Recent Posts:

            Everyone should be interested in leadership, because everyone will be called upon to lead sooner or later.  What surprises most people, is just how often they are thrust into a situation of leadership.  This may occur in small ways or big ways, or a thousand variations in between.  But rest assured: everyone must lead. 

            Every time we take a young child’s hand, we are called to lead.  Every time we are asked for advice, we are called to lead.  Every time we are looked to for our example, we are called to lead.  Any crisis that arises in our life is a call to leadership.  Any time we are asked to compromise our principles, it is a test of leadership.  In fact, in many ways, each of us is leading others every day without even realizing it.  The question becomes whether we will rise to the challenge or shrink from it.

            Fortunately, the topic of leadership is also infinitely interesting.  It is challenging enough to wake us up and hold our attention.  As author Dan Allender wrote, “Leadership is a walk on the wild side.  If we didn’t have to deal with people or problems, leadership would be a piece of cake.  Instead, leadership is all about . . . moving toward a goal while confronting significant obstacles with limited resources in the midst of uncertainly and with people who may or may not come through in a pinch.  Leadership is about whether we will grow in maturity in the extremity of crisis.”

            Let’s get one thing clear.  Management is not leadership.  Position or titles or fame is not leadership.  Acting the part is not leadership.  Seniority is not leadership.  In the realm of true leadership, there is no “fake it ‘till you make it.”  Leadership is about trust, truth, influence, and example, and it cannot be faked.  People are incredibly adroit at spotting a phony. When it comes right down to it, leadership is about getting results.  Those who talk a good game, or have the right position or title, or look the part, but don’t produce results are simply imposters.

            In the short period of peace between the end of the Seven Years War and the start of the American Revolution, an interesting development took place in Great Britain’s Royal Navy.  The English had been dominating the French navy for years.  In battle after battle, more often than not, the British navy had been victorious.  In large fleet engagements and small skirmishes, it was invariably the British royal navy that would capture the most ships and inflict the most casualties.  But in the peacetime of the mid-eighteenth century, the British became enamored with the “scientific” approach the French took toward naval affairs.  The Enlightenment was in full flourish throughout Europe, and its center of orbit was Paris, France. Enlightenment thinking placed a heavy emphasis on man’s ability to reason, the scientific method, and the formal ability of humans to steadily increase toward perfection.  In this environment, the French navy pontificated endlessly about the “science of naval warfare.”  They wrote in-depth studies and treatises on the subject.  They formed sophisticated academies of naval study.  They developed complex signaling systems for commodores controlling fleets, and they preached their theories on hydrogaphy, gunnery, ship construction, and maneuver.  And they developed theories of warfare at sea that supposedly could not fail.  Somehow, caught up in the fervor of Enlightenment thinking, the British swallowed the French philosophy whole.  But as author Michael Palmer wrote, “While there can be no argument that the navy of France was more militarily formal and “professional” than that of Great Britain, that “professionalism” did not necessarily translate into success.”  As another popular phrase puts it, “Big hat no cattle.”

            It wasn’t long, however, until the British recovered from their stupor and got back to what had made them the “ruler of the seas” in the first place: effective leadership.  But before they did, they were defeated and outmaneuvered by a French fleet off the coast of Virginia in North America. This fleet was instrumental in entrapping British General Cornwallis and bringing to a close the American Revolution, and giving victory to the fledgling American colonies.

  To blame the loss at Yorktown on a lapse in British naval leadership, I know, may be a bit oversimplified.  War and geopolitics are complicated and subject to a myriad of factors.  But most historians agree that the performance of the British navy during the action off the Chesapeake was less effective than it should have been, and certainly less effective than it had been in past engagements.  The reasons for this have been debated and analyzed in depth, and culpable in most of these analyses is the leadership of the British fleet at that time. 

Leadership makes a difference.  And the results of leadership have lasting implications that can often be enormous.  One can never underestimate the ripple effect that the decisions and examples of the leader set in motion.  One should never be taken in, as the British were during the Enlightenment, with fancy theories and would-be leaders who look and act the part, have the resources, the prestige, or the “professionalism” that appears to be genuine.  True leadership comes down to results.  Proper results can only come from following true principles.   And that’s why the study of leadership and its principles is so important.  We will be called upon to lead, and more importantly, we will be held accountable for our results.   

