World War I Leadership Characteristics That Could Make Future Military Leaders Successful

This monograph analyzes the leadership characteristics that suggest a rapid acceptance of changing conditions in warfare among senior leaders and which leadership characteristics tend to suggest a more conservative approach. This conservative approach fails to recognize and adapt to the new emerging conditions. This research studied two World War I British leaders, General Sir Ivor Maxse and General Sir Hubert Gough, and compared and contrasted their leadership characteristics. From this, the research identified the most significant leadership characteristics that allowed these leaders to successfully adapt quickly in a time of transition. The criteria for analysis was based on four leadership characteristics as defined in FM 22-100, Army Leadership: Revised Final Draft, dated June 1998. The four leadership characteristics used as evaluation criteria were personal courage, initiative, tactical skill, and learning.A comparison of the role of the two World War I leaders yields the conclusion that certain leadership characteristics allowed them to adapt more easily in an evolving environment and facilitated successful battlefield leadership. These characteristics were moral courage, initiative, tactical skill and the application of knowledge through effective, continual learning. The monograph provides valuable insights into what leadership characteristics will allow current and future leaders to be successful, and unsuccessful, during a military transitional period. Our leaders must be creative, intuitive, dynamic, and able to make contemplated decisions, and have the courage and determination to act on them. The requirement for developing those leaders is an important one for the United States and a demanding one for the U.S. Army. An understanding of these leadership characteristics and the reasons that they facilitate successful battlefield leadership can provide an intellectual foundation beneficial to the Army as it prepares for future warfare.

"This monograph analyzes the leadership characteristics that suggest a rapid acceptance of changing conditions in warfare among senior leaders and which leadership characteristics tend to suggest a more conservative approach. This conservative approach fails to recognize and adapt to the new emerging conditions. This research studied two World War I British leaders, General Sir Ivor Maxse and General Sir Hurbert Gough, and compared and contrasted their leadership characteristics. From this, the research identified the most significant leadership characteristics that allowed these leaders to successfully adapt quickly in a time of transition. The criteria for analysis was based on four leadership characteristics as defined in FM 22-100, Army Leadership: Revised Final Draft, dated June 1998. The four leadership characteristics used as evaluation criteria were personal courage, initiative, tactical skill, and learning. A comparison of the role of the two World War I leaders yields the conclusion that certain leadership characteristics allowed them to adapt more easily in an evolving environment and facilitated successful battlefield leadership. These characteristics were moral courage, initiative, tactical skill and the application of knowledge through effective, continual learning. The monograph provides valuable insights into what leadership characteristics will allow current and future leaders to be successful, and unsuccessful, during a military transitional period. Our leaders must be creative, intuitive, dynamic, and able to make contemplated decisions, and have the courage and determination to act on them. The requirement for developing those leaders is an important one for the United States and a demanding one for the U.S. Army. An understanding of these leadership characteristics and the reasons that they facilitate successful battlefield leadership can provide an intellectual foundation beneficial to the Army as it prepares for future warfare."--Abstract

In a constantly changing world threatened by ever increasing terrorist acts, American interests, both at home and abroad, require protection provided by great military leaders. In order to produce military leaders who can successfully meet the future challenges America faces, it is important to develop and refine them early and help them understand how to create and refine a successful leadership style. The process of developing leadership styles, however, is not easy and it requires a prodigious amount of determination, time, planning, training, mentoring, and refinement. One way to help develop leaders is to show them examples of previously successful leaders, leaders such as George C. Marshall and Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower. Marshall and Eisenhower were two talented and exceptional leaders and are great examples of American military leadership. Their leadership styles were indispensable during World War II, and it is important for leaders today to examine why their leadership styles were so successful.

