Billy Mitchell: A Critical Analysis of His Leadership Essay

truncheon Mitchell was a visionary airpower pi starer who demonstrated very sound lead in field operations, nevertheless his inability to develop a guiding league limited his effectiveness in stellar(a) the major organizational trade he so desperately desired. public Mitchell was a famous, some would consecrate infamous, airpower thinker who some regard as the father of the United States wide-eyedcast pull back.1 Born into a wealthy family and the son of a Wisconsin Senator, Mitchell could have elect a life of luxury. But Billy sought great contingency and chose the military life instead. He joined the the States at the age of eighteen, six days to begin with the Wright brothers made their first historic shoot at Kitty Hawk. Once powered flight was proven, it wouldnt make let out long for men to make it a weapon of war. For the U.S. host, Mitchell found himself leading this effort in World state of war I and, by alto depressher accounts, he did so superbly. In th is reckon, he gained a vision for airpower so firmly embraced that he became Americas most outspoken help of air constricts and the need for an independent cinch Service.See more how to compose an analysisAs he pursued this chall(a)enge, Mitchells drawing cardship was both(prenominal) stirring and divisive leading to heroic displays of airpower technology and also to philanders military for insubordi population. Despite his efforts, General Mitchell was not able to drive the Army and the nation to the strategical reassign he desired for airpower. In the years, however, following his downfall, many of his concepts eventually win the day. Denied his dream in life, his contributions were rewarded six years afterwards his death when he was posthumously promoted to Major General and awarded the Congressional grand Medal. How could a man succeed so greatly in one phase of his life, but fail to achieve the same level of achiever in another, given the fact that history has p roven his airpower tenants correct? To make out this, one must examine Mitchells leadinghip and explore how it touch on his successes and failures. The ventilate War disruptionlege leaders curriculum provides an environment to examine the underpinnings of leadership and how it may be defined and improved. As a core analytical framework, it utilizes the Right to Lead (RTL) Model.2 This model allows one, given certain authority, obligations, and requirements, to prize leadership against the factors of competence, character, reputation, and relevance. I use these factors to assess Mitchells field leadership and provide rationale for his operational successes. Mitchell possessed spirited levels of leadership competence, specially with regard to his knowledge and skills. He was very intelligent and dedicated himself to master the technical aspects of every military duty, which crossed a wide gamut from reading Morse code to flying aircraft. His assignments, from the jungles of the Philippines to the barren tundra of Alaska, provided him with great breadth of visualise from which he polished the in the flesh(predicate) skills needed to lead his men. He leveraged this gift in the first world war, when he brought the power of his knowledge and experience to combat the ignorance of those who failed to see to it how to employ airpower in the fight.3 The one confine factor in Mitchells competence related to his behavior, specifically in the wearing away of the uniform, where he was known to take free reign in everything that adds a touch of picturesque to his personality.4 He would have been wise to refine his behavior in this regard, as some of his actions drew outrage from his men, including the wear of more gold chevrons on his sleeve than he was authorized.5 Luckily for Mitchell, due(p) to his strength of character, his men were mostly willing to overlook his behavioral faults. He was known as a man of integrity and was fiercely abandoned to the a dvantageously being of his men. Given that an honest effort was put forward, he was surprisingly tolerant of mistakes. Most importantly in the eyes of his troops, before ordering a subordinate to undertake a tough assignment, Mitchell would experimentation with the task himself.6 Consider the following Mitchell enlisted into the Army at eighteen in spite of his option of an easier life he was the first airmen to volunteer for assignment to France in World War I and he was the first Ameri rat military officer to fly over the German front lines.7 I contest that these examples all support the fine character of General Mitchell. Mitchells personality was well suited for leadership in a field environment. He was able to effectively utilize the coercive, authoritative, and pacesetting leadership styles that, according to leadership research, were well suited for executing his vision in stressful environments with highly motivate men.8 He engendered high levels of trust from those who worked under him and gained the respect of those who worked by his side, including the British, French, and Italian allied leadership.9 Relevance, the apex of the RTL model, is a direct result of a leaders influence and occurs at the organizational, environmental, and personal levels.10 Mitchell showed relevance in all of these areas. First, from an environmental perspective, he brought together multiple organizations, air forces from Britain, Italy, and the United States, and compound their personnel and equipment into a viable fighting force, which culminated in the greatest engrossment of air power that had ever taken place.11 He had high organizational relevance, changing the persona of his combined force from one alone focused on strategic attack, to one comfortable executing the supererogatory tactics and techniques of air superiority, close air support, and interdiction.12 Finally, General Mitchell had tremendous personal relevance to the airmen fighting under his command . As America rushed to get into the European air fight, they suffered from long delays in producing aircraft and training pilots, so practically so that the vast majority of Army airmen shipped to Mitchell had never seen an airplane.13 He took this force and trained them to fly, fight, and win culminating in a decisive victory at the Battle of St. Mihiel. The RTL model proves a valuable tool to help understand why Mitchell was an effective leader in field operations, which culminated in his effective planning and execution of the European air campaign of World War I. His experiences there convinced him that airpower would be the dominate force in future(a) warfare and to effectively organize, train, equip, and