visionary leadership is the most important factor responsible for the success of any war – in the current case of any organization or organizational change.  The effectiveness of leadership in sustain and implementing defense mission depends on his qualities of vision – including but not limited to weapon and information technologies, organization and force structure, personnel support and equipment systems, operational training and doctrine, the commitment and skills of both people in uniform and supporters, teamwork and communications, and how intricately all these elements are commanded and integrated.