"Lately I have been reading Stephen E. Ambrose's World War Two history "The Victors", which discusses leadership at both the highest and lowest levels of the European Theater. Ambrose makes a strong case for it being the leadership at the lowest--not the highest--levels that won the war. The book covers the war in Europe from Normandy to the German surrender, drawing on the author's extensive research for numerous other books he has written about WWII. In the Normandy invasion most of the leadership were killed within minutes--some before they even got off the landing craft. The assault nearly failed from the lack of leadership alone. What few soldiers survived coming ashore were clinging to whatever cover they could find, too afraid to move. The eventual success largely came from regular soldiers who stepped up and took over leadership and the few remaining leaders who took the initiative and led out. Once the other soldiers saw people leading--and finding success--they were able to overcome their fear and begin making a contribution. One of the larger blunders in leadership came soon thereafter. The Allied command had been preparing and training their men for months--even years--for D-Day. What they had not considered was what would come after that. They had information on every inch of beach for the Normandy landing, but almost nothing on what to expect beyond that." Read the rest of Part one here: Lessons in leadership from WWII - Part 1 Part two: Lessons in leadership from WWII - Part 2
Which is why most armies and certainly the brit and commonwealth forces.. Invest so heavilly in their nco's.
Jon, Just read both parts... love how Thom explained both sides of the leadership spectrum. Both business and military strategies. I selected this portion of the article because I did not know this... One of the keys to the Allies' victory in the Normandy invasion was the ability of their front-line leadership to take the initiative. When they saw a problem they immediately acted to solve it. The Germans, on the other hand, were accustomed to waiting for orders. Enjoyed this article very much! good find Jag Jem
Hi Mark, you might not have heard of that part because from what I have read it is not true. The Germans went to great lengths to train their NCOs to be able to react quickly in the field as their basic army doctrine relied heavily on individual, small unit, and divisional initiative. The Germans maintained a high standard of leadership at the company and field gade levels throughout the war.
Jon, I'd salute ya if I could... so some rep will have to suffice. Thank you for the correction and quick response. Just goes to show, you can't believe everything you read! kinda scary, but true Jem
Nothing particularly new in that article. Seems more of a rehash of typical managment and leadership training courses I've been to over the years. I have also personally thought quite a bit about this subject and come to different conclusions. What really makes an orgainzation work is a combination of leadership and management. Think of it this way: The whole orgainzation is like a wheel. Leadership drives that wheel. Without it the wheel goes nowhere. Management is like the axle. Without managment the wheel careens out of control. Management gives the orgainzation a steady course. Of course, too much managment and the wheel has difficult turning. It also cannot easily change its course. The next concept is orgainzation itself. Those nice neat little org charts really are largely meaningless. Orgainzations look alot more like a pile of soap bubbles than an org chart. That is, people within the orgainzation form relationships, friendships and, other interactions that do not match the official organization. Over time an orgainzation gets comfortable with how various individuals within it fit into leadership and managment roles. The soap bubbles orgainze themselves into a useful pattern. So, how does this fit into D-Day? The initial landing sequence, what boat who is in followed the official orgainzation of the units landing. But, in contact with the enemy that quickly fell apart. The soap bubble organization took over. Thus, you might find a low ranked nco who was a recognized leader within a platoon. His actions, possibly without the permission of the officer in charge, were the ones the men looked to and followed. In the confusion no one really cared that he was running the show only that he was succeeding. A high ranking officer might also find himself with nothing more to command than what normally befell an nco. He to acting intelligently made things happen with what he had. As an example of this, I worked for a Navy Captain who was in special operations like SEALS or EOD, etc. All the senior nco's and officers knew him as "Wally." He related a story that while in Bosnia he was at an outpost with a handful of men. They needed to fortify the position and began filling sand bags and digging positions. He, like his men simply pitched in. In the middle of doing this an Army Major with driver arrived and asked who was in charge. The men directed him to Wally. The Major was agast that a Navy Captain was filling sand bags and digging firing positions. He commented that this was not befitting his rank. Wally ordered the Major and his driver to pitch in and help..... OR ELSE. This is true in any organization. It was true on Omaha beach. Now, what helps make that organization even more effective was good training and effective management practices prior to that landing. The men were confident in their abilities. Their officers and ncos knew their business. What emerged in the heat of battle was who could really lead and who was just filling a billet and filing paperwork. The world needs paper pushers too but, not in the heat of battle. When all around you are losing their heads it is the true leaders that salvage the situation.
I think your left out a key component; the workers (or soldiers). Without them there is no one to manage and no one to lead. Unless the workers (or soldiers) have some emotional investment, management and leadership are meaningless. In a corporation, if the CEO or manager misses work, business still goes on. If the workers are out, little gets accomplished. In education, this is clearly demonstrated. If the Principal is out, education goes on without him (or her). If a teacher is out, they need to find a substitute, otherwise no learning goes on. The same is true, I think, in the military. Look at how difficult it was for the leadership to lead the inexperienced American soldiers in North Africa. Until those soldiers became invested in the cause, they were difficult to lead. Once that happened, and their training improved, so did their fighting ability. I feel that success comes more from the bottom up than the top down. That said, it is incumbent on the leadership to be knowledgeable and able to impart that knowledge to those they manage.