In a constantly changing world threatened by the likelihood of terrorist acts, the American people need military leaders who clearly demonstrate an understanding of American core values, and who are both competent and morally focused. In order to produce military leaders who meet these qualifications and who can successfully meet the future challenges America faces, it is important to develop and refine those leaders early and help them understand how to create and refine a successful leadership style. The process of developing leadership styles, however, is not easy and it requires a prodigious amount of determination, time, and planning from prospective future leaders. It also requires military training institutions to align their curriculums to promote leadership, as well as, to provide guidance and mentoring in order to help develop these future leaders. One way to help develop leaders is to provide examples of both successful and flawed military leadership styles. There are many cases of each in American history. In particular, World War II leaders Admirals Ernest J. King and Chester W. Nimitz provide contrasting examples of naval leadership. An examination of the leadership styles of these two naval officers provides useful examples which future leaders can consider when reflecting on their own leadership styles. After careful review, it soon becomes evident that the leadership style of Nimitz closely aligned with the leadership styles of Generals George C. Marshall and Dwight D. Eisenhower, two World War II leaders I closely examined in my previous Master’s thesis. In addition, it also becomes evident that King was a diametrically different leader from these three leaders. He provides an example of a leader who was cold, harsh, and morally bankrupt. As result, reviewing the leadership styles of these World War II leaders will benefit future leaders as well as those they lead.

ADP 6-22 describes enduring concepts of leadership through the core competencies and attributes required of leaders of all cohorts and all organizations, regardless of mission or setting. These principles reflect decades of experience and validated scientific knowledge.An ideal Army leader serves as a role model through strong intellect, physical presence, professional competence, and moral character. An Army leader is able and willing to act decisively, within superior leaders' intent and purpose, and in the organization's best interests. Army leaders recognize that organizations, built on mutual trust and confidence, accomplish missions. Every member of the Army, military or civilian, is part of a team and functions in the role of leader and subordinate. Being a good subordinate is part of being an effective leader. Leaders do not just lead subordinates-they also lead other leaders. Leaders are not limited to just those designated by position, rank, or authority.

Competent leaders of character are necessary for the Army to meet the challenges in the dangerous and complex security environment we face. As the keystone leadership manual for the United States Army, FM 6-22 establishes leadership doctrine, the fundamental principles by which Army leaders act to accomplish their mission and care for their people. FM 6-22 applies to officers, warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted Soldiers of all Army components, and to Army civilians. From Soldiers in basic training to newly commissioned officers, new leaders learn how to lead with this manual as a basis. FM 6-22 is prepared under the direction of the Army Chief of Staff. It defines leadership, leadership roles and requirements, and how to develop leadership within the Army. It outlines the levels of leadership as direct, organizational, and strategic, and describes how to lead successfully at each level. It establishes and describes the core leader competencies that facilitate focused feedback, education, training, and development across all leadership levels. It reiterates the Army Values. FM 6-22 defines how the Warrior Ethos is an integral part of every Soldier's life. It incorporates the leadership qualities of self-awareness and adaptability and describes their critical impact on acquiring additional knowledge and improving in the core leader competencies while operating in constantly changing operational environments. In line with evolving Army doctrine, FM 6-22 directly supports the Army's capstone manuals, FM 1 and FM 3-0, as well as keystone manuals such as FM 5-0, FM 6-0, and FM 7-0. FM 6-22 connects Army doctrine to joint doctrine as expressed in the relevant joint doctrinal publications, JP 1 and JP 3-0. As outlined in FM 1, the Army uses the shorthand expression of BE-KNOW-DO to concentrate on key factors of leadership. What leaders DO emerges from who they are (BE) and what they KNOW. Leaders are prepared throughout their lifetimes with respect to BE-KNOW-DO so they will be able to act at a moment's notice and provide leadership for whatever challenge they may face. FM 6-22 expands on the principles in FM 1 and describes the character attributes and core competencies required of contemporary leaders. Character is based on the attributes central to a leader's make-up, and competence comes from how character combines with knowledge, skills, and behaviors to result in leadership. Inextricably linked to the inherent qualities of the Army leader, the concept of BE-KNOW-DO represents specified elements of character, knowledge, and behavior described here in FM 6-22.