This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Leadership
and
the American Character
By Captain George C. Solley,
U. S. Marine Corps
Vincent Astor
Memorial ..
VT’A Leadership )^l;
74
Leadership in the profession of arms has always had one ultimate test, one basic goal—success in war. As Americans, we have recognized this fundamental aspect of leadership and have expanded that framework: we insist, in addition to victory, that the manner in which we conduct war is important, and we strive to instill and maintain in our fighting men certain moral and ethical standards. Yet this very insistence on the positive aspects of leadership, in combination with the contemporary tendency to treat leadership as a social “science,” has inadvertently led to certain trends—the subordination of the basic goal of leadership to other considerations and a movement away from the type approach to leadership which leads to that goal.
Since World War II, the methods by which military leadership has been taught, the prevailing attitudes toward it, and the prescriptions for its application have been changing. In the last 30 years, new texts in naval and military academies emphasize “functions of management” and “psychological principles.” It is as if Americans have somehow changed with the advent of nuclear weapons and the electronic age, that our basic needs, desires, and attitudes have undergone a modification, and that we now require leaders steeped in psychological and management theory and training. Good morale, the solving of personal problems, and insight into the minds of those who are led are important, but as ends in themselves they make for inadequate leadership. The approach to leadership that makes final goals of these aspects has produced several trends which are growing in acceptance.
First, the emphasis on good morale creates an increased reliance on reward as a means of motivation; the recruiting appeal, for officers and enlisted men, concentrates almost exclusively on how the military can help its members' in terms of pay, benefits, civilian-related training, and education. Yesterday’s reward, however, becomes today’s inalienable right, and former privileges such as individual enlisted quarters, daily liberty, and education opportunities regardless of
current billet are taken for grante9 Second, in the desire to to
positive approach to leadership ^
keep men satisfied and happY- re. junior officer becomes increasing luctant to exert his will on ^ (js, vidual men and groups he When a man exerts his will on ot ^ he usually forces someone to do 5 thing he would not do without exertion of will; that force, o cC ^ ^ does not fit in with the techm^ i offering rewards and may crfl[ sense of dissatisfaction or rese
and since ^
(at least temporarily), satisfaction and resentment
are
tendency
to
positive qualities, the -------------- ------- - ((
avoid situations where they 111 suit. Often junior officers enlisted personnel will enC0 promise
•a
and te,
ill
n,aCory
x , reward, offer comPe ^
measures, even plead with r^el |jsh
ordinates in attempts to aCC°^,pic. successfully a task, when a Ss|c be unalterable insistence that the n done would save time and en and probably have better result5- ^ The foundation and basic natu leadership is the leader’s abihry ^ pose his will on those he leads. sition of will requires a goal, ‘lfl goal of leadership is the accomP^.^ ment of the missions given t^0fjty whether assigned by higher an or assumed by the leader himse the back of each leader’s mine r j the knowledge that the ultimate^ of military leadership is suCL0 to war, then missions assigned, the smallest unit and last *n^lVI[11o',e will either directly or indirectly ^ that unit or individual closer to J - An inc^i
of preparedness for war. emphasis on the accomp missions as the primary goal 0 ship will not in any way advers feet the morale or self-respecr o J
lishrrr
,enf
of
who are led, for the secondary gl of
.stills0"
and 1 of
leadership remain—the instm^tq
confidence, skill, respect, among subordinates. ce
The third trend is the accepta
of
- . , o'1
mediocre performance. To improvement and to require - be done well calls for such an eX
that
of will in the form of a refusal
anything less. The fourth
to
of
.110"'
trend is the gr _
view on the part of junior
officer5
the Se'prnen chat the enlisted men of 4*"“' are °f limited worth—in
"aract,
The
er and in performance.
app C7iUsts of these trends lie in our CWer 'f ICaderShip and not in the itiilit 61 r^e men wh° make up our emphary serv*ces. We need a shift of leader^'5’ & cy,an8e in approach. The ''lade fand y,otent'al leader) should be and ~ ‘rmly aware °f the basic nature a^ays c
'ain b;
® als of leadership, and he must
needsrtta'n them in his mind. He t° recognize that there are cer- AnlerjJaSIC tharacteristics shared by stren ""T*5 t^lat are the keys to their Cott^l i an^ potential for ac- i- ls ment, individually and col- abjijtj *7’.an<^ he needs to recognize his
SISv .
ship t , n. using fundamental leader- t0 tapeC,niqUes ty,at W‘H enable him Pottntj Cj at stfength and develop that
^aracj3'0 asPects of the American as ^ er can he identified, especially TtieS{,y rt*ate to war and the military. dtgrasPects are present in varying the Pn|S: *n nearly all Americans, from
"nlisted
man with an eighth grade ie 0pp ~jc1 a history of problems to an ej 1,Cer w'th advanced degrees and The r°^Cn recorcl °f success.
