LEADERSHIP is a word which implies volumes in the broad realm of human relationships. Abstract? Yes, but the supposedly concrete definition as gleaned from two standard dictionaries— “ability to lead”—seems equally unsatisfactory and lands us no nearer our goal of exact definition. Indeed, unless we confine ourselves within the realm of human relationships, the dictionary may even take us far afield; the old saw, “you may lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink,” undoubtedly implies ability to lead in a sense, but not in that exalted sense with which our present paper would deal.
Reverting, then, to the realm of human relationships, there is brought into our picture the long list of human attributes—truthfulness, loyalty, honor, tact, simplicity, knowledge, judgment, reflection, common sense, courage, self-control, justice, earnestness—to catalog but a few of the virtues usually associated with human endeavor.
We come now to the specific application of leadership in a military sense—the ability to lead men. And while leadership in general may be said to comprise a harmonious blending of all the human virtues rather than emphasizing any particular one of them, the assertion is here made boldly that in military leadership a keen insight into human nature, coupled with a goodly supply of what the old “darkey” has appropriately termed the “sixth sense”—common sense— top the list of those attributes in producing that magnetic something which makes a man stand forth from his fellows like a figure in bas-relief upon the major plane of the stone from which it was hewn. Furthermore, leadership demands professional knowledge and a high degree of personal character. Another defines military leadership as “the science of creating and maintaining a high morale, and of directing it through the acts of men to the achieving of a definite purpose or result.” Manifestly, it is that something which causes men to “grasp the purpose of a commander," creating in them the urge to “strive to advance it with force and energy.”
Continuing our quest for golden words upon the subject, and especially from the pens of some generally recognized leaders not only of the past but of the present as well, it is considered that no better lines have been penned on the subject, particularly from the purely naval angle, than certain of those contained in John Paul Jones’s letter of 1775 to the Marine Committee of the Continental Congress. Says our illustrious admiral:
It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy should be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be as well a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor. . . . The naval officer should be familiar with the principles of international law…..He should also be conversant with the usages of diplomacy and capable of maintaining .... a dignified and judicious diplomatic correspondence…..Coming now to view the naval officer aboard ship and in relation to those under his command, he should be the soul of tact, patience, justice, firmness, and charity. No meritorious act of a subordinate should escape his attention or be left to pass without its reward even if the reward be only one word of approval. Conversely, he should not be blind to a single fault in any subordinate, though at the same time he should be quick and unfailing to distinguish error from malice, thoughtlessness from incompetency, and well-meant shortcoming from heedless or stupid blunder. As he should be universal and impartial in his rewards and approval of merit, so he should be judicial and unbending in his punishment or reproof of misconduct…..In his intercourse with subordinates he should ever maintain the attitude of the commander, but that need by no means prevent him from the amenities of cordiality or the cultivation of good cheer within proper limits…..In one word, every commander should keep constantly before him the great truth, that to be well obeyed he must be perfectly esteemed…..His authority when offshore being necessarily absolute, the crew should be as one man impressed that the Captain, like the Sovereign, “can do no wrong”! This is the most delicate of all the commanding officer’s obligations. No rule can be set for meeting it. It must ever be a question of tact and perception of human nature on the spot and to suit the occasion…..When a commander has, by tact, patience, justice, and firmness each exercised in its proper turn, produced such an impression upon those under his orders in a ship of war, he has only to wait the appearance of the enemy’s top-sails upon the horizon…..All these considerations pertain to the naval officer afloat. But part, and often an important part, of his career must be in port or on duty ashore. He must be of affable temper and a master of civilities…..
And then again, another great leader, Admiral Sims, in his lecture on “Military Character”1 says:
We all know in a general way that a man upon whom is placed a great responsibility in a great war, a Joffre or a Jellicoe, should not only be a model of virtue, honor, patriotism and subordination but that he should have a thorough knowledge of his profession, and the self-confidence which this renders possible. Also a strong will, great decision of character, resolution, energy, loyalty to his government, his cause, and his subordinates, willingness to accept and ability to bear responsibility, fortitude in adversity, boldness in conception, caution in execution, imperturbability in council, thoroughness in preparation, besides personal courage, physical vigor, and many other secondary essential qualities.
