White Paper 9:
Leadership Lessons From History: Part 2
How We Approached The Design Challenge
Our first decision was to closely examine the history and learn what
happened--what preceded and followed the event. We read Michael
Shaara’s Killer Angels, a historical novel noted for a high degree of
scholarly accuracy, Shelby Foote’s Stars In Their Courses, a closely
written description of the campaign, the classic study of character, Lee’
s Lieutenants, by Douglas Southall Freeman and historian James M.
McPherson’s Hallowed Ground. We even watched the Ted Turner
movie, Gettysburg, which was filmed on location, to better understand
the immensity of the drama that took place. We poured over books of
photographs illustrating the battle, like David Eicher’s Gettysburg
Battlefield.
What emerged from this review were two things: A sense of the
characters involved—who they were as people, their personalities and
their strengths and foibles. We also identified what we called
leadership moments—those incidents where an opportunity was
identified, a decision had to be made, an obstacle to be surmounted or
a desperate plan needed to be communicated. While there were many
leadership moments that emerged, we selected several which had the
most dramatic leadership elements involved and which took place on
ground we could visit.
Leadership Moments: The Stories
The leadership moments formed the thread of the series of stories we
would tell our participants and which contained potential lessons that
could link to current day leadership dilemmas. The first was John
Buford’s decision to forestall the Confederate advance on the morning
of July 1. We talked about Buford’s experience as an Indian fighter, the
rapid fire carbines of his troops, the advantages he created by using a
particular formation called a defense in depth. Another was Lee’s
decision to engage the Army of the Potomac after the action had already
started through a chance encounter without knowing what he was
facing due to the absence of intelligence from his missing scout,
General Jeb Stuart and his cavalry.
In another situation, with the first afternoon of the battle moving to the
Confederate’s advantage, Lee saw an opportunity to take Cemetery Hill,
giving General Richard Ewell a vague command to take the ground “if
practicable.” Ewell’s subsequent hesitation cost the Confederates their
advantage, and his caution in deciding not to move against the hill is
debated today as a turning point in not only the battle, but in American
history. Some historians posit that if Ewell had taken the high ground
that afternoon, the entire war --and American history--might have turned
out completely differently.
We also viewed Union General Dan Sickle’s autonomous decision on
Day Two of the battle to move his troops to what he felt was a better
defensive position at the Peach Orchard—contrary to General George
Meade’s orders—as an interesting interpretation of initiative. Sickle’s
flamboyant personality, non-military background, and scandalous past—
he shot his wife’s lover and was the first person in the US to use the
insanity defense—had all the elements of a rich discussion on how
creative energy could be managed and the role of disciple in modern
organizations.
The story of the 20th Maine Regiment and Colonel Joshua Lawrence
Chamberlain at Little Round Top was an example of perseverance and
ingenuity in the face of overwhelming obstacles. The ongoing and
unsettling conflict between Lee and his main lieutenant, General James
Longstreet, who opposed the idea of an offensive strategy from the
beginning of the campaign, sets up a classic leadership challenge of
getting people to buy into a plan and execute against it. Finally, we
included Abraham Lincoln’s vision of a nation and what the conflict
meant to him.
These leadership moments all had a sense of high drama and tension.
When individual stories were told, they unraveled details of what
actually happened made for rich discussion and debate of the choices
the leaders faced, the complexity of decisions, absence of easy
answers and urgency of difficult moments—exactly the kinds of issues
business leaders face today.
A Leadership Model: What Emerged From The Stories
One of the challenges we faced in designing this experience was
identifying a leadership model to relate all these stories to. A
leadership model would provide a unifying lens, so to speak, so that we
could understand these long-ago leadership moments in context and
relate them to current challenges. Taken individually, for example, each
leadership moment we identified represented an individual’s encounter
with leadership principles— positive or negative examples of some
aspect of leadership behavior. Ewell’s over-analysis of the situation at
Cemetery Hill could be taken as an example of having to be highly
certain before deciding; Lee’s laissez-faire attitude of planning—
delegating details to his officers—represents setting an organizational
climate where low clarity can have a devastating impact. Chamberlain’s
ingenuity and courage represent what we expect every leader to
demonstrate—emotional commitment and dedication. But, what was the
thread—the construct, the set of principles or behaviors-- that held all
these disparate principles together? What we needed as a model that
put the leadership concept together and described what leaders did. It
had to be simple, behavioral and most important, useful.
