- Reaction score
- 4,288
- Points
- 1,160
I'm reasonably happy to continue to believe that there is no correlation, none at all, between academics and leadership. I have absolutely no real, documentary evidence upon which to base this belief ... but all the evidence I have seen, reading and in my own experience, suggests that I'm correct.
Take the US case: I think it's fair to say that the five greatest military leaders of the 20th century were George C Marshall (head and shoulders the greatest military man of the 20th century in any country) followed by Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz. Of those four MacArthur and Nimitz are reported to have had first rate academic records while Bradley and Eisenhower were, to be charitable, undistinguished. None had an advanced degree. One wonders what made them better leaders: academics, sports or the very nature of the "officer production" system? My bets are on the latter two. I think the Duke of Wellington might have been right and the lessons learned on the "playing fields of Eton" likely had more to do with British military successes than education or, even, most experience.
I'm less than impressed with the degree laden David Petraeus types and those with experience like being (as Stanley McChrystal was) senior service college fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and military fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, than I am with officers with lots of experience in command of troops at the platoon, company and battalion level. Of course the officers at the very top will need some exposure to politics and strategy, but it seems to me that too much "study," formal and in think tanks, must be had at the expense of leading people and commanding ships and units.
In my own, personal experience I can say that the best officers with and under whom I served almost all had degrees ... a couple were RMC graduates who never did the final (academic) year. There were a couple of exceptions ~ our Officer Candidate Programme did produce some absolutely sterling officers with nothing more than high school diplomas, a handful of the best of whom became generals ~ but generally the best officers wanted to have better educations because they were more interested in the world than were most other, ordinary people.
I remain committed to the notion that the most important training the army does is for junior leaders: junior officers and junior NCOs, it's where we "make or break" our people and good, hard, tough junior officers and junior NCOs will grow into good, thoughtful senior leaders in due course. The next most important course ought to be the staff college ~ for captains ~ because it should teach them to think under pressure. The things sailors and soldiers, including admirals and generals, do aren't really complicated or theoretically/academically difficult, but they have to be done under the most extraordinary circumstances so it seems a bit like brain surgery and rocket science all jammed together. Good leaders, master corporals and major generals, appear able to manage to perform brain surgery during rocket lift off, but I think that may have more to do with having been on the rugby first 15 than having a PhD.
Take the US case: I think it's fair to say that the five greatest military leaders of the 20th century were George C Marshall (head and shoulders the greatest military man of the 20th century in any country) followed by Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz. Of those four MacArthur and Nimitz are reported to have had first rate academic records while Bradley and Eisenhower were, to be charitable, undistinguished. None had an advanced degree. One wonders what made them better leaders: academics, sports or the very nature of the "officer production" system? My bets are on the latter two. I think the Duke of Wellington might have been right and the lessons learned on the "playing fields of Eton" likely had more to do with British military successes than education or, even, most experience.
I'm less than impressed with the degree laden David Petraeus types and those with experience like being (as Stanley McChrystal was) senior service college fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and military fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, than I am with officers with lots of experience in command of troops at the platoon, company and battalion level. Of course the officers at the very top will need some exposure to politics and strategy, but it seems to me that too much "study," formal and in think tanks, must be had at the expense of leading people and commanding ships and units.
In my own, personal experience I can say that the best officers with and under whom I served almost all had degrees ... a couple were RMC graduates who never did the final (academic) year. There were a couple of exceptions ~ our Officer Candidate Programme did produce some absolutely sterling officers with nothing more than high school diplomas, a handful of the best of whom became generals ~ but generally the best officers wanted to have better educations because they were more interested in the world than were most other, ordinary people.
I remain committed to the notion that the most important training the army does is for junior leaders: junior officers and junior NCOs, it's where we "make or break" our people and good, hard, tough junior officers and junior NCOs will grow into good, thoughtful senior leaders in due course. The next most important course ought to be the staff college ~ for captains ~ because it should teach them to think under pressure. The things sailors and soldiers, including admirals and generals, do aren't really complicated or theoretically/academically difficult, but they have to be done under the most extraordinary circumstances so it seems a bit like brain surgery and rocket science all jammed together. Good leaders, master corporals and major generals, appear able to manage to perform brain surgery during rocket lift off, but I think that may have more to do with having been on the rugby first 15 than having a PhD.
