Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues

The article analyzes how Germany, particularly through the Ukrainian crisis that began in 2014, has been placed at the decision-making center of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), thus becoming the de facto chief architect after Poland of the EU’s response to Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. The article highlights the internal and external implications of this role, including in other policy areas in particular with regard to the Baltic States. To do so, we must first take a closer look at the principles of German foreign policy and the specific nature of German-Russian relations.

Leadership competence is a unique set of qualities, skills, knowledge and abilities attributed to specific social and professional groups. Cultural circumstances mean that societies in different countries may have different views on the nature, development opportunities and scope of leadership competences. There are also more and more differences occurring in the views resulting from generational differences. In addition, existing stereotypes in societies are constantly fuelled by media messages, which determines how the image of different formations, including soldiers, is assessed. Bearing in mind the complexity of the nature of leadership, different views of both theoreticians, practitioners and laymen in terms of leadership competence, or even the natural attribution of leadership competence to soldiers and the essence of leadership in the military environment, the author of the article has made efforts to show what kind of leadership competence is held by the soldiers in Poland in the opinion of representatives of the youngest generation (generation Z). This article is based on an in-depth analysis of the source literature (Polish and foreign) and the results of empirical research. Ascertainments and conclusions presented in the article confirm the conviction about the complexity of the nature of leadership, leadership competences, as well as the functioning of stereotypes in the society, which in a certain natural way determine the ways of thinking and the course of cognitive processes.

This article deals with the question of how we perceive organizations – as machines for making money, or as living systems with specific needs and objectives. In accordance with these views, a model of a biotic organization has been created with the research aim to measure the level of representation of biotic organizations in the business environment. The model of a biotic organization consists of four principles: amorphous structure, leadership, shared vision and service to its own environment. In practice, the existence of the individual elements of the biotic organization were evaluated by quantitative and qualitative research. Answers were sought and found to the four partial questions put forward, namely: What is the purpose of the existence of the organization? What type of structure is applied in organizations? Is there a shared vision within organizations? Which of these principles, management or leadership, is applied more in practice? The results of the research show that only five percent of organizations in the business environment are biotic organizations. This confirms the research hypothesis that this organizational form is not prevalent in the current economic environment. The low level application of biotic principles reveals that most companies are still organized on the basis of the principles of mechanistic organizations. This is reflected in formal hierarchies, a pyramidal structure and traditional management that create an environment of command and control.

Present world has no clear balance between economic and political forces. Conflict initiators use all possible sanctions and unconventional means and ways and have no clear and permanent structure and allies. Traditional leadership and actions in conflict zones are not effective. Complex dynamic systems (CDS) paradigm allows understanding better the essence of chaotic processes in conflict zones and acting efficiently.

There is neither one obvious power acting on the world, nor obvious balance of power and long-term peace and stability. The paradigm of complex dynamic systems would allow understanding more clearly the real order of the world that cannot explain the dominating old mechanical paradigm. Complex dynamic systems have characteristic features and act in many fields where leadership becomes inefficient when following mechanical paradigm.