Dwight D. Eisenhower's strategic leadership competencies during World War II

Leadership

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

Assessed through the Lenses of Various Leadership Styles

Strategic Leader Competencies

General Eisenhower is one of the most notable personalities in United States history who has managed to leave its imprint on both military as well as politics. Much has been said about Dwight D. Eisenhower as a military and country leader, but new lenses through which to conduct assessments are continually on the rise. In this order of ideas, the aim of this paper is to look at the leadership skills of General Eisenhower through the lenses of strategic leadership competencies. The Strategic Leadership Primer, under the aegis of the Department of Commands, Leadership and Management at the United States Army War College, identifies nine types of strategic leadership competencies, organized under three categories, as follows:

Conceptual Competencies: Frame and reference development, Problem management and Envisioning the future

Technical Competencies: Systems understanding, Joint, interagency, multi-national and intra-agency relationships and third, Political and social competencies

Interpersonal Competencies: Consensus building, Negotiation and Communication.

The leadership abilities of Dwight D. Eisenhower are undisputable, yet, it is also clear that he has made some mistakes in his approach. One such failure is revealed in terms of conceptual competencies, namely the ability to learn from past efforts and mistakes and incorporate the previous experiences in order to maximize the chances of successful outcomes to the current problems. During the Second World War, it meant that situations occurred in which the general's capabilities for frame and reference development were limited. "For Dwight Eisenhower, the learning experience in North Africa was a painfully dismal one of mistakes, uncertainty and tentativeness."

Another example of failed capabilities was given by the implementation of problem management. In this order of ideas, the army led by Eisenhower strived to remove the threat posed by the Spanish Moroccan troops and the emphasis on the more important occupation of Tunisia before Hitler's troops fell short. This basically means that Eisenhower and the other leaders of the Allied Troops were unable to assess the overall situation and identify the most stringent problem, even less to find solutions to the stringent issue. Had Eisenhower and the other military rulers of the World War II possessed more problem management skills and capabilities to prioritize and resolve the impeding occupation of Tunisia, the final outcome of the war could have been a successful one, and would even have been registered quicker, with the death of less individuals and the registration of fewer losses. "We had been unquestionably timid (although far less than Washington) in the scope of our original invasion of Africa. Had we struck out boldly and landed forces far to the east, even in Tunisia… we would almost certainly have been successful."

A final example of poorly implemented leadership is given by the lack of systems understanding capabilities. The campaign in Tunisia also offers the most relevant example in this sense as once the Allied troops reached land, they were incapable of launching military operations due to the shortages in weapons and military supplies. The blame for the situation was put on Eisenhower's shoulders as he had made the previous decision to carry less weapons and supplies, without an actual and adequate knowledge of the system. "To make matters worse, the Allies lacked sufficient vehicular transportation, in no small part because during the Torch planning, Eisenhower had been allotted an inadequate number of ships. Motor transport units and other vehicles were among those that had been left behind in England. Once ashore, the Torch forces had almost no mobility. Like Casablanca this decision, however justified, had its price, and it was Eisenhower who bore its brunt."

The simple fact that the Columbia University in New York selected General Eisenhower to become America's 34th President is based on the belief that he registered numerous successes as a strategic military leader; triumphs were also present in his political career. An example of a fruitful application of strategic leadership competencies is offered by his ability to envision the future. Most of his decisions during the Second World War were based on the analysis of future desires and potential outcomes and decisions were made to satisfy the long-term well being of the United States and international peace, rather than in the benefit of short lived triumphs.

3. Eisenhower's Ethical Dilemma

Lloyd Fredendall presented a general leadership challenge for Eisenhower because of several reasons. On one hand, L. Fredendall had been, at the moment of his appointment as commander of U.S. Army's II Corps, one of the reputable and experienced officers of the army. His experience as a trainer could not be contested by anyone, however, his skills as a field commander were limited, to say the least, mainly because he lacked the necessary experience in that area. His lack of skills, corroborated with the fact that he was facing one of the most capable German generals, E. Rommel, led to his army's defeat at Kasserine Pass.

The cause of his demise was not necessarily only defeat in this battle. Several of Eisenhower's subordinates, including generals Harmon and Bradley, reported that Fredendall really went in the front lines to talk to or visit the soldiers, failed to properly coordinated with the other generals, which led to his corps being badly positioned related to the other American forces, lacking the synergy effect that the U.S. could employ, especially through the use of artillery. All these led to Fredendall losing the respect of his own commanders, to the degree to which they could, at any moment, consider that his orders would not be beneficial for their own divisions.

In firing Fredendall, the most important leadership challenge for Eisenhower was to accept the fact that he had been wrong in appointment Fredendall to such a position for which the qualities he had did not recommend him. In other words, as a good leader, Eisenhower had to accept that he could make mistake, but, on the other hand, minimize the effect that such mistakes could have had on the overall evolution of the war. There is no doubt that Fredendall was named at George Marshall's lobby, but also that Eisenhower fully accepted Fredendall and regarded him as a competent and useful commander. Indeed, he told Marshall that "I bless the day you urged Fredendall upon me and cheerfully acknowledge that my earlier doubts of him were completely unfounded"

It is also interested to note the manner in which Eisenhower solved the leadership challenge that presented itself. The fact that he relieved Fredendall of his command, thus recognizing his own error in appointing him, solved the problem of Fredendall's incompetence on the field of command. However, Eisenhower had no interest to go beyond this and further punish Fredendall. He simply recommended that he be reassigned to a training command, which meant that Fredendall had not been officially demoted and could be further promoted in his military career, which actually happened in June 1943, when he became Lieutenant General. Nevertheless, he would no longer be assigned to any field command position and would spent the remaining career only in training ones.

Strategic Leadership Primer, Department of Command, Leadership and Management, United States Army War College

31. The Dreariest Chapter in the History of Allied Collaboration

Ibid.

Ibid.

Chapter 1 -- The Soldier and the Statesman

About the White House Presidents -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/DwightDEisenhower / last accessed on July 20, 2009

Dwight Eisenhower, History Learning Site, 2009, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/dwight_eisenhower.htm last accessed on July 20, 2009

Ibid.

Steven L., Ossad (March 2003). "Command Failures: Lessons Learned from Lloyd R. Fredendall." Army Magazine. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200303/ai_n9222724 o "http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200303/ai_n9222724" ?http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200303/ai_n9222724? last accessed on 20 November 2008