Transitional Leadership

Matthew B. Ridgway was an influential American airborne commander during the Second World War and led United Nations forces during the Korean War. A 1917 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, Ridgway served multiple tours in Latin America and Asia as a junior and mid-grade officer. A protégée of General George Marshall, he commanded the Eighty-Second airborne division during the invasions of Sicily, Italy, and France. During the Battle of Bulge and the invasion of Germany, he served as commander of the newly created Eighteenth Airborne Corps. Years later, during the Korean War, Ridgway transitioned from a staff position as a deputy to Army Chief of Staff Lawton Collins to become commander of the Eighth Army in Korea, and then commander of all U.N. forces in the Korean theatre. Ridgway's career, especially his leadership during the two wars, provides insights on the officer skills needed to effectively transition to different levels of command.

Institutional Leadership

George C. Marshall served as the U.S. Army’s chief of staff from 1939 through 1945. Marshall possessed the experience, commitment, assertiveness, and intelligence necessary to meet the challenges of reforming and reenergizing the U.S. military. By emphasizing simplicity, flexibility, and decentralization, Marshall’s institutional leadership delivered undeniable effectiveness and efficiency. Leaders of large institutions face daunting challenges. Even when their organizations are remarkably efficient, the sheer size gives rise to managerial complexities that can produce bureaucratic inertia, infighting, and a loss of vision and vitality. Marshall was more than up for the challenge.

Introduction

Few people would challenge the assertion by presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns that “leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth.”1 Yet, in the four decades since the publication of Burns’s seminal work Leadership, our understanding of the leadership process has improved tremendously. Among the most important developments is the widespread recognition that successful leaders, operating at any level of responsibility, are not simply endowed at birth with great leadership ability. As General William Tecumseh Sherman once observed, “I have read of men born as generals peculiarly endowed by nature but have never seen one.”...

Adaptive Leadership

Harold G. “Hal” Moore was the battalion commander who demonstrated extraordinary adaptability during the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam. Moore’s thorough preparation for command, along with his creative intellect, physical courage, and sheer resolve, were central to his successful leadership. Adaptable leaders understand the contingent and situational nature of leadership and know that an action that is effective in one situation may not necessarily bring success in another.

Authentic Leadership

David M. Shoup was the twenty-second commandant of United States Marine Corps (1960-1963). An R.O.T.C. graduate, he began his military career in 1926, and would earn the Medal of Honor for his courageous leadership at the Battle of Tarawa during the Second World War. After the war, Shoup developed a reputation as a highly effective institutional reformer, someone who skirted self-promotion and political machinations, and instead focused on mission. In the years before he became commandant, Shoup served as Inspector General of the Marine Corps. Essential to his professional success was his authentic leadership style, which led subordinates to follow him and superiors to depend on him. A critical element of his authentic nature was keen self-awareness, including an understanding of how his early life experiences in Indiana shaped his core values, of honesty, fairness, responsibility, and commitment. Equally important to his authentic leadership was an independent-mindedness and a determination to act in accordance witl1 his moral code, regardless of the consequences. Throughout his Marine Corps career and even in retirement, Shoup utilized his self-knowledge and heightened sense of integrity to govern his everyday conduct and decision-making.

Charismatic Leadership

In the years prior to Pearl Harbor, Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller served in multiple assignments abroad, including marine combat tours in Haiti and Nicaragua; in the United States, he completed military studies at the Virginia Military Institute, in the officer candidate program, and at the U.S. Army Infantry School. Puller’s at times controversial leadership style, most evident during World War II and the Korean War, developed over several decades of military service and education. The essence of Puller’s dynamic leadership was leading by example from the front, developing a personal connection with his subordinates, and ensuring the welfare of his men. Such behavior established strong bonds and unwavering loyalty.

Exemplary Followership

Colin L. Powell spent much of his remarkable career in advisory, not command, positions. By demonstrating the qualities of an exemplary follower, a leader presents an appropriate and realistic role model for everybody within his organization. Most people in positions of organizational authority must assume complicated dual roles as follower and leader. Rare is the leadership position that is not simultaneously a position of followership. Too often, the role of follower is seen as inherently submissive, dependent, passive, and unimaginative. On the contrary, the best and most effective followers share many characteristics with successful leaders, including competence, commitment, composure, moral conduct, and independent critical judgment.

Innovative Leadership

Over the course of his career, Adm. Arleigh Burke developed the qualities and attributes of a leader of technologically innovative leadership. An examination of his professional life reveals three characteristics of such leaders, such as delegating sufficient authority and responsibility to technological experts and securing for them the necessary resources; avoiding the seduction of pure theory to maintain a focus on practical objectives; and recognizing that no technological innovation is of such significance that one can ignore alternatives. The culmination of Burke's innovative leadership came with the deployment in 1960 of the U.S. Navy's first submarine launched ballistic missile, the Polaris.

Visionary Leadership

Visionary leaders craft clear and compelling visions that motivate followers through a shared sense of direction. Unlike institutional leaders, who draw on managerial and administrative skills, visionary leaders must identify long-term objectives and maintain their organizations’ focus and momentum. By steadfastly pursuing deliberate objectives, leaders such as Arnold change the status quo and provide their organizations with control over their operating environments. Along with other pioneering aviators of the early twentieth century such as General Billy Mitchell, Arnold developed an appreciation for the potential role of air power in modern warfare. His vision was to create a massive, technically advanced air force that was organizationally independent of the army and thus operationally capable of strategic bombing campaigns. Research and development were central to Arnold’s conception of building and sustaining America’s air dominance, and he envisioned close and continuous collaboration between air force personnel and civilian scientists in academia and industry. Unlike other air power visionaries, Mitchell included, Arnold demonstrated considerable political skill to oversee the transformation of America’s air power. His leadership success was defined by the clear articulation of a comprehensive vision, an extensive knowledge of aeronautics and logistics, and a fierce resolve to achieve his objectives.

Integrity and Leadership

George Washington recognized the value and power of establishing a reputation for integrity. As a prosperous planter-businessman and militia veteran of the French and Indian War, he came to epitomize the eighteenth century ideal of gentlemanly honor. Washington’s proven abilities and impeccable stature, especially his renown as a person of high moral character, led to his appointment as commander in chief of the Continental Army in 1775. Washington’s integrity, which he demonstrated consistently and guarded carefully throughout the war, was instrumental to his overall leadership effectiveness. Washington’s moral character and altruism were at the center of his greatness as a leader.