Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
winston churchill leadership in world war 2
winston churchill leadership in world war 2
winston churchill leadership in world war 2
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: winston churchill leadership in world war 2
Operational Leadership and the Success or Failure of an Operation
Leadership at the operational level requires the ability to link tactical actions to meet strategic objectives. Successful use of operational leadership tenants combined with specific character traits of an operational commander provides a snapshot of an effective leader who can successfully accomplish the determined strategic objectives. Professor Milan Vego provides a framework for the tenets of operational leadership and Field Marshal Slim presents his viewpoint on essential qualities required of an operational commander. , The British leaders, Admiral Carden and General Sir Hamilton will be compared and contrasted with the German leader of the Turkish forces, General
…show more content…
He was asked by Churchill, the Lord of the Admiralty to determine if naval forces could penetrate the Dardanelles. Carden’s response to Churchill and the eventual subsequent plan are good illustrations of how he employed operational leadership. He initially responded to Churchill’s question by stating that he did not think the strait could be taken quickly, but also provided a ambiguous option by describing that opening Dardanelles “might” be possible with a large force and a commitment to a protracted operation. His follow on plan was essentially just a list of the shore forts that would be targeted rather than a fully developed plan of what forces would be required (means) and how they would be employed against the enemy (ways). This response lacked the rigor required of an operational commander, and contributed to the eventual failure of the initial naval only portion of the Gallipoli …show more content…
Hamilton was thrust into a tough position in that he had limited experience with the region, and quickly realized the geographic challenges of an invasion of the Gallipoli peninsula. He started off exercising sound judgment by seeking advice from his commanders. This advice generated the complex plan of multiple landings on numerous beaches. Unfortunately, Hamilton’s initial good judgment began to break down once the orders were developed to give direction to his commanders who would be responsible for carrying out the invasion. Although there was significant preparation on where and how to land the forces, the final objectives of attaining the high ground and destroying the shore defenses were never stated in the orders given to Hamilton’s commanders. Additionally, the sector of main effort was also never explicitly identified, which left his commanders to assume that it was “V” beach where the most troops would be landed. This clearly did not adequately focus on successfully meeting the objective, since Hamilton’s vague commander’s intent did not even clearly articulate the ultimate objectives, let alone provide direction to successfully attain
...e leadership characteristic that popped out at me was how Cap. John Goodwin was his resilience to overcome all the horrific parts of this deployment and still stayed with it and worked his hardest with no breaks until he was forced to go on that leave to rest and then as soon as he heard something bad had happened, he stopped everything he was doing and got back to his men as quickly as he could it showed how much he cared, he also listened to his men and what they needed and tried helping them all the time. One thing he did not do a good job of was letting Kunk get to him and knock his confidence down and taking care of his own health so he could be awake and alert as company commander each and every day. His soldiers mentioned how weak, and tired and malnourished he looked from being next to the radio 24/7 which should never happen when you are calling the shots.
Successful leadership on a battlefield can be measured in different ways. It is possible for a good, successful leader to lose a battle. Conversely, it is possible for an ineffective leader to win a battle, given the right circumstances. What distinguishes a successful leader from an unsuccessful one is his/her ability to oversee an operation using effective mission command. In ADP 6-0, mission command as a philosophy is defined as “as the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations” (ADP, 1). William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory, executed good mission command in the Battle of Tippecanoe because of his ability to effectively utilize the doctrinal tasks of “understand, visualize, describe, direct, and lead” operations.
Operational leaders see how the individual components of an organization fit together and use those individuals work to make a larger outcome. When they focus on a problem, they think of what works best within the process and systems to make an impact on the situation. These types of leaders play a big part in making sure that things get done in an effective and functioning manner. According to the Army Doctrine ADP 6-0, the Army over time has strayed away from operational leaders and adapted Mission Command, which gives leaders the ability at the lowest level the capability to exercise disciplined initiative in an act of carrying out the larger mission . Mission Command is made up of the following six steps: Understanding, Visualize, Describe, Direct, Lead and Assess, in which a commander is responsible for. General Patton understood the intent of the Battle of the Bulge on different levels, he was able to form a mental image for the course of actions for the allies, enemies and lead his Army into combat while guiding his officers and soldiers to succeed in meeting his intent. The Battle of the Bulge is where General Patton gained one of his greatest military achievements by using his tactical leadership and logistical genius, which in return helped him turn around the main forces and forced the Germans to drive back in their final counter-offensive. General Patton strongly exercised Mission Command by understanding, visualizing, leading, and commanding what was known as the largest and bloodiest battle during World War II.
A leader must always lead by example, be self-accountable for his/her professional and personal behavior. Have moral and mental strength to do what is right, with confidence and resolution, even in the face of temptation or adversity. A leader must be committed to its SAILORS, so that its SAILORS will be committed to him/her. In today’s Navy, we must be leaders in
In deed on June 6, 1944, the little town of Bedford, VA, suffered a tragedy that would never be forgotten. But through the pain and hardship some of officers who leaded the Bedford boys displayed remarkable leadership’s principles. One of the basic functions of leadership is to unite people: bring people together to achieve common objectives. There is truth in the statement, where there is unity there is strength. This essay will offer a working definition of effective leadership principles and discuss the function of leadership as it relates to followers, motivation and power.