After reviewing leadership models from many well-known sources, it
became clear to us that one model would not fit our needs. While
elements of Jim Collins’ Good To Great, for instance, were relevant to
our stories, we didn’t want our experience to be simply a lesson in
applying that model. Told that way, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had
a clear “hedge-hog”—the Army could move fast, but it lacked discipline
of execution without its key missing leader “on the bus”, Stonewall
Jackson, who was killed before the battle. Instead of reflecting a
specific construct like Good To Great, we elected to create our own.
The source of this Leadership Lens, as we called it, would be our
knowledge of leadership behavior as we knew it from our consulting
and research and the characters and their stories.
The Leadership Lens
We synthesized a simple three-part model.
Create The Fundamental Idea:
A leader’s role is to scan the environment, learn the “ground”,
recognize opportunities, and from that, create a focused direction. The
implication goes beyond the idea of a vision statement; a leader is the
source of the vision, the set of eyes that is always looking for
opportunities. Once that vision is clear in the leader’s mind, it has to be
formulated in a way that others can see it as well. While this is a
relatively simple concept, we felt it was a reflection of all the leaders we
have studied and certainly was reflected for better or worse by the cast
of characters at Gettysburg. Robert E. Lee, for example, viewed the
invasion of the North as a key strategic move to bring about an
armistice. While his lieutenants knew his vision, they weren’t totally
clear on how this was going to be carried out, creating the root cause
for the conflict between General James Longstreet, the second in
command, and Lee.
Set and Impose Operating Values, Practices, Principles:
A leader is the tone-setter and rule-maker of an organization. As we
know from organizational climate research, management creates a
feeling of what it is like to work in the organization based on the rules
and practices the leader puts in place. This feeling of climate is a key to
motivation. The leader figuratively puts the operating manual of the
organization in place or changes what is already there to something
more in line with his or her beliefs and values. We view this as a
conscious imposition by the leader. W. Morrell and S. Capparell’s study
of Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton, Shackelton’s Way, depicts a
leader who created a work environment where all crew members,
regardless of role, had to perform menial tasks and, at the same time,
were expected to be positive, cheerful and cooperative with each
other. At Gettysburg, we learn that Union commander General George
Meade was appointed to his role two days before the battle, having no
time to create an operating climate of his own other than the usual
military discipline. This gap can be viewed as contributing to his
subordinate Dan Sickles’ feeling free to take independent action which
led to confusion and potential ruin on Day Two of the battle. To this day,
new managers are tested by direct reports who soon learn that strong
leaders set up clear boundaries and expectations for performance.
Demonstrate An Emotional Edge:
Every leader creates an emotional reaction in his or her followers,
based on the level of commitment and dedication he or she overtly
displays. The leader can demonstrate high moral values, boundless
energy, steady and calm resolve, affection for employees or courage;
there isn’t a right way to demonstrate an emotional edge. What counts
is how the leader shows up as a person, exposing his or her
commitment, beliefs and energy. When a leader captures his or her
employee’s attention and respect, their motivation will follow. Lee was
regarded with great affection by his troops. Even in defeat, Robert E.
Lee was highly respected by both sides. The idea of emotional edge is
completely subjective; it is one of those factors that you know when you
see it. Buford’s resolve at McPherson’s Ridge, Chamberlain’s courage
on Little Round Top and other examples all have modern equivalents in
corporate and civic leadership. Who could not feel moved by Rudi
Guiliani’s sense of command and compassion on September 11? Who
could not feel impressed and excited by Steve Jobs’ announcement of
another innovation? Of course, a prime example of emotional edge is
Lincoln’s speech at the Gettysburg battlefield. The humility and respect
he paid to those who gave “their last full measure of devotion” and the
simple resolution that they “have not died in vain” and that the
government of, by and for the people “shall not perish from this earth”
shows what courage can be in the face of uncertainty.
These three elements and the more specific behaviors which further
describe them, taken together, represent an easy to remember and
apply view of leadership. We wanted our model to be “portable” so our
participants could carry it around with them in their memories and recall
it when we discussed different leadership moments. As we learned, the
model became the springboard for discussion; participants were able to
critique the character’s leadership moments and relate their own
corporate examples using the elements of the model.
The Flow and Timing
With the leadership moments and model in mind, we created a flow of
events, linking these together from the beginning of the battle to its
calamitous conclusion at Pickett’s Charge. Our idea was to tell the
story of the three-day battle in chronological order. We would start with
Buford, move to Lee’s decision, Ewell’s uncertainty, ending Day One of
the story. Day Two of the battle would cover a discussion about Lee’s
conflict with Longstreet, his decision to conduct a coordinated attack,
Sickle’s excursion into the Peach Orchard, and the story of Chamberlain
on Little Round Top. We would cover Day Three of the battle by
revisiting Lee’s decision to attack the middle of the Union line while
attempting an end-run cavalry attack, how Lee’s management style
changed from more or less laissez-faire to highly directive, Longstreet’s
reluctance and his choices as a leader, and the consequences of
Pickett’s Charge. The final lesson would take place at the Gettysburg
cemetery where Lincoln made his famous address.
