Comparative Analysis Of The Military Leadership Styles Of George C. Marshall And Dwight D. Eisenhower

Major James R. Hill

• Publisher: Lucknow Books
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781782895251
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

In a constantly changing world threatened by ever increasing terrorist acts, American interests, both at home and abroad, require protection provided by great military leaders. In order to produce military leaders who can successfully meet the future challenges America faces, it is important to develop and refine them early and help them understand how to create and refine a successful leadership style. The process of developing leadership styles, however, is not easy and it requires a prodigious amount of determination, time, planning, training, mentoring, and refinement. One way to help develop leaders is to show them examples of previously successful leaders, leaders such as George C. Marshall and Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower. Marshall and Eisenhower were two talented and exceptional leaders and are great examples of American military leadership. Their leadership styles were indispensable during World War II, and it is important for leaders today to examine why their leadership styles were so successful.

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION

How do military officers develop their leadership styles? In order to successfully answer this question, it is necessary to examine, as closely as possible, a person’s life experiences in order to see how those experiences shape their understanding of what leadership is in the military. If through examination it is possible to see how successful officers developed their leadership styles, then that information might be useful for current and future officers. Invariably, many find solace in simply stating that great leaders are born and thus leadership abilities are God given. This argument is eugenics based and suggests that leaders are born with inherent genetic attributes that provide them natural leadership abilities.{1} Edgar F. Puryear, Jr. asked General J. Lawton Collins, the Commander of the VII Corps in the Army during World War II, what he thought about leadership. He responded, “Only a limited number of people combine the necessary qualities of character, integrity, intelligence, and a willingness to work, which leads to a knowledge of their profession to become successful leaders. These are God-given talents we inherit from our forefathers.” He also added, however, that “There are…techniques of leadership that anybody can learn if given a modicum of intelligence and a willingness to work.”{2} Collins’ position was mostly eugenics based, and it demonstrates that he did not think society or environment had much of an impact on the development of an officer’s leadership abilities. When Puryear asked General Omar Bradley the same question, he noted that Bradley thought some leaders were born with certain qualities of leadership such as a good physique, good mental capacity, and curiosity, but that there were other leadership qualities that needed to be developed such as job competence and learning from others.{3}

To some degree, both Collins’ and Bradley’s comments have merit. Certainly military leaders need to have the intellectual ability to learn and remember information, and they must also have the physical ability and stamina to lead. They could not, for example, be effective leaders if they could not learn and retain information, or if they were physically unable to lead. Collins’ and Bradley’s comments, however, give short shrift to the impact that society can have on the development of leadership ideals and practices.

Each officer has a unique leadership style that is a reflection of their personal beliefs, leadership ideals, and military practices to which they adhere. Because each person has unique life experiences, it is not easy to scrutinize which beliefs, ideals, or practices produce successful leadership styles. For the purpose of this thesis, however, leadership style will be based on the following characteristics of an officer’s life: upbringing (to include relationships with parents and siblings), work ethic, desire to learn, concern for religion and morality, attention to officer mentorship, and beliefs about duty, discipline, politics, and working with subordinates. Together these characteristics will provide a framework for analyzing and understanding leadership styles.

By examining in detail two effective and successful officers during World War II, it is possible to ascertain certain leadership beliefs, ideals, and practices that will enable future military officers to develop a successful leadership style. Two fine examples of American military leadership during this war were George C. Marshall and Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower. Their leadership skills were indispensable during the war, and it is important for military officers today to consider how they were able to develop their leadership styles that made them so crucial.

To show today’s military leaders how Marshall and Eisenhower were able to do this, it is necessary to carefully examine their lives from their upbringings through their respective roles during World War II. By examining Marshall’s upbringing in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, and Eisenhower’s upbringing in Abilene, Kansas, it is possible to see how both men developed strong work ethics and a desire to learn. In addition to their upbringings in small rural communities, it is also important to consider the impact religion, and the Bible in particular, played in their lives and how it helped shape their understanding of morality and character. These aspects of their early years laid the foundation for the development of their leadership beliefs, ideals, and practices and thus their leadership styles.