employ it required the creation of an independent business line Service Department.14 Enacting such a vision required strategic organizational revision, which Mitchell attempted to lead. He proved less successful in this regard and Ill look to experts on leading shift in an effort to understand why. In his book Leading Change, John Kotter spells out the eight steps to create major change within an organization.15 The change process can be summarized in three phases break the position quo introduce many new practices and ground the changes into the organizational culture.16 To break the location quo, post-war budget cutbacks provided the required sense of urgency to produce military change and Mitchell had a clear and articulate vision, but he failed to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition to support the change. Though he was able to create a large cadre of airpower advocates in the military, the congress, and in the national, Mitchell was never able to get Army and dark blue leadership to acquire into his vision.When the head of an organization is not an active supporter, major change can be unsurmountable.17 Unable to break the status quo, Mitchell targeted the second phase of the change process by introducing new practices and e mpowering those under his command to take broad action in the development of new aircraft and more capable munitions. Mitchell hoped commonplace demonstrations of these capabilities would force his leadership to buy into his vision. In an attempt to make this happen, he turned to dissent. Mitchell utilized the national press to campaign for support, publicly denouncing the policies and positions of his leadership.18 In more recent times, other famous leaders, including Generals Douglas McArthur and Stanley McChrystal, have been relieved for publicly espousing opinion in conflict with national leadership. But I mean Mitchell felt national security was at stake and that, as the Armys top airpower strategist, his expertise was being overlooked.When these conditions are met, some make do that dissent is appropriate.19 Right or wrong, Mitchells public campaign won him a very public showing of airpower capabilities, where his men famously drop down the battleship Ostfriesland.20 His p ublic success did garner support for aviation Navy aviation. The public nature of his dissent offended leadership and made it impossible for him to build the guiding coalition required for his vision. Without this key ingredient, he was futile to drive the organizational change desired. General Richard Myers argues that successful strategic leaders must manage sprocketnitive dissonance.21 Thus, successful management means maintaining relationships disdain disagreement. Mitchell failed here when he went public. Remarkably, he wasnt fired, probably because his views aligned with the public mood of the day.22 However, he again enacted this approach three years later with even stronger criticism of national policy and leadership. This time, hed experience the impacts of dissent as he was tried and convicted at court martial. Although this ended his military career, Mitchell regarded his trial as a necessary cog in the wheel of progress.23 Billy Mitchell was an extremely effective lea der in field operations. He was also a visionary airpower pioneer who attempted, but failed, to lead organizational change due to his inability to build the inevitable coalition. His ideas were valid and later implemented after his death. It took men with different leadership competencies, however, to eventually enact the changes Mitchell so deeply advocated.1. Lt Col William Ott, Maj Gen William Billy Mitchell A Pyrrhic Promotion, Air and Space actor Journal, Winter 2006, 27. 2. Gene Kamena, Col inclination Danigole, and CAPT Scott Askins, The Right to Lead, (working paper, Air War College, Maxwell, AL, 2012), 1. 3. Roger Burlingame, General Billy Mitchell (Westport, CT Greenwood Press, Inc., 1978), 78. 4. Ibid., 103.5. Ibid., 79.6. Ibid., 78-79.7. Dr. Michael L. Grumelli, Billy Mitchells Air War Practice, Promise, and Controversy, (lecture, home(a) Museum of the United States Air Force Lecture Series, Dayton, OH, 16 Jan 2000), NPN. 8. Daniel Goleman, leaders That Gets Results, On Point Harvard commerce Review, March-April, 2002, 11. 9. Burlingame, General Billy Mitchell, 103.10. Kamena, Danigole, and Askins, The Right to Lead, 1-5. 11. Burlingame, General Billy Mitchell, 94.12. Grumelli, Billy Mitchells Air War, NPN.13. Burlingame, General Billy Mitchell, 73-74.14. Alfred F. Hurley, Billy Mitchell crusader for Air Power (Bloomington, IN Indiana University Press, 1975), 40. 15. John P. Kotter, Leading Change (Boston MA Harvard stemma School Press, 1996), 20-22. 16. Ibid., 23.17. Ibid., 6. 18. Hurley, Billy Mitchell Crusader for Air Power, 62. 19. Don M. Snyder, Dissent and strategic Leadership in the Military Professions, ASSI Publication 849 (Carlisle, PA Army strategical Studies Institute, February 2008), 6-7. 20. Hurley, Billy Mitchell Crusader for Air Power, 64-69. 21. GEN Richard B. Myers, Ret. and Albert C. Pierce, On Strategic Leadership, Joint Force Quarterly, nary(prenominal) 54, 3rd quarter 2009, 13. 22. Hurley, Billy Mitchell Crusader for A ir Power, 90. 23. Hurley, Billy Mitchell Crusader for Air Power, 105.Bibliography1. Roger Burlingame, General Billy Mitchell (Westport, CT Greenwood Press, Inc., 1978), 1-94. 2. Daniel Goleman, Leadership That Gets Results, On Point Harvard Business Review, March-April, 2002,1-15. 3. Dr. Michael L. Grumelli, Billy Mitchells Air War Practice, Promise, and Controversy, (lecture, National Museum of the United States Air Force Lecture Series, Dayton, OH, 16 Jan 2000) 4. Alfred F. Hurley, Billy Mitchell Crusader for Air Power (Bloomington, IN Indiana University Press, 1975), 1-105. 5. Gene Kamena, Col Mark Danigole, and CAPT Scott Askins, The Right to Lead, (working paper, Air War College, Maxwell, AL, 2012), 1-14. 6. John P. Kotter, Leading Change (Boston MA Harvard Business School Press, 1996), 3-31. 7. GEN Richard B. Myers, Ret. and Albert C. Pierce, On Strategic Leadership, Joint Force Quarterly, No. 54, 3rd quarter 2009, 12-13. 8. Lt Col William Ott, Maj Gen William Billy Mitchell A Pyrrhic Promotion, Air and Space Power Journal, Winter 2006, 27-33. 9. Don M. Snyder, Dissent and Strategic Leadership in the Military Professions, ASSI Publication 849 (Carlisle, PA Army Strategic Studies Institute, February 2008), 1-46. 10. Marybeth P. Ulrich, The General Stanley McChrystal Affair A Case Study in Civil-Military Relations, Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, Vol. XLI No. 1, Spring 2011, pp. 86-100.