lsl5015

The Riddle of Robert E. Lee

April 27, 2014 by lsl5015

Prior to the Civil War, Robert E. Lee was a well-respected military officer, particularly revered for his moral character. He had demonstrated courage on the battlefield, temperance with his wife (who had a habit of overspending), and honesty, sociability, fairness, and self-control, and modesty as a military leader — easily meeting the characteristics of a moral person as described by Aristotle. On the last two points, Lee is quoted as having said,

“I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself.”

and…

“I tremble for my country when I hear of confidence expressed in me. I know too well my weakness, that our only hope is in God.”

Using Velasquez’s virtues, Lee exhibited all of them: perseverance, public-spiritedness, integrity, truthfulness, fidelity, and benevolence. As an ethical military leader, Lee checks all of the boxes from Northouse (2013): Respect, Service, Justice, Honesty, and Community.

The problem, of course, is that Lee fought for the wrong side.

Lee and his wife, Mary Custis Lee, lived in Northern Virginia on a large piece of land. Their family and the others that lived there were slave owners. Robert and Mary, like just about everyone in the community, were devoted Christians — Episcopalians.

Understanding how devoted Christians in the mid-1800s can be slaveowners is not particularly difficult. The Bible is actually full of verses advocating slavery (See Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, Galatians 5:1, Colossians 4:1, etc.). Before the start of the Civil War in 1861, the morality of slavery was indeed a debatable question for many people.

The Lees were somewhat progressive, as ‘southern’ families go. When Mary and their daughter wanted to set up a school to teach slaves to read — an activity that was totally illegal in Virginia — Robert supported them completely. Lee actually believed that slaves — at least those he had been exposed to in Northern Virginia, a border area where slaves were treated much differently than those on plantations farther south — were better off in the United States than they would’ve been in Africa. He thought that their situation was a temporary step toward a better (free) life in America. Still, he recognized that at its core, slavery was evil, for everyone involved. Writing to his wife in 1856, 5 years before the war, Lee said:

“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race…”

Lee and his family also recognized that, in 1861, when southern states were threatening secession from the United States, that it would be a very bad choice for Virginia. It was the last thing he wanted.

And yet, when Virginia did secede, and despite being offered leadership of the US (Northern) army, Lee chose the Southern cause. Despite his misgivings about slavery and secession, he decided to lead the Army of Northern Virginia in the coming Civil War.

In his book, Robert E. Lee, Roy Blount Jr. writes, “The decision was honorable by his standards of honor—which, whatever we may think of them, were neither self-serving nor complicated, thought it was a bad idea for Virginia to secede, and God knows he was right, but secession had been more or less democratically decided upon.”

Lee probably did not think of himself fighting on the slavery side of the Civil War so much as he was fighting on the side that it was his duty to fight on. In fact, in 1862, a year after the war had started, Lee freed all of the slaves at his home of Arlington House. So, by the end of the end of the war, the man running the Confederate Army was not, himself, a slave owner, and did not want to be.

Less than 100 years later, another leader fought on the wrong side. Erwin Rommel, the WWII German general known as the Desert Fox, was, by all accounts, a great military leader, respected by his soldiers and his enemies alike. He was not a Nazi, and in fact despised the Nazis. Because of his involvement in a plot to assassinate Hitler, Rommel was given a choice to take a cyanide capsule, or face a public trial (and repercussions that would affect his family). An honorable man, a hero to his country, and a great leader, Rommel chose to commit suicide.

Ethics in leadership is a very difficult notion to ascertain, particularly when looking at leaders in history. Morality today, in our particular situation, is far very easy for us to recognize. Ethical behavior is a no-brainer when we are far-removed from the ‘bad guys’.

Lee would live with the consequences of his decision to lead for the wrong side. Despite what he believed were his best, most Christian, and most ethical efforts, Robert E. Lee’s legacy is one of a great leader, marred by the stain of slavery. His home and lands in Northern Virginia were seized by the Union army, and — in part to ensure he could never really return to his home — the lands were turned into a cemetery for Union solders — Arlington National Cemetery.