Amer- 171051 prominent quality in the "ality Can character is that of individ- °Ped ftfricans have a highly devel- t*als -p^nst of themselves as individ- 'r'herentCy. see freedom of choice as an have nght and are not anxious to
cansat fteedom taken away. Ameri
'''ills '
the and
may choose to subordinate their pecific
0 a specific leader for s es.
rT°ses K , •
liZe a ’ Dut only when they recog-
chat i°r such a choice and think
S°' Th 'S 10 t^le*r best interest to do 'n^vj strength and importance of °8nizedUal freedom of choice are rectify implicitly, even in the mili- educated or unedu-
^hether
successful or unsuccessful,
°r ffee of it, Americans think setvjnSelves as having qualities de-
Cated
'>bh
of
v>ne r.f
sen * resPect- This self-respect Amerj Se °f freedom of choice make aiitb0r■anS s^epr*cal of authority, for y may deny them their choices 'he„ > not H:
'ey t, ' “uc give them the respect L lnk they deserve; it is only
"en
atpe . authority displays fairness that As ^anS Put rheir faith in it. mericans appreciate fairness, so
do they respect efficiency, success, strength, and aggressiveness. Americans respect efficiency, both in themselves and in others: efficiency in oneself leads to pride in accomplishment, which in turn satisfies the need for self-respect, and along with efficiency recognized in others, provides the sense of security that comes with the knowledge of one’s individual ability and the competence of the associates on whom one must rely. Success is a product of efficiency. Americans are competitive, desire marked progress when striving for a goal, and need recognition of their efforts; successful achievement satisfies all three urges. Strength is a traditional American virtue in each of its forms (power, strength of character, and moral strength), and although Americans often align themselves with the weak in matters of raw power, they have a corresponding respect for those who have the power to accomplish difficult tasks, especially when those with power also exhibit strength of character and moral strength. Along with strength is a respect for aggressiveness which is a by-product of American openness and lack of subtlety, lack of patience, and the notion that a person can accomplish nearly anything if he puts his mind to it.
A leader must respect his subordinates. Each man has some characteristic or ability that calls for respect, and the attitude of the leader should be to grant him that respect until such time as he proves undeserving. It is doubtful that many men will willingly forego that respect once having received it. The mere act of demonstrating respect for subordinates as a group, but particularly as individuals, does much to increase the likelihood of leadership success. Respect breeds respect, and respect downward generates a return respect and its corollary, loyalty. To respect a subordinate is to reinforce his own feeling of personal worth, which in turn enables him to feel more satisfaction in his situation. The leader’s respect makes it much more likely that the subordinate will, when he exercises his individual choice, decide to accept and follow the leader’s decisions. Respect for subordinates virtually ensures fairness on
the leader’s part in his treatment of his men, simply because it is difficult to treat unfairly a man whom one respects—and the evidence of fairness consequently reduces the natural skepticism for authority.
A leader must insist that each and every job and mission be done well. An insistence that jobs be done well is the first step toward producing efficiency. Men perform tasks in a mediocre manner for many reasons— inertia, laziness, or often because they simply do not know the difference between mediocrity and excellence. Whatever their reasons, the blame for continued mediocrity can and should be placed on the leader who allows it. Insistence on high standards of performance will always result in improvement and eventual efficiency.
Finally, a tool in promoting excellence is the leader’s power of will and his use of it. The leader must be willing to use any leadership means at his disposal in order to accomplish his goals. Since men are largely controlled by the hope of reward and the fear of punishment, the leader must have the strength of character to use both. This willingness denotes power, and the proper use of power reveals strength of character. Once a leader accepts his responsibility and is willing to use the wide range of means for accomplishing his goals, then he must carefully use the powers available to him to fit each individual situation. To wield power properly calls for courage, not only physical courage but aggressiveness in the accomplishment of goals. The leader must have the courage to use the leadership means at his disposal, to make his own decisions, and to take responsibility for them. And he must also have self-control before he can use power appropriately. With self-control and courage comes power, and when combined with respect for subordinates and an insistence on excellence, the power of the leader and his willingness to use it in order to achieve his goals are invaluable in the creation of stable, just, and beneficial standards of behavior, discipline, and performance. In war, where the consequence of failure is final, the successful leader will be able to invoke such behavior.
!eecl
November 1980
75