The question of “What makes a leader great?” is without one solitary answer. Effective leaders in the corporate and political arenas are deserving of praise, but because of the nature of their work, military leaders are arguably more complex and intriguing.
The 918 is in bad need of the General’s transformative style of leadership to shape and elevate the motives and goals of the troops. His primary intention is to have leadership at all levels, and this can only be accomplished through empowerment. By enhancing the troops’ competence and confidence in their abilities, listening to their ideas and acting upon them, by involving them in important decision making, and by acknowledging and giving credit for their contributions, the General will enable the troops to take ownership of and responsibility for their own success. He knows that troops who feel weak, incompetent, and insignificant will consistently underperform. Therefore, the General must increase their sense of self-confidence, self-determination, and personal effectiveness to make them more powerful and enhance their possibility of success. General Savage employed several leadership principles to empower his squad:
Dwight David Eisenhower (1955), the 34th President of the United States, gave an explicit definition of leadership, “The job of getting people really wanting to do something is the essence of leadership….” The Army, like any other civilian organization, defines different levels of leadership depending on a size of a unit a leader is in command of. Tactical and organizational leaderships are two first interconnected levels of leadership in the Army. Both levels of leadership have many commonalities regarding duties and responsibilities; yet they are very different in the way the leaders develop themselves, train, and take care of their soldiers.
Military Leadership is always an important factor in wars. Good commanders will accomplish the goals of their side while inferior generals will only hinder performance and fail their leader. However, not all great generals are victorious. Victories depend heavily on the availability of resources. Leadership does not relate to the supplies one has to draw from, but instead the personal traits of the man himself. General Robert E. Lee is a prime example of an excellent general whose brilliance was impeded by the Confederate’s lack of resources. General Ulysses S. Grant’s genius is rebuffed when compared to that of Lee’s.
Leadership can come in many forms and from many perspectives. In the heat of combat, the leadership from a Navy Seal is much different than that of a leader in a high school dorm. Through reading Extreme Ownership I found how leadership completely changes depending on the perspective. Leadership in combat is completely dependent on quick, decisive execution, whereas leadership in the dorm is more dependent on taking time to work with everyone before arriving at a solution.
Standing in a crowd of hundreds, anxious about what is to come—combat; waiting for a man whose reputation greatly precedes him…the man who will lead you into battle—into a nightmare. As he took the microphone and declared, “you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight.” These words are those of General George Patton…and he has your attention. Inspirational and blunt are just a couple of the many terms used to describe General Patton. General Patton was also a visionary in employment of combat forces; in fact, he was an expert on the subject. The manner in which he led his troops was in itself visionary. Despite his military prowess and formidable leadership, General Patton was humble in leadership and intellect. These three attributes will demonstrate that he was above all, a visionary and ethical leader.
Regardless of the career you choose in your life, whether it be an accountant or a Soldier in the United States Army, someone, somewhere most likely had an influence to bring you to that decision. The Army defines leadership as the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization (JP, p. 1). Now imagine you are a young Private, in one of the most dangerous places in Iraq and you have constant leadership changes, and not much support from your direct leadership. I am sure at this point you can imagine, it is not the best scenario to be in. Throughout the duration of this essay you will read about Sergeant First Class Rob Gallagher and Sergeant First Class Jeff Fenlason, their leadership abilities, and the techniques they attempted to use to resolve the issues in this Platoon that was in a downward spiral after losing many leaders to the hell of war.
Leadership is contagious throughout the world and most importantly in the Army. It is not just my view, but of all leaders, at all levels, that organizations are responsible for setting conditions that lead to long-term organizational success. As I reflect on my experiences, through experience and observation, I realize how my values, beliefs, and perspectives about leadership continuously evolve over time. Recognizing these changes over time helps me better understand that people in organizations have different perspectives in life. This leadership narrative serve as important guiding principles for how I will lead at the organizational level and represents my thought, values and beliefs.
As an officer in the United States Army, it has been imperative for me to understand every facet of leadership and why it remains important to be an effective leader. During this course, I have learned some valuable lessons about myself as a leader and how I can improve on my leadership ability in the future. The journal entries along with the understanding of available leadership theories have been an integral part of my learning during this course. For all of the journals and assessments that I completed, I feel it has given me a good understanding of my current leadership status and my future potential as a leader. All of the specific assessments looked at several areas in regards to leadership; these assessments covered several separate focus areas and identified my overall strengths and weaknesses as a leader. Over the course of this paper I will briefly discuss each one of these assessments and journal entries as they pertained to me and my leadership.
All soldiers, especially leaders, are highly recommended to keep a certain set of values that radiate throughout the entire U.S. Army. They are challenged to keep them near and dear to their hearts and to define and live them every day. A leader is one who takes these challenges serious and abides by