References

Blount, Roy Jr. Making Sense of Robert E. Lee, Smithsonian Magazine, July 2003

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Scrum Master = Servant Leader

April 27, 2014 by lsl5015

Scrum is a framework for helping teams manage software development projects. Unlike the waterfall approach to managing projects, wherein a good deal of time is spent deliberating and defining objectives, outcomes, and requirements, Scrum is iterative and agile, meaning that it involves sequential improvement and rapid adjustments based on client and user feedback. It has gained wide acceptance in the software development community, and even with other types of projects that benefit from its methodology.

A Scrum team is generally composed of 7 plus or minus 2 team members (so 5-9), including a product owner and a scrum master. The product owner is responsible for the final outcome of the project, and must ensure that it meets the client’s needs. He or she does this, in part, by working with the Scrum team to define user requirements, usually referred to as stories. These stories are added to a backlog that the team uses to work from, iteratively, during sprints — 30-day or shorter bursts of development. The product owner prioritizes the items in the product backlog.

The Scrum Master is an important and very interesting role, in terms of leadership study. The Scrum Master is not a manager, and is not responsible for telling team members what to do. On the contrary, Scrum team members are largely self-managed, identifying the backlog items that they will take ownership of and working on them according to their own processes. The Scrum Master, though, steps in regularly at daily Scrum stand-ups (so-called because of their brevity, lasting 15 minutes or less, and often without sitting), seeking to identify any blocks to progress. He or she specifically checks up on team members to see if there are problems that they are having achieving what they need to achieve. While not a go-between or messenger, the Scrum Master will facilitate communications. The Scrum Master’s goal is to ensure the team members are performing at their highest level, by listening, observing, and understanding anything that may be limiting them. The Scrum Master also ensures the Scrum process is being adhered to.

Usually a senior member of the team with solid experience, the Scrum Master also acts as a coach or a mentor, helping other team members when they encounter a problem. Rather than directing them or insisting A,B, or C take place, though, he or she will remind the team members of what their goals are, and how they might achieve them. Scrum Masters also make sure no team member takes on more of the product backlog than they are capable of, and that the right team members are working on the right backlog items (those items that best fit their skill set).

The Scrum Master is in many ways the ultimate servant leader. By helping team members recognize and achieve their personally-set goals, keeping the team on the Scrum track, eliminating roadblocks to their success, and facilitating communication and understanding, the Scrum Master plays a vital role in keeping software projects on target without burning out the team members who are working with them. Far from a traditional manager, the Scrum Master role exists to serve the members of the team in the ways that are most productive for the individual team members. This allows the team members to contribute to the overall success of the project.

References

Topics in Scrum – The Scrum Master, (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/agile/scrum/scrummaster/

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Eugenics: The Terrifying Consequences of Power & Influence

April 21, 2014 by lsl5015

The history of eugenics is one of tragedy derived from science. Emerging from European and American academics in the 1860s and 1870s, Eugenics was initially the scientific, and later the political, idea that society and the human race could be improved genetically. Based on Darwin’s theory of evolution, the movement had champions from all sides, and through French and Raven’s five bases of power, those champions created a century of cruelty and pain, and the effects are still felt today.

French and Raven identified five ways that individuals can influence other people. They were expert, referent, legitimate, reward, and coercive power. All of these influences were present in the eugenics movement, notably in Germany where Hitler and the Nazis abused referent power, at first publishing propaganda extolling the virtues of purifying the arian race, and later actually murdering jews and gypsies. This was probably the 20th century’s best-known instance of genocide. In the United States, eugenics was applied through coercive and legitimate power, where state governments forced lobotomies and the sterilizations of tens of thousands (or more) of those who were deemed “feeble minded.” But the movement never would have started, and could not have continued without a body of doctors and scientists and their terrible demonstration of expert power.