Each “Day” of the battle would require at least a half day of instruction
and would visit at least three different locations. We would begin early,
head by bus to each venue, pause for lunch and continue. A chase car
driven by a staff member would accommodate the need for people to
take a break. We selected locations that were off the beaten track, for
the most part, or we visited them when crowds were minimal. For
example, the group found itself quite alone on Little Round Top at the
end of our first day of the experience.
We had a debrief session after our day on the battlefield in a classroom
like setting at our hotel. The discussion involved comparing what
happened to incidents participants were familiar with and in extracting
key messages and ideas that became illuminated and magnified by the
experience.
Telling The Big Story: Setting the Context
Our approach was to tell the story of a series of decisions by a relatively
small number of people and discuss these in terms of the leadership
model we created. The larger story was now background while our
leadership moments became foreground. Our participants needed to
understand the historical context and the larger issues being played
out by the characters in the story.
Toward that end, we planned to ask our participants to read Michael
Shaara’s Killer Angels prior to coming to the leadership experience.
Knowing that some participants might not read the entire novel, we also
provided them with a short historical synopsis of the origins of the Civil
War and the history of the battle of Gettysburg. In our opening
introductory session, our military historian-facilitator planned a concise
lecture description of the how the war was going just prior to Lee’s
decision to invade the North. Finally, we found that the bus chartered
for the experience had audio-visual capabilities, allowing us to use
scenes from the movie, Gettysburg, to orient our participants before
arriving at a location as well as reviewing significant incidents after we
left a location. We felt we could craft these elements into a design that
would start with readings, continue with an orientation lecture, and be
supported by handouts and movies.
Making the Link
The leadership lens became the key vehicle for linking the program to
each participant’s real-world leadership challenge. We used the model
to summarize our discussions of the key leadership moments, and we
drilled down on them for specific “how-tos” in our debriefing sessions.
For example, if participants had stated that motivating staff was an
issue for them at work, we would return to that personal learning theme
whenever the leadership moment we were discussing was relevant.
“What did you learn from Lee’s behavior about how a leader should or
shouldn’t motivate his direct reports?” would be a typical summary
question. Through discussion of the historical character’s difficulties
and actions, participants were able to appreciate the impact of having a
clear, relevant, challenging Fundamental Idea—Vision can be to direct
reports. In debriefing, we would ask participants what the historical
characters could have done differently in setting a vision and what
some good examples were of corporate leaders who had motivating
Fundamental Ideas. From this exchange, the facilitators were able to
tease out the characteristics of a strong Fundamental Idea and how it
could be used to motivate direct reports. The participants collected
these useful thoughts and incorporated them into the learning
journals.
That aspect of making the link between the story and real work is a fairly
predictable design feature. There were, however, other factors unique
to a historical learning experience that made the lessons memorable.
The drama of each leader’s story, the very act of standing on the
ground where the story took place and the poignancy of the outcomes
created a strong emotional reaction in each participant. That reaction
cemented the underlying meaning of the leadership principle into
place. The image of General Ewell standing at the base of Cemetery
Hill, struggling to make a decision, his hesitation, the vague
instructions he was given, the fading daylight, the opportunity lost adds
a dimension to the concept of analysis paralysis that can’t be conjured
up in a classroom discussion. Walking the same mile or so of ground
that Pickett’s divisions crossed under heavy fire, taking momentary
refuge in the swales, emerging exposed under the Union’s guns
imprints a lesson about courage, loyalty, and a leader’s emotional edge
in choosing to take a huge risk offers a lesson that is impossible to
forget.
Months after the experience at Gettysburg, selected participants were
asked to report what they remembered and what they put to work in
their practice of leadership. Not surprisingly, their comments most
often reflected an image from the battlefield. A typical comment would
be, “I will always remember how Chamberlain came up with an idea
under intense pressure, communicated it to his troops and pulled it off
without panic or confusion. It’s an idea that I access when I feel under
the gun.”
Bear in mind, we were telling our leadership stories on an empty stage;
the actors had gone long ago. What ultimately makes a historical
leadership lesson work is the power of place, the stories of real leaders
and the imagination of participants.
