🚀 go-pugleaf

CONTRASTS IN LEADERSHIP
Generals Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D.Eisenhower.
by John Osgood http://pw2.netcom.com/~jrosgood/law.html
The primary source for biographical information that follows
was Commander in Chief by Eric Larrabee.  For contrast I
relied on William Manchester's biography of MacArthur,
American Caesar,  and Eisenhower at War 1943-1945 by
David Eisenhower.
Larrabee's description of Eisenhower is mainstream -- the
consummate staff officer and master of compromise, yet a
brilliant tactician and strategic thinker in his own right.  His
treatment of MacArthur is less favorable.  He attempts, through
anecdotes, to undermine what he sees as "myths" of greatness.
Ironically, some of the faults he attributes to MacArthur are
part of the intangibles of strategic leadership that escape
Larrabee (e.g. psychological importance of the Philippines).  He
does not seem to fully appreciate the significance of charismatic
command and military genius, both of which were MacArthur major
strengths.
Clausewitz says that military genius is "... all those gifts
of mind and temperament that in combination bear on military
activity."  He calls it a "harmonious combination of elements."
Accordingly, the critical elements are intellectual power,
courage, presence of mind, energy in action, staunchness,
strength of character, sense of locality and imagination, all
working in concert -- an apt description of MacArthur's traits
and leadership style.
Current doctrine is more modest, preferring to define the
successful leader as one with highly developed "strategic"
skills.  FM 22-103 describes the person as one with broad
conceptual vision and potent communicative proficiency who
quickly and decisively sets the tone for a command and gives it a
sense of strong moral and ethical purpose and direction
(Eisenhower's methodology as Supreme Commander). Information
flows freely, initiative is encouraged and there is a real
interdependency between subordinate elements of the organization.
The objective is to create what doctrine describes as favorable
conditions for "sustained organizational success to achieve the
desired result."

While terminology differs, there are recurring themes common
to all treatises on leadership.  This is true with civilian
theories as well.  For example, Gardner in On Leadership
identifies nine "tasks" he sees as the most significant
"functions" of leadership.  Kouzes and Posner identify five
"practices" which they contend involve ten "behavioral
commitments" which, when properly applied, will bring out the
best in a leader. See Kouzes, James M and Posner, Barry Z., When
Leaders Are at Their Best:  Five Practices and Ten Commitments.

Both Eisenhower and MacArthur achieved unprecedented success
as strategic leaders, even though their temperaments, styles, and
backgrounds were dramatically different.  MacArthur, first in his
class at West Point, was an ardent student of military history.
He was a decorated World War I combat veteran  with a reputation
for being courageous under fire (Manchester discounts the "Dugout
Doug" disparagement as fictional).  At the start of World War II,
he was a recognized expert on the politics and geography of the
Far East (Clausewitz's "sense of locality").  As to his
personality, Manchester refers to him as a "... great thundering
paradox of a man, nobel and ignoble, inspiring and outrageous,
[and] arrogant and shy."   He was a man who could be extremely
paranoid and distrustful even of his own staff.  Yet Manchester
says he craved attention and "... appeared to need enemies the
way other men need friends."   His penchant for defiance and
obstinacy are well known, dating to his disobedience of
Roosevelt's orders during the veterans' riots in Washington,
D.C., and culminating in his relief from command in Korea.  He
demanded excessive loyalty from subordinates and did not
necessarily pick the most capable officers for key subordinate
positions.
If Larrabee's views, are correct, MacArthur's most troubling
character flaws were his occasional ethical lapses, occasional
misstatements to his superiors and the press, and occasional
bouts of outright insubordination.  One of the key things
followers look for in leaders in absolute honesty.  The
detrimental effect of perceived lack of honesty is cogently
illustrated by the account in the readings of the General Harkins
matter during the Viet Nam War.  It demonstrates the cancerous
effect such practices can have on a command.
Eisenhower was, by all accounts, an affable, easy going,
quiet individual with a strong staff background who, according to
Larrabee, purposely tried to conceal his "icy" intelligence.  He
spent most of his early career as a staff officer, although he
often actively sought command.  He and Patton were early
proponents of armor and he displayed remarkable foresight in
terms of its potential on a mobile battlefield.  Roosevelt and
Marshall recognized his unique talents as a staff coordinator and
planner and began immediately to groom him for ultimate command
in the European theater.
Both Generals were inspired leaders with extraordinary
vision.  MacArthur's support for an island hopping campaign, his
resistance to the invasion of Formosa and his insistence on the
retaking of the Philippines were key factors in the successful
campaign against Japan and resulted in significantly reduced
casualties, according to Manchester.  Eisenhower's biggest
challenge in Europe was maintaining command independence in the
face of strong opposition and, at times, hostility by Montgomery
to his policies and right to command.  His planning and execution
of Overlord, his refusal to yield to the British urging
for the "single thrust" attack on the continent, and his ability
to make the coalition of allied forces work in harmony were among
his greatest achievements.  Larrabee quotes Roosevelt who
purportedly said: "He is the best politician among military men.
He is a natural leader who can convince other men to follow
him..."
Kouzes and Posner would describe him as one who shared a
vision (the conquest of Germany by combined allied forces),
challenged the process to implement that vision (innovative
planning and calculated risk taking in the tactical conduct of
the war), and created a climate in which others could act
(fostered collaboration among sometimes bickering allies).
It is difficult to fault Eisenhower.  He unquestionably was
the right man for the right job.  Perhaps his single two biggest
failures were approving Market Garden to appease the
British, even though he doubted its wisdom (lapse in integrity),
and not taking a firm enough stand on the Russian question and
the division of Europe (poor long range vision and judgment).
Article written and posted by John Osgood
http://pw2.netcom.com/~jrosgood/law.html
for other articles see
http://pw2.netcom.com/~jrosgood/articles.htm