With it’s foundations in the 1800s, the theory was first put forth and labeled by Francis Galton. A cousin of Charles Darwin, Galton was a psychologist, mathematician, anthropologist, and geneticist. He was, by all means, an expert on a wide range of subjects. Intrigued by Darwin’s theory of evolutionary genetics, Galton posited that humans, too, were engaged in a constant state of natural selection. He took his ideas further, though, and formed the scientific theory of eugenics.

Other experts took up his ideas and sought ways to apply eugenics concepts to the real world. In the United States, American William Gooddell, a gynecologist, advocated for forced castrations and forced abortions of the insane or mentally disabled.

Eugenics became popular in the 20th century, where political leaders, influenced by the expert power of scientists who had taken up the eugenics cause, enacted laws regarding birth control, forced sterilization, marriage restriction, and segregation. Embracing the expert opinions of scientists, governments around the world locked away the mentally ill, banned marriages or pregnancies for people with disabilities, and categorized and classified people based on their behaviors, all with the goal of improving the gene pool for the human race.

The history of eugenics lasted well into the second half of the 20th century in the United States. In North Carolina, there was even recently created an Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims, because there are people alive today who were forcibly sterilized by state hospitals. It’s important to recognize that, during its heyday, eugenics was a wildly popular notion, embraced by political leaders at every level of government and trumpeted by scientists at leading universities. Ignoring the civil rights of individuals became terrifyingly easy in the face of power backed by ‘experts’.

Science mixed with politics can result in horrible consequences. When political leaders, especially those who build referent, legitimate, and/or coercive power, embrace the flawed ideas of expert power, no one is safe. The results of that mixture are clear in the history of eugenics, and can still be felt today.

Links/ References:

http://www.sterilizationvictims.nc.gov/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

D’Antonio, Michael. The State Boys Rebellion. 2005, Simon & Schuster

The Transformational Leadership of Atatürk

April 9, 2014 by lsl5015

Transformational leaders, “empower followers and get individuals to transcend their own self-interests,” “become role models for their followers,” “create a vision,” “initiate and implement new directions,” and, “make clear the emerging values and norms of the organization,” Northouse (2013). In 1934, the Turkish parliament granted Mustafa Kemal the name Atatürk, which means “father of the Turks,” because he was a transformational leader whose drive, capability, and love for his people redefined a nation.

Mustafa Kemal joined the Ottoman Army military high school at the age of 12 in 1893. Eventually he became a military officer, and, working his way up through the ranks, ended up a general during World War I. Being on the losing side of that war resulted in the Ottoman Empire being dismantled and occupied by Greek, Italian, French, and British armies. This occupation wasn’t acceptable to Mustafa Kemal, and he was discharged from the Ottoman Army shortly after the end of World War I because he called for a sovereign Turkish nation and the immediate end of occupation. He set about building, organizing, and leading a military and political campaign to remove all foreign armies from historically Turkish lands. The Turkish War of Independence, led by Kemal, succeeded, and by 1923 allied forces withdrew from Turkey, and recognized what is today known as the Turkish Republic.

If Mustafa Kemal had not been able to convince followers to transcend their own self-interests during the Turkish War of Independence, Turkey today would simply not exist. Instead, even after the exhaustion and disillusionment of World War I, the Turkish people were rallied by Kemal to join a new fight against the occupying armies.

Mustafa Kemal did not simply want Turkish Independence, though. A champion of women’s rights, the rule of law, and secularism, he unabashedly sought a rapid transformation of a country mired in the archaic, dogmatic, traditions of the Ottoman Empire, and created a vision for Turkey that is still prevalent today. As he put it, “Illiteracy, debilitating disease, religious dogma, fatalism, and the inferior position of woman – all of these things must go, and go fast.” (Byrne, 2003) His ideas were so revolutionary that initially, many Turks believed that, with independence, they would be returning to a caliphate nation — a nation ruled by a religious leader. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Instead, Mustafa Kemal set out his vision for Turkey as a secular, constitutional democracy. He became a role model for Turks, working tirelessly toward that end as Turkey’s first president, convincing the Turkish parliament to approve one radically democratic reform after another. Turkey was one of the first nations in the world (and far ahead of other European countries) in granting political rights to women. Secularism – in particular completely separating religion from government — was another hallmark policy achieved by Mustafa Kemal.