Learning Leadership From History: Lessons Learned
The Gettysburg battle is only one example of a how leadership can be
learned from history. We have also conducted brief sessions on board
“Old Ironsides”—USS Constitution—in Boston Harbor and have plans
for non-military venues. Thomas Edison’s workshop, the site of the first
nuclear reaction under the football stadium at the University of Chicago,
Lewis and Clark’s fort on the Oregon coast are examples of sites that
have potential for this approach.
From working with these settings, it is clear there are some
requirements for a successful historical leadership learning experience.
A significant, well-documented story with dramatic events.
The historical event has to have a powerful story where momentous
decisions were made and far-reaching implications were played out.
Like any good story, there has to be drama, conflict, overwhelming
odds, emotion and a lot of “what-if” moments. In addition, the story has
to be documented, preferably from a number of first-hand sources.
A compelling set of characters.
The story needs to contain main characters and lesser lights who have
dimensionality, personality, and depth. When we learn that General
Ewell had just returned from convalescent leave and had been married
while away from the war, his hesitation at Cemetery Hill takes on
another dimension. In preparing this kind of learning activity, the
facilitators and designers are obliged to do their homework and dig
through the sources for facts that round out the characters.
An accessible, intact setting.
As noted, the site of the leadership lesson is a critical asset. Being in
the same exact place where momentous events took place pulls on
participants’ imagination and helps dissolve time. Granted, not every
participant is able to make the imaginative leap or has the sensitivity to
see what historical characters can teach them. However, with careful
pre-readings, a thoughtful scene-setting presentation, expert
facilitation from group leaders who have a flair for story telling, the
emotional connection can be made for those who engage the idea.
Clear lessons from decisions, initiatives, opportunities.
Finally, the story itself has to contain a number of leadership moments
where the characters in the historical story are placed in a dilemma,
faced huge obstacles or overwhelming odds. The designers of the
experience have to be able to show how what happened--for better or
worse--reflected valid leadership principles. That implies creating or
applying a leadership model that can be used as the learning content of
the program. It also suggests that that leadership principle will be
meaningful and useful to participants and that they can relate present-
day stories to it. Without this framework as a foundation, participants
can lose the thread of the lessons being taught.
Summary: The Final Ingredient
In all candor, an historical leadership experience is not for everyone.
These venues can be difficult to reach, physical conditions are not
always ideal for walking around, let alone learning, and the onus for
making links to current work challenges is squarely on the participant.
Despite that, we have found that the best participants are those who
have sought out the experience and come voluntarily, are willing to do
the pre-readings, engage in discussion and work at conjuring up the
past. So, the final ingredient in making a historical leadership learning
experience effective is the commitment of the participant. When the
combination of right venue, story, leadership model, dedicated
facilitators and engaged participants converge, this kind of learning
event can have a life-long impact.
Leadership Lessons From History: Part 2
How We Approached The Design Challenge
Our first decision was to closely examine the history and learn what
happened--what preceded and followed the event. We read Michael
Shaara’s Killer Angels, a historical novel noted for a high degree of
scholarly accuracy, Shelby Foote’s Stars In Their Courses, a closely
written description of the campaign, the classic study of character, Lee’
s Lieutenants, by Douglas Southall Freeman and historian James M.
McPherson’s Hallowed Ground. We even watched the Ted Turner
movie, Gettysburg, which was filmed on location, to better understand
the immensity of the drama that took place. We poured over books of
photographs illustrating the battle, like David Eicher’s Gettysburg
Battlefield.
What emerged from this review were two things: A sense of the
characters involved—who they were as people, their personalities and
their strengths and foibles. We also identified what we called
leadership moments—those incidents where an opportunity was
identified, a decision had to be made, an obstacle to be surmounted or
a desperate plan needed to be communicated. While there were many
leadership moments that emerged, we selected several which had the
most dramatic leadership elements involved and which took place on
ground we could visit.
Leadership Moments: The Stories
The leadership moments formed the thread of the series of stories we
would tell our participants and which contained potential lessons that
could link to current day leadership dilemmas. The first was John
Buford’s decision to forestall the Confederate advance on the morning
of July 1. We talked about Buford’s experience as an Indian fighter, the
rapid fire carbines of his troops, the advantages he created by using a
particular formation called a defense in depth. Another was Lee’s
decision to engage the Army of the Potomac after the action had already
started through a chance encounter without knowing what he was
facing due to the absence of intelligence from his missing scout,
General Jeb Stuart and his cavalry.