Some maintain that true leaders are born, not made, that leadership is solely an endowed talent. But this is considered to be a greatly overdrawn view, an idealistic half- truth, and has no basis of solid fact in this practical, everyday life which we lead in a genuinely practical world. The Almighty has graciously equipped man with a brain and has thus provided him with the capacity to learn and to profit by the examples which he sees about him. To take any other view of the situation would produce an exceedingly gloomy outlook for the vast numbers of those of every generation who cherish hopes for command.
Certainly, talent does play its part as a factor of success in leadership as in all other spheres. Similarly, it is maintained that studious application, perseverance, lots of hard work, and the will to succeed through profiting by the example of others also serve to induce self-confidence and go far in overcoming the handicaps of any deficiency in talents. As previously outlined, it is, after all, the prestige of character, self-confidence, professional knowledge, all harmoniously blended with tact and a just appreciation of human nature, which constitute the very keystone of the arch of successful leadership; and the heartening note which here resounds is that all of those factors can be acquired if one be willing to pay the price, the price of success: “eternal vigilance” and constant application— hard work. Let us therefore briefly inquire into the lives of some of the great leaders and see if this is not correct.
Take the life of Moses, one of the oldest leaders on record; he that was truly “a sailor babe,” the lowly born Jewish child of immigrant parentage, whose “cruise” in the little basket amongst the flags and reeds of the Nile conduced to outwit Pharaoh and his decree of death for the boy. We need only read the Bible’s biographical sketch of this great leader to discern the germs of some of the points advanced above. For in the first place, Moses was modest and unostentatious, a basic trait, easily recognizable in a truly great leader. “And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt ?.....Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice.” Thus Moses at first protested and confessed his utter incapability for performing such a huge task. But he was willing to study, learn, and to apply himself to consummating the task in hand.
And then again, Moses was amenable to wise counsel and sound advice—another important attribute of leadership. “And Moses’ father-in-law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou and this people that is with thee; for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.” Moses therefore heeded that advice, and accordingly placed upon others some of the burden of details and minor tasks that might well be removed from his shoulders. (Incidentally, there is here suggested a secondary but essential component of leadership: the ability of the leader to select a competent staff or other subordinates upon whom he can place dependence in the matter of details and the execution of minor tasks.) And as a result of all this, we witness Moses gradually acquiring courage, self-confidence, knowledge, reflection, tact, justice, patience, power—in a word, leadership, and this to such a superb degree that eventually he triumphs over Pharaoh, and finally effects the freedom of his people.
Time has a way of veneering with romance the simple, everyday deeds and of enshrouding with mystery the motives actuating the lives of outstanding men; particularly is this true of great military leaders. Moreover, modern development in the science of psychology and the reams of available biographical facts have done much to “debunk” and dissipate some of that air of romantic mysticism which has surrounded many of the world’s great men. Even Napoleon’s undisputed success as a leader was due not to any endowed powers, but primarily to his self-acquired power of introspective vision, a profound study of psychology, and the will to master the technique of military leadership. Undoubtedly it is true that from a very early age his mind ran in a channel of things-of-war, creating in every fiber of his growing body the teeming passion for conquest. Veritably, he studied, worked, played, lived, and dreamed of war. This, then, rather than specially endowed talent, is what made of the Corsican such an outstanding exponent of military leadership. And history is replete with similar examples of great leaders: Hannibal, Alexander, Caesar, Washington, Nelson. Moreover, we may be sure that all of them paid the price and trod the same tedious, rugged trail of intensive perseverance, studious application, minute preparation, and possessed the indomitable will to excel.
The moral? Simply that he who would lead should first ask himself the question: “What price leadership?”