By the time Turkey granted Mustafa Kemal the name Atatürk, he had initiated and implemented so many new directions that Turkey was a completely new country. Today, the Father of Turkey is celebrated and remembered throughout that country, possibly to an extent greater than Americans celebrate and remember George Washington. There can be no doubt that Atatürk was an inspirational and transformational leader.

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications

Byrne, M.N. (2003). Mustafa Kemal Ataturk – Commander and an effective leader. Accessed from http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/docs/publications2010/PublcnsGeddes2003_300310_MustafaKemal.pdf

George C. Marshall: A Lifetime of Leadership

April 6, 2014 by lsl5015

In 1951, fifty years after he graduated from the Virginia Military Institute, George C. Marshall attended the dedication of the Marshall Arch at the school. Marshall had spent almost all of those fifty years in the service of his country, and one would be hard pressed to find another American military leader — or any American leader, for that matter — who had played such pivotal roles in the shaping of 20th century history. In World War I, he was instrumental in planning the Battle of the Argonne, the largest battle in US military history, and the battle that ended the war. Because of his leadership in World War II, Winston Churchill labeled Marshall the “organizer of victory.” His authorship of The European Recovery Program — more commonly known as The Marshall Plan — was instrumental in rebuilding Europe following the devastation and economic collapse wrought by World War II. He was the longest serving Army Chief of Staff, and also served as Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and President of the Red Cross. He was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year twice, in 1943 and in 1947.

Understanding or categorizing Marshall’s leadership, then, is not a simple matter. Fifty years — more if one includes his time at VMI — is a long time to spend learning and practicing leadership, so variations and evolution are going to occur. Styles and approaches will change over time, and different theories might appear or reappear more or less predominantly at certain instances.

VMI, World War I, and World War II

One early insight into Marshall’s character can be seen from his “rat” (freshman) year at VMI. One night, weary from typhoid, in a particularly dangerous VMI hazing ritual, Marshall was forced squat over the point of an upturned bayonet that had been lodged into a hole in the floor. Though exhausted, Marshall refused to give up or complain, instead collapsing from exhaustion and being severely cut on his buttocks. While being treated by the school’s medical staff, he refused to give the names of the upperclassmen who had hazed him. Had he, they would very likely have been expelled, but Marshall would have faced retribution from others. Contrary to popular opinion, and contrary to biographies written as early as 1947 by William Frye and as recently as 2009 by Gerald M. Pops, this did not earn him any particular respect or prevent continued hazing. “After the accident I don’t think there was any particular difference in the hazing. It always was rather robust in the earliest weeks but it continued the entire year so far as I remember,” according to Marshall himself. It wasn’t just the rat year when Marshall was hazed, either. Because of his northern accent, he would continue to be hazed, “up to the day of my graduation.”

If one were to use the trait approach to analyze Marshall, it wouldn’t be difficult to quickly and easily find a number of Stogdill’s ten traits by looking at his decision to attend VMI and his behavior there. Marshall demonstrated drive for responsibility and task completion by choosing to attend a military school. It would’ve been easy enough for him to go to a traditional school, but Marshall set out to become a military officer — a leader — despite the fact that it didn’t seem likely in those years. He also could’ve given up at VMI, given the continued hazing, but instead he demonstrated vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals. He demonstrated clearly readiness to absorb interpersonal stress.

During World War I, Marshall, by then a Colonel, served under General John J. Pershing in the 1st US Army. Late in the war, Pershing was faced a nearly impossible task. In order to begin an offensive in the Argonne Forest, he would need to win a major victor at a place called St. Mihiel, then shift his entire army — 400,000 men — in a different direction and move them 60 miles to face a new front, all in a period of 10 days. Marshall was tasked with planning and organizing the logistics of the operation and the subsequent Argonne Offensive. The plan succeeded, and the subsequent 45 day long battle effectively ended the war.

