Peter Reuss
2nd Lieutenant
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Messages
- 3,775
To get back to the original premise of the thread ...
As I sit here in Orlando with other pastors from around the country, we talk a lot about leadership. What makes an effective leader?
There are two competing thoughts. Some think that leadership is about being the one in charge. The leader makes all the decisions - the subordinates are there to feed the leader data and to carry our instructions. Sounds a lot like Grant.
Another style of leadership involved empowering the subordinates. The task here is to inspire others to be leaders themselves. While general directions may come from the leader, the specific way that decisions are made lands in the lap of the the subordinate who is closer to the situation. Sounds a lot like Lee.
Which style works better? In the church, shared leadership is preferred hands down. While there are some bozos who like to be dictator of their small domain, effective pastors learn to be leaders of the leaders.
But what about military leadership? If a leader has competant subordinates, then Lee's style is preferable. The subordinates are closer to the situation at hand (i.e. they know the ground they are fighting for), and thus they can make better decisions on the fly. No time is wasted waiting for word to get back to the head honcho for their words of wisdom. In how many wars did a general behind the lines look at a map and decide to attack without ever scoping out the actual ground for himself when a subordinate knew full well that to attack was a grave mistake?! There's no question that Lee had very competant generals under him, and he utilized them well.
But what if they don't have the greatest subordinates? If the leader can't trust people under them to do the job, then they get to take all the rsponsibility themselves. Grant seems to fall in this category. Many of the generals in the eastern theater owed their commissions to something other than competant leadership! It should be noted that Grant allowed Sherman quite a bit of latitude (much more than he gave Meade) - so perhaps he too would have realized that competant subordinates should be given more responsibility.
Just a thought.
Pete
As I sit here in Orlando with other pastors from around the country, we talk a lot about leadership. What makes an effective leader?
There are two competing thoughts. Some think that leadership is about being the one in charge. The leader makes all the decisions - the subordinates are there to feed the leader data and to carry our instructions. Sounds a lot like Grant.
Another style of leadership involved empowering the subordinates. The task here is to inspire others to be leaders themselves. While general directions may come from the leader, the specific way that decisions are made lands in the lap of the the subordinate who is closer to the situation. Sounds a lot like Lee.
Which style works better? In the church, shared leadership is preferred hands down. While there are some bozos who like to be dictator of their small domain, effective pastors learn to be leaders of the leaders.
But what about military leadership? If a leader has competant subordinates, then Lee's style is preferable. The subordinates are closer to the situation at hand (i.e. they know the ground they are fighting for), and thus they can make better decisions on the fly. No time is wasted waiting for word to get back to the head honcho for their words of wisdom. In how many wars did a general behind the lines look at a map and decide to attack without ever scoping out the actual ground for himself when a subordinate knew full well that to attack was a grave mistake?! There's no question that Lee had very competant generals under him, and he utilized them well.
But what if they don't have the greatest subordinates? If the leader can't trust people under them to do the job, then they get to take all the rsponsibility themselves. Grant seems to fall in this category. Many of the generals in the eastern theater owed their commissions to something other than competant leadership! It should be noted that Grant allowed Sherman quite a bit of latitude (much more than he gave Meade) - so perhaps he too would have realized that competant subordinates should be given more responsibility.
Just a thought.
Pete