Further, after each entered his respective service academy, it is possible to see how they utilized what they had learned from their upbringings and applied that to help them develop their abilities and talents in order to become effective leaders. After Marshall graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and Eisenhower from the United States Military Academy (West Point), they had similar beliefs, ideals, and practices that became integral aspects of their leadership styles.{4} For example, both believed leaders should have a tireless work ethic that compels them to work until a job has been completed. They also believed leaders should have a desire to learn and practice to become competent in the job they were required to perform. In addition, Marshall and Eisenhower believed that Soldiers needed to lead religiously focused and moral lives. By doing so, they thought that leaders would positively influence those that they led, and this benefited both the individual Soldier and the army. Furthermore, both Marshall and Eisenhower understood the impact that politics had on the Army and on Soldiers and while in uniform they stayed clear of political imbroglios. Finally, both realized that leaders needed to fulfill their duties, always maintain discipline with their troops, and successfully interact and develop their subordinate leaders. Cumulatively, these beliefs, ideals, and practices shaped their leadership styles and brought both of them important recognition from influential American military leaders such as Leonard Wood, Hunter Liggett, J. Franklin Bell, Fox Conner, and John J. Pershing for Marshall, and Fox Conner, Pershing, and Marshall himself for Eisenhower. The mentorship they received from these leaders propelled them to greatness and in the process helped them hone their leadership styles. As a result, both believed that mentoring subordinates was an important aspect of leadership and something both inculcated into their leadership styles.

This thesis closely examines the lives of these two superb American military leaders in the hopes of providing two examples of successful leadership styles for current and future military leaders to consider. Much of the research on Marshall is limited to secondary sources and that is due to Marshall’s own efforts to keep his records out of historical analysis. The only authorized biographical study done on Marshall was completed by Forrest C. Pogue, a soldier and writer during World War II whom Marshall approved. Pogue completed a four volume analysis on Marshall and all four were considered in this research. The research on Eisenhower was partially completed at the Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene, Kansas. As a result, there is a great deal of primary source documentation on Eisenhower included in this thesis. Also, the thorough biographical study done by Stephen Ambrose is frequently cited.

This thesis does not consider a careful examination of Major General Fox Conner, although it should. The reason for this shortcoming is that Conner had his wife destroy all of his records after this death. He, like Marshall, wanted to keep his records out of historical analysis. This is a real dilemma for military historians of this time period, especially since Conner was a key figure in both Marshall and Eisenhower’s lives. Perhaps records of Conner will be uncovered one day, which will hopefully provide greater clarity on this important military leader.

In addition to not examining Conner, this thesis also does not provide an analysis about the leadership styles of other key leaders that Marshall and Eisenhower encountered. For example, Generals George S. Patton, Omar Bradley, Henry Arnold, Matthew Ridgeway, Leonard Wood, Hunter Liggett, and J. Franklin Bell are not considered. In addition, Admirals Ernest King, William Halsey, and Chester Nimitz are not considered. A later examination and comparison of all of these leaders could provide a more thorough analysis about how and why Marshall and Eisenhower chose to lead the way that they did.

CHAPTER 2 — SMALL TOWN UPBRINGING, MILITARY EDUCATION, AND RELIGION

In order to understand how past military leaders developed their leadership styles, it is first necessary to consider how they were raised and how they viewed the world in which they lived. The foundations for establishing truths in life are developed during youth and are only fine-tuned during adulthood. Children are by their very nature young and impressionable and have an understanding that the world is in front of them. Thus, it is important to closely examine how each military leader’s world was shaped by his parents and siblings. This examination must also consider the following about their lives: the time in history they lived, the community in which they were raised, the schools they attended, and the religion or theology that they studied. Certainly this type of examination is not an exact science, but these variables can provide a great deal of insight into the way a person thinks. That clearly was true for both Marshall and Eisenhower because their upbringings significantly shaped the leaders that they became.

Marshall’s Small town Upbringing and Military Training at VMI

The experiences Marshall had during his upbringing laid the foundations for how he perceived the world and thus how he developed his leadership style. He was born in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, on December 31, 1880. Uniontown is located about seventy miles south of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, not too far away from the Maryland and West Virginia state borders. In 1880, it was a small town of about 3,500 inhabitants.{5} Most of the citizens of this town were conservative minded and mired in the not too distant memories of the Civil War. They were mostly rural farmers, who were native-born, Anglo-Saxon and Scotch-Irish Protestants, and they were not comfortable with newly arrived Irish and German immigrants settling and looking for work. According to Marshall biographer Forrest C. Pogue, “Even while coal miners tore up the farmlands; even while immigrants came in thousands to work the mines...still the old inhabitants were not at once jarred out of their rural isolation, still less out of their rural habits of mind.”{6} Despite the many changes industrialization was gradually bringing to this town, Marshall still considered it a rural town with stone bridges, apple orchards, rivers, tributaries, and several small hollows. Pogue points out that, for Marshall, Uniontown, “remained small enough...to be encompassed as a kind of family domain by a small boy who ‘knew about everybody in town’ and walked everywhere.”{7}

