Much is made of the importance of follow-through. In particular, the strength of will shown by leaders in the face of stubborn resistance and seemingly insurmountable obstacles can seem to be essential to snatch success from failure. However there is a flip side to that which is revealing.
This is a good subject for displaying why the military may not really be the great source of inspiration it’s cracked up to be for how to be a leader in other fields. We have already seen a widely acknowledged example of the apparently momentous value, paired perhaps inevitably with the very real and devastating risk, of such indomitable will in one of history’s most renowned commanders.
Many of those with military experience may be more familiar with what might really be going on. For example, I once had an opportunity to closely observe such a commander who, seemingly through sheer will power alone, once faced down an enemy force that was at least four times larger than his, and that was also considered the foe’s elite formation. He eventually only abandoned the fight because he ran out of ammunition.
This officer was rightly praised for his steadfast courage and boldness. But it became apparent over time that he lacked deeper levels of imagination. These had neither informed – nor shaken – his determination. He had seized on a solution to a dilemma, and having grasped it, refused to let go. Fortunately, in this instance, it worked.
But what really happened there? Did his force of character generate a momentous battlefield victory out of thin air? Or did his lack of insight expose his unit to extraordinary risk – even possible annihilation – which they only escaped through good fortune? Which additional or lesser degree of which characteristic might have missed the opportunity, improved the result, or led to disaster?
Are these traits mutually exclusive? Is it possible to exhibit the sort of forceful determination that encourages faith in better times ahead when things seem darkest, while still keeping your options open and informed by further analysis, new information, and developing events? Does deep insight inevitably lead to paralyzing indecisiveness? Does forceful decisiveness conceal dangerous lack of insight?
When your boss strikes a heroic pose and starts giving speeches about staying the course, which sort of result do you suppose might ensue, and why?
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of ringing confidence followed by disappointing – even distressing – results, please see this WSJ business column by George Anders, about General Motors and its market and share price performance under its current CEO.
—
Please do take a moment to subscribe, either by email or RSS reader, to be sure you receive future articles as they’re published.
—
Note: And speaking of subscribing, it has been brought to my attention that for the past two weeks the feeds for this blog were arriving with headlines only – no text – to subscribers. Moreover, some who use a particular internet browser experienced the same problem at the site itself. This problem has been resolved. My apologies to those who were inconvenienced, and much appreciation to those who notified me of the issue.
Technorati Tags: military, inspiration, leader, courage, boldness, imagination, insight, opportunity, analysis, information, indecisiveness, confidence, WSJ, George Anders, General Motors, CEO
Sphere: Related Content
Note:
Jim – Don’t you think that whether staying the course or abandoning the course is the “right” choice all depends on how things turn out? And how can you make that judgment before the results are in? Robert E. Lee was up against a rookie. He still pursued the “wrong” strategy – but only as it turned out.
Hello Lee,
Certainly I think that how things turn out help us assess the decision to stay or abandon the course! I suppose that’s really my point – we shouldn’t assess a course of action merely because on the basis of the iron will with which it is pursued by a “leader,” although many military and other commanders are broadly admired for their steadfast courage in the face of adversity.
My point that it isn’t their personal characteristics – nor certainly that one of uncompromising steadfastness – that wins the day. Or, at least, not alone. And certainly such a trait can conceal many potentially ghastly shortcomings.
The link in the main post is to a discussion of MacArthur in Korea – his determination was consistent, but the results of the actions he pursued with it contrasted greatly between the victory and Inchon and the retreat from the Yalu.
I just finished a very good book about the Pacific Theater in WWII whose author is very critical of MacArthur for this same characteristic causing so many problems then, although he grudgingly admits the same man was brilliant – almost a genius – as military governor of Japan after the war.
So, this post is a part of my campaign against the uncritical adoption of certain designated “leadership” traits – especially when they derive from studies of military leaders whose characters and actions can be difficult to replicate in the civilian world.
Thanks for stopping in with that!