Spot of Parchment, May 2020 - Characteristics of Great Leadership
With Memorial Day coming up in ten days and the anniversary of D-Day on June 6, I’ve been thinking a lot about service, duty, and valor—and what they reveal about leadership. One my favorite stories from World War II comes from the early morning hours before Operation Overlord began. Have you all heard this story? You might be familiar with it, but bear with me, I believe it speaks to a larger trend in American leadership.
Courtesy of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library
On June 5, Eisenhower visited with troops that were responsible for particularly dangerous tasks the next day. After a fitful night’s sleep, he woke up before the sun and penned this note, just in case D-Day went horribly awry:
“Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”
"In Case of Failure" Message Drafted by General Dwight Eisenhower in Case the D-Day Invasion Failed; 6/5/1944; Principal Files, 1916 - 1952; Collection DDE-EPRE: Eisenhower, Dwight D: Papers, Pre-Presidential; Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, KS. [Online Version, https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/in-case-of-failure, May 13, 2020]
It’s a pretty extraordinary message at a time of extreme peril. Who knows what might have happened if D-Day had failed. Either way, Eisenhower wanted to make sure no one else bore the blame. While this letter is remarkable, it is actually part of a larger tradition of American leaders acknowledging their human fallibility and taking responsibility for their actions and those of the men and women they led.
By 1864, Lincoln had spent three years trying to find a general that would fight an all-out war against the Confederacy. In late February, Lincoln appointed Ulysses S. Grant to the rank of Lieutenant General. The last person to hold that position was George Washington in 1798. (Winfield Scott had been given the honorary title with “brevet” in front of it, but out of respect only, he did not occupy the position) Congress confirmed Grant’s appointment on March 2, 1864.
A few days later, Lincoln held a reception at the White House (like the one pictured below) in Grant’s honor and the new commander of the Union armies gave a brief statement: “With the aid of the noble armies that have fought on so many fields for our common country, it will be my earnest endeavor not to disappoint your expectations. I feel the full weight of the responsibilities now devolving on me and know that if they are met, it will be due to those armies.”
Alfred Waud, White House Collection/White House Historical Association
But the tradition actually goes back much farther. On June 16, 1775, Congress appointed George Washington the General and Commander-in-Chief of the American forces. In response, Washington delivered a brief statement: “Mr President, Tho’ I am truly sensible of the high Honour done me in this Appointment, yet I feel great distress, from a consciousness that my abilities & Military experience may not be equal to the extensive & important Trust: However, as the Congress desire i⟨t⟩ I will enter upon the momentous duty, & exert every power I Possess In their service & for the Support of the glorious Cause: I beg they will accept my most cordial thanks for this distinguished testimony of their Approbation. But lest some unlucky event should happen unfavourable to my reputation, I beg it may be rememberd by every Gentn in the room, that I this day declare with the utmost sincerity, I do not think my self equal to the Command I ⟨am⟩ honoured with.”
When he returned his commission eight years later on December 23, 1783, he did not ask for fame or fortune. Instead, he asked Congress to acknowledge those that had served under his leadership: “While I repeat my obligations to the Army in general, I should do injustice to my own feelings not to acknowledge in this place the peculiar Services and distinguished merits of the Gentlemen who have been attached to my person during the War. It was impossible the choice of confidential Officers to compose my family should have been more fortunate. Permit me Sir, to recommend in particular those, who have continued in Service to the present moment, as worthy of the favorable notice & patronage of Congress.”
These three moments suggest to me that humility and responsibility are two markers of great American leadership. They demonstrated an awareness that as Commander-in-Chief they represented something much larger than their own reputations, but rather the combined efforts of all the people they led.
In some ways, the expectation that leaders are culpable for both the glorious outcomes and terrible defeats is baked into the American fabric. In 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention rejected a privy council to advise the president because they were worried that it might obscure responsibility at the highest levels of government. They believed the British king often hid behind the privy council and could not be held accountable for bad decisions or dangerous policies. They sought to create a presidency that answered to the American people.