           Leaders assault the status quo, and somehow just can’t stand to leave things the way they find them.  For true leaders, this comes from a deep sense of hunger that burns inside.  Often this yearning is extremely costly to the individual pushing for the change.    What might have been a comfortable existence is traded for the pursuit of a vision the leader sees more clearly than anyone else.  This, in short, is what makes him or her a leader; he or she sees further than others see, sooner than others see, and with more conviction.  And ultimately, the personal cost is worth it to the leader because of his or her strong belief in the outcome desired.  Whether ending in triumph, or flaming out in defeat, the leader is vindicated by the chase of the vision and the principles upon which he or she stands.  The conviction of the leader, backed by his or her courage to act on that conviction regardless of cost to self, is the stuff that makes the world go around.  It’s also what all of us admire when we are fortunate enough to get a glimpse of it.

            For just such a glimpse, let’s examine the life of aviation pioneer and advocate William “Billy” Mitchell. Mitchell saw his first military action as an infantryman in the Spanish-American war in Cubain 1898. Later, he gave up prestige and promotion hopes to get involved in the United States’ infantile aviation efforts, and was at the center of many of aviation’s “firsts.”  During World War I Mitchell became the first U.S. officer to fly behind enemy lines.  He next became involved in a joint bombing effort between the French and the Americans which assembled the largest force of aircraft ever to amass up to that point.  Repeatedly, Mitchell was given organizational control and command of large scale joint-bombing efforts by his French allies: something pretty unusual and indicative of his leadership abilities. 

            After the end of the Great War, Mitchell began campaigning for the creation of an independent branch of the U.S. military that would be focused strictly upon air power.  His ideas were radical and threatening and were fiercely resisted.  The army had thought air power should be subservient to its needs, because airplanes could provide cover to troops on the ground and tactical bombing ahead of troop movements.  The navy had claim to air power as well, needing planes to attack enemy shipping and provide visuals across the vast seas.  But William Mitchell saw further than the established bureaucrats in either branch of the military.  He foresaw the advent of airpower as preeminent, and certainly worthy of a single, autonomous branch of the U. S. military that would transcend control by either the army or the navy.

            Mitchell’s campaign grew louder and more vehement, until he was called upon to prove his “wild” theories.  In a demonstration utilizing a German dreadnought captured during the war, Mitchell’s bombers sunk the great iron ship in about twenty minutes.  This was astounding to the large assortment of navy brass on hand to witness the event, and out of this demonstration ultimately came the development of the aircraft carriers that would be so critical to winning the war in the Pacific during World War II. 

These encouraging developments aside, Mitchell continued to push for his great vision of a stand-alone military branch that would control all forms of air power.  The harder Mitchell pushed for something he felt was so obvious, the more resistance he met.  Not only did he have to deal with skepticism and shortsightedness, but he also ran into commanders trying to protect their turf, pride, the “Not Invented Here Syndrome”, cost cutters, peace nicks, small thinkers, and commanders who wanted to have air power fall under their own control.  Mitchell didn’t play by the rules.  He wanted change.  He was upsetting the status quo.  He was attacking long-held paradigms and beliefs about the way things were supposed to be done.  He was preaching to the military establishment that had played a big part in winning the “war to end all wars” and was riding high on its success.  Finally, as with many a bureaucracy, the innovator had to be silenced.  Mitchell was demoted and transferred to a remote location in charge of a small corps.  But typical of a leader on a mission, Billy Mitchell was unable to stop there.  When his crusade fell on deaf ears, he took his story to the press.  This resulted in his court martial and conviction of insubordination.  Mitchell was given a suspension of five years without pay.  Mitchell resigned in protest instead, but continued his quest for an independent air force until his death.

According to author Alan Axelrod:

“Billy Mitchell was a leader ahead of his time, and he was a man willing to sacrifice his career for the sake of his country’s defense.  Virtually all of his doctrinal theories about the role of aviation in warfare would prove true – including his assessment (much ridiculed) that the navy’s fleet at Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands was vulnerable to a carrier-launched air attack, which, Mitchell predicted, would be made by Japan.  After his death, his major positions were vindicated, and he came to be considered the founding spirit of the U.S. Air Force.”

Billy Mitchell’s crusade to create a United States Air Force is a clear demonstration of the courage and conviction of a leader.  At great personal cost and ending in much frustration in his own life, Billy Mitchell pushed to the end for the vision in which he believed.  Mitchell was driven by what he could “see” long before it was seen by others.  Rare indeed are those who will act at such great cost for a cause that transcends their own personal peace and affluence.  Rare they may be, but history is rich with glimpses of individuals like Mitchell who have risked it all for what they believed was right.  May they be an inspiration to us all!