Robert E Lee Leadership Style

Mission command belongs to the Army’s list of seven war fighting functions. While the other six of the Army’s war fighting functions specifically align to the application of combat power, mission command applies to leadership and its application. Mission command redefines the old construct of C2, command and control, by morphing the ideology into two distinct thoughts, the art of command and the science of control. Although mission command is a relatively new concept, it’s principles and application transcend time. This paper examines General Robert E. Lee’s application of the mission command principles at the Battle of Gettysburg.

Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee are two of the most effective military leaders in American history. These men have become symbolic of the two nations at conflict during the Civil War. Both had very different backgrounds and personalities that caused them to differ in their military leadership and accomplishments. Even though General Lee would surrender his army to General Grant, Lee throughout the course of the war proved himself to be a better military leader.

Robert E. Lee once said of leadership, “I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself” (Jones, 1875). This is an instance where I believe that even though this idea or thought was mentioned many years ago, it still has relevance today. I do not have an exact date of that quote, but with General Lee fighting in the Civil War, I would imagine it came somewhere in the mid-1800’s (The book it is found in was published after his death). Our current military leaders need to listen to advice like this quote, get out and know the people they put in charge so they are better able to make decisions on who should and should not actually be leading.

The entire truly tragic sense of the Lost Cause was that the South’s men knew their cause was lost, they knew there was really no way they could possibly win, and yet they fought on with tremendous bravery and dedication. The Civil War was such a poignant and even heart-wrenching time (Bowman, 2006, p.756). Despite the long-held notion that the South had all of the better generals, it really had only one good Army commander and that was General Lee. The rest were second-raters, at best (Donald, 1996, pp. 9-21). The North, on the other hand, had the good fortune of bringing along and nurturing people like Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, Philip Sheridan, George Thomas, and others.

At the end of the Civil War, Confederate President Jefferson Davis and other leaders wanted to continue the fights as a guerrilla war, but most of the Confederate generals opposed them, including Robert E. Lee who considered that course of action to be dishonorable.

Furthermore, he has provided clear vision and motivation to his men, so that they can all work together as a team with the same goal. He did not lead to gain popularity or the desire to advance himself financially or to acquire political gain, he did it because he believes that it was the right thing to do. Even though he was put in a very compromising position to initially lead the Union Army, General Lee chose to lead base on his obligation to defend and protect his fellow southerners, to include his devotion to his home state of Virginia. (Gipson, 2003)

Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson will forever be held as unwavering heroes in the hearts of many across America, especially in the South. Both serving as generals and commanders in the army, Lee and Jackson demonstrated bravery and well thought out military strategies; some of these strategies failed and some succeeded, but overall Lee and Jackson went down as great heroes in American history. While these men both served in the army and were strong leaders on there own, there were many differences in the two men both as leaders and as people. However, where there were differences that seem as clear and night and day, the men also had many similarities that were displayed in how they commanded troops and how they

During the times of Civil War, there were many Commanding Generals that came along. But two stand out amongst all, Ulysses S. Grant of United States of America and Robert E. Lee of Confederate States of America. Both men had formally fought, not along side of each other, in the Mexican-American War. At one point Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant worked together in the Mexican-American War. They both gained a war time experience, Grant as a quartermaster and Lee as an engineer who positioned troops and artillery during their participation in the Scott’s march from the coastal town of Vera Cruz to Mexico City. Both men were vastly different with different styles and background who not only won the affection of their men but respect of

Catton’s analysis of these two generals focuses on each of their beliefs, determination and vast differences. General Robert E. Lee, an upperclassman from tidewater Virginia, who believed in the aristocratic ideals and that his class of privileged men, with the background of family, culture and tradition had the strong sense of obligation to lead the community of those less privileged. General Ulysses S. Grant, a Western frontier, had come up the hard way among the men who grew up beyond the mountains. He was self-reliant and felt he owed nothing to anyone. His sight was on the future with no interest in looking at the past. Democracy is what he knew and the privileges men had needed to be earned.