Marshall’s family lived in a modest two story, brick house at the western end of the main street running through town.{8} He was one of three surviving children in a respected, middle-class, family that was distantly related to former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall. {9} In addition, he was baptized and brought up in the Episcopalian faith. His father, George Sr., for whom he was named, was a successful entrepreneur in the coal coke industry. In 1870, after a few ventures, George Sr. and a few of his business partners developed a thriving business processing coal coke for the steel industry. He and his partners profitably ran this business for 19 years. In 1889, however, the elder Marshall agreed to sell most of their company to Henry Clay Frick for an enormous profit.{10} He took his profits from the sale and, against his wife’s wishes, invested in land and a resort hotel in Luray, Virginia, a small Blue Ridge Mountain town near the Shenandoah River. Just after he invested his money, the real estate market in the area collapsed and the hotel caught fire. “[George] Sr. lost almost overnight all he had worked for and gained in the preceding twenty years,” as Marshall biographer Mark A. Stoler notes. “George [Jr.] would later refer to this decision of his father as ‘the great mistake of his life, and much against my mother’s advice.’”{11} Seeing his father go through this experience taught Marshall to live frugally and within his means.

George Jr. respected his father, and he especially enjoyed the limited time he spent with him. He desperately wanted to bond and emulate him, and he always enjoyed hearing his father’s Civil War and family history stories. His father, however, was not always easy to approach, was a strict disciplinarian, and because of his early career successes was slightly arrogant. “Mr. Marshall had his own sense of rather prickly importance.. [He was] sensitive to criticism and quick to anger, he did not enjoy jokes on himself’ Pogue argues. In addition, Pogue notes that “He was inclined to be stiffer within the family because families are notoriously less considerate of the slight egostuffing that he seemed to feel was necessary to keep him properly poised.”{12} His father’s unapproachable, strict, and egotistical behavior left Marshall feeling that his father did not care for him. Pogue mentions that, “George always struggled for his father’s approval but was also a little afraid of him.”{13} In fact, Pogue mentions that Marshall felt that his father actually favored his older brother Stuart. He also believed his father was ashamed of him. In a revealing interview with Pogue, Marshall recalled his father’s embarrassment and disappointment in him when, as a young student, he could not answer a few educational class placement questions during a meeting with a school principal. According to Pogue, Marshall felt that his father “suffered very severely.”{14} Regardless of what his father actually felt, Marshall’s comment indicates that he felt as though he had greatly disappointed his father, and it was a memory that stayed with him throughout his life and something he felt obliged to share with Pogue. In fact, his desire to please his father may in some ways have motivated him to succeed later in life. Undoubtedly, the relationship he had with his father had a profound impact on Marshall. Stoler goes so far as to argue this relationship made Marshall feel rejected and contributed to his feelings of low self-esteem in his youth.{15} Because of this, Marshall seems to have sought fatherly approval and understanding from a surrogate father.

Pogue provides evidence that Marshall sought out and found a “close and adult friendship with the young pastor the Episcopal Church, which the Marshall family attended.”{16} The pastor was John R. Wightman, and Pogue notes that, “Wightman is a hazy figure in the records, and the General, while recalling him as an important influence, said little about him.” He also adds, however, that Wightman and Marshall used to take long walks and Marshall “came to know him intimately and was very much impressed by him.” Pogue concludes that, for Marshall, Wightman was likely “one of the rare adults to whom he could freely talk and that he was perhaps enabled in this way to reach out intellectually along paths not opened by his father or by his school teachers.”{17} Marshall’s need for a surrogate father is telling and speaks volumes about his childhood experiences and home life. From a contemporary viewpoint, a relationship such as this would likely be construed as unusual, likely inappropriate, and definitely not of the norm. However, there is no evidence to suggest this relationship was inappropriate or unusual. Nonetheless, the impact of a prominent religious figure during Marshall’s formative years surely must have helped shape his Christian views on right from wrong, morality, the sacraments, and death. As a result, this must be factored into any analysis about how he developed his leadership style. Despite his seemingly unfilled relationship with his father, he had a...

Table of contents

• Title page
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• ABSTRACT
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER 2 - SMALL TOWN UPBRINGING, MILITARY EDUCATION, AND RELIGION
• CHAPTER 3 - LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHIES AND OFFICER MENTORSHIP
• CHAPTER 4 - DUTY, DISCIPLINE, POLITICS, AND SUBORDINATES
• CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSIONS
• BIBLIOGRAPHY