America’s genius is mass leadership
I’m reading a biography of Admiral William “Bull” Halsey Jr., whose leadership style was built around aggression, initiative and trust in the men under his command. After Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, that was exactly the kind of leadership the moment demanded.
I read a lot of military history and it helps me to study and think about leadership styles. Halsey’s style definitely leaned towards heavy delegation. He expected his subordinates to seize the initiative as he would. If men came to him with what he viewed as small problems or an issue within their capabilities, he usually worked to relieve them of command authority. He no longer trusted their ability to be decisive in the heat and pressure of combat.
Decentralized mission command in the military is nothing new. Some of America’s strategic thinking here is partially influenced by the Germans. The term is Auftragstaktik: commanders define the objective and intent, but subordinates closest to the action are expected to exercise quick judgment and initiative. Of course, there is a little irony here because the United States was able to seize the initiative during the D-Day landings because of decisions by and through the initiative of junior officers and NCOs against the then top-heavy command of Germany, which by 1944 was awaiting instruction on how to respond from Hitler himself.
Probably one of the more notable examples cited is then Lt. Dick Winters of Easy Company. Part of the airborne landings, he did not drop into order and clarity. Like many airborne troops, he landed into chaos, with scattered units and broken chains of command. Yet near Brécourt Manor, Winters led a small group of paratroopers against a German artillery battery threatening the Utah Beach landings. He had no formal orders or anybody telling him what to do. He understood his mission and he had a few men, and took the initiative to seize the battery.
That type of empowered initiative works well with Americans because of our republican form of government and independent spirit. Our system of federalism and dispersion of power compliments it. As Herbert Hoover said after the great Mississippi Flood of 1927, “The safety of the United States is its multitudinous mass leadership.” Hoover said he didn’t need to call out the entire army because Main Street was already active and well equipped to handle the mission of disaster relief.
I feel like that is a phrase worth remembering as we approach America250.
The American experiment has never depended only on presidents, generals or national institutions. It has depended on citizens willing to take responsibility where they are, which certainly includes civil society, local government, and the commercial sector. That is why I sometimes roll my eyes, even though I can be guilty of it too, when we incessantly prattle on about who the president happens to be.
America’s next 250 years will require the same qualities if we are going to prosper and endure: not a nation waiting to be managed from the top, but a republic full of Americans willing to lead where they are.
—Ray Nothstine
— The Federalism Beat