The book, Robert E. Lee on Leadership, Executive Lessons in Character, Courage and Vision written by H.W. Crocker III chronicles the life of Robert E. Lee before and after the War Between the States. Moreover, it is an excellent portrayal of how a strong leader must be humble and he must place people over systems (Crocker, 2000). As H.W. Crocker illustrates in his book, Lee understood people matter and no leader regardless of his competence can afford to ignore their men and he must have the right people in the right place at the right time (Crocker, 2000). I strongly agree with this position and the manner in which you delegate authority speaks volumes about your character. The book furthermore goes on to explain how Lee developed his

Lee one of the most famous generals in the American Civil War was an admirable man loved by all. Even the then president, Abraham Lincoln, who was sad to not have, Lee, on his side. Though he was a wonderful leader, there were many things he could of did differently and better to hold a stronger fight. For example one of the critical roles that led to the defeat of the confederates, was communication. Lee, had commanders set far from himself specifically to watch for the enemy. In one specific area, he had a commander at where there was a short cut that would let the enemy to get to hime 2-3 hours faster. Well unfortunately, this commander left his post, thinking Lee was crazy and no one was coming through this back road. He left and his post was unguarded. Well George Custer, Cavalry Commander under the power of Robert E. Lee, had a spy who told him the place of the enemy for a fee. Custard got information, that this back road was being used told Robert E. Lee, but he didn't believe the spy because he has sent someone to set post there to watch, and figured the officer would of sent word by now if such thing were true. Well Lee, didn't listen and surely enough not only was this the enemy, but it was reinforcement for an enemy location even nearer to them. They were heavily outnumbered and lost a lot of men. All because of this one foolish mistake of not putting someone responsible in place of a job that needed it. This failure cost him dearly, which eventually

HW Crocker, a longtime student of Robert E. Lee, embarks on a story of his teacher Lee in the book; Leadership: Executive Lessons in Courage, Character, and Vision. Crocker uses the life story of Robert Lee to pinpoint important observations that would change the lives of many people who come across this inspiring read. The book which is organized in eleven chapters begins with accomplishments made by Lee. Through these success stories, Crocker manages to establish an initial image of Lee as a unique leader who is governed by high moral principles, and to ensure this comes out clearly as intended, Crocker puts primary focus on three important periods in the life of his subject. These periods begins with the life of Lee as a soldier in the Mexican-American army where success was his story. This evolves into the second period of Civil War, a time of turmoil in the history of America, and a time when Lee led the Confederacy Army (Crocker, 2000). Finally, Crocker crowns the book with Lee as the President of Washington University. Through these three areas of interest, Crocker manages to bring the kind of character that any modern leader would want to emulate his rich character traits and personality. Through these stories, Crocker remains particularly keen on bringing to reader 's attention key elements that make a leader great. The lessons are even much easier to learn and articulate since they are indicated at the

H. W. Crocker III, Robert E. Lee on Leadership, in character, courage, and vision. New York: Three Rivers press, 2000. Ppx + 231. Bibliography and index. $14.95 (Paper).

In “Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts” by Bruce Catton, the author explores the tremendous challenges that America had faced during a time of opposition and agony. The Civil War not only divided the newly formed country, but led to the death and destruction of innocent lives around the nation. In order to innovate from these tremendous problems, two leaders from opposing armies had met at the Appomattox Court House to discuss surrender. General Robert E Lee of the Confederate army and Ulysses S Grant of the Northern Union regine began to plan the next steps to take in the terms of Lee’s surrender in Virginia. General Lee and General Grant were extremely different from one another, yet had both battled for similar reasons. Lee lived in a

The planning process is important in establishing specific goals and tasks, then prioritize them according to their importance and identifying the available resources necessary for achieving the goals set. Strategic planning is vital because it provides a sense of direction and is a roadmap for success. One of the most outstanding qualities of General Grant was his ability to plan and as the General-in-chief, his first action was to develop a plan on how to destroy General Robert E. Lee’s army of Northern Virginia.