Here, again using the trait approach, Marshall demonstrated venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, as well as willingness to accept consequences of decision and action and willingness to tolerate frustration and delay. His interactions with Pershing demonstrated self-confidence and sense of personal identity.

Marshall’s self-confidence would become evident again in 1939, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt held a meet with top US generals. Roosevelt was planning to begin shipping weapons and supplies to the British in order to assist them against Nazi Germany. All of the generals agreed with Roosevelt’s plan, except one. Marshall presciently recognized that doing so would draw America into the war, and, aware that the US Military wasn’t at all ready for war, vocalized his opinion. Roosevelt ignored Marshall’s objections, but saw that he possessed the kind of confidence that would be needed in the years ahead. Roosevelt promoted Marshall to general and appointed the outspoken leader as Chief of Staff of the US Army. Marshall would come to be a close advisor to Roosevelt.

In 1939, when he became Chief of Staff, the US Army was the 17th largest in the world. With fewer than 180,000 soldiers, it was a bit larger than Bulgaria’s military, and a bit smaller than Portugal’s. With the threat of war becoming more likely every week, Marshall began planning for US entry into the war. In fact, Marshall orchestrated the greatest expansion of the US Military ever, and grew it from 180,000 in 1939 to more than 8 million soldiers by 1945. By the end of World II, Marshall had created and lead the largest army in US history. There can be little doubt that the allied victory in World War II would not have been possible without Marshall’s massive mobilization and organization of American military power. Marshall’s ability to influence other persons’ behavior as well as his capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand, along with the traits demonstrated above, all contributed to Marshall’s leadership capabilities.

Another way of looking at Marshall’s military career is with through the skills approach to leadership. Marshall spent his life, from VMI forward learning to lead. It is rational to believe that Marshall, then, acquired and honed the technical, human, and conceptual skills necessary to become the amazing leader that he was.

Post World War II

Following World War II, the United States and Europe turned to Marshall for another important mission. This was different, though. After a lifetime of learning for, preparing for, and orchestrating wars, Marshall was tasked to come up with a plan to rebuild Europe. In 1947, as Secretary of State, Marshall outlined his proposal, the European Recovery Plan (ERP), or as everyone knows it today, the Marshall Plan during a speech at Harvard University. The plan was meant to rebuild areas of Europe that had been devastated by the war, and to jump start European economies that had crumbled. Marshall’s plan involved recreating European industry along the lines of American-style industry. The transformation was incredible, and the period between 1948 and 1952 was the fastest period of economic growth in European history. It could be argued that this amazing period of peacetime growth was the result of transformational leadership from George C. Marshall. Because of his efforts during World War II, Winston Churchill referred to him as the, “organizer of victory.” Less than ten years later, when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Prize committee called him the, “organizer of peace.” Adding weight to the notion of transformational leadership, Marshall was and still is the only career military officer ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Marshall would later serve as the President of the Red Cross, and then Secretary of Defense. Any study of Marshall will reveal a man of humility and honor, and a man whose leadership accomplishments are nearly unmatched in American history. Dozens of books and hundreds of articles have been written about him, and he is truly an American hero. I’d highly recommend that anyone interested in leadership could learn a lot by reading about Marshall.

References:
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications
Uldrich, J. (2005). Soldier, Statesman, Peacemaker: Leadership Lessons from George C. Marshall. New York, NY: Amacom Publishing

Pops, G. M. (2010). Ethical Leadership in Turbulent Times: Modeling the Public Career of George C. Marshall. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Marshall, G.C. Picayune Interview with George C. Marshall Tape 3. Leesburg, Va. George C. Marshall Foundation. Accessed from http://marshallfoundation.org/library/documents/Marshall_Interview_Tape3.pdf