In another situation, with the first afternoon of the battle moving to the
Confederate’s advantage, Lee saw an opportunity to take Cemetery Hill,
giving General Richard Ewell a vague command to take the ground “if
practicable.” Ewell’s subsequent hesitation cost the Confederates their
advantage, and his caution in deciding not to move against the hill is
debated today as a turning point in not only the battle, but in American
history. Some historians posit that if Ewell had taken the high ground
that afternoon, the entire war --and American history--might have turned
out completely differently.
We also viewed Union General Dan Sickle’s autonomous decision on
Day Two of the battle to move his troops to what he felt was a better
defensive position at the Peach Orchard—contrary to General George
Meade’s orders—as an interesting interpretation of initiative. Sickle’s
flamboyant personality, non-military background, and scandalous past—
he shot his wife’s lover and was the first person in the US to use the
insanity defense—had all the elements of a rich discussion on how
creative energy could be managed and the role of disciple in modern
organizations.
The story of the 20th Maine Regiment and Colonel Joshua Lawrence
Chamberlain at Little Round Top was an example of perseverance and
ingenuity in the face of overwhelming obstacles. The ongoing and
unsettling conflict between Lee and his main lieutenant, General James
Longstreet, who opposed the idea of an offensive strategy from the
beginning of the campaign, sets up a classic leadership challenge of
getting people to buy into a plan and execute against it. Finally, we
included Abraham Lincoln’s vision of a nation and what the conflict
meant to him.
These leadership moments all had a sense of high drama and tension.
When individual stories were told, they unraveled details of what
actually happened made for rich discussion and debate of the choices
the leaders faced, the complexity of decisions, absence of easy
answers and urgency of difficult moments—exactly the kinds of issues
business leaders face today.
A Leadership Model: What Emerged From The Stories
One of the challenges we faced in designing this experience was
identifying a leadership model to relate all these stories to. A
leadership model would provide a unifying lens, so to speak, so that we
could understand these long-ago leadership moments in context and
relate them to current challenges. Taken individually, for example, each
leadership moment we identified represented an individual’s encounter
with leadership principles— positive or negative examples of some
aspect of leadership behavior. Ewell’s over-analysis of the situation at
Cemetery Hill could be taken as an example of having to be highly
certain before deciding; Lee’s laissez-faire attitude of planning—
delegating details to his officers—represents setting an organizational
climate where low clarity can have a devastating impact. Chamberlain’s
ingenuity and courage represent what we expect every leader to
demonstrate—emotional commitment and dedication. But, what was the
thread—the construct, the set of principles or behaviors-- that held all
these disparate principles together? What we needed as a model that
put the leadership concept together and described what leaders did. It
had to be simple, behavioral and most important, useful.
After reviewing leadership models from many well-known sources, it
became clear to us that one model would not fit our needs. While
elements of Jim Collins’ Good To Great, for instance, were relevant to
our stories, we didn’t want our experience to be simply a lesson in
applying that model. Told that way, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had
a clear “hedge-hog”—the Army could move fast, but it lacked discipline
of execution without its key missing leader “on the bus”, Stonewall
Jackson, who was killed before the battle. Instead of reflecting a
specific construct like Good To Great, we elected to create our own.
The source of this Leadership Lens, as we called it, would be our
knowledge of leadership behavior as we knew it from our consulting
and research and the characters and their stories.
The Leadership Lens
We synthesized a simple three-part model.
Create The Fundamental Idea:
A leader’s role is to scan the environment, learn the “ground”,
recognize opportunities, and from that, create a focused direction. The
implication goes beyond the idea of a vision statement; a leader is the
source of the vision, the set of eyes that is always looking for
opportunities. Once that vision is clear in the leader’s mind, it has to be
formulated in a way that others can see it as well. While this is a
relatively simple concept, we felt it was a reflection of all the leaders we
have studied and certainly was reflected for better or worse by the cast
of characters at Gettysburg. Robert E. Lee, for example, viewed the
invasion of the North as a key strategic move to bring about an
armistice. While his lieutenants knew his vision, they weren’t totally
clear on how this was going to be carried out, creating the root cause
for the conflict between General James Longstreet, the second in
command, and Lee.
Set and Impose Operating Values, Practices, Principles:
A leader is the tone-setter and rule-maker of an organization. As we
know from organizational climate research, management creates a
feeling of what it is like to work in the organization based on the rules
and practices the leader puts in place. This feeling of climate is a key to
motivation. The leader figuratively puts the operating manual of the
organization in place or changes what is already there to something
more in line with his or her beliefs and values. We view this as a
conscious imposition by the leader. W. Morrell and S. Capparell’s study
of Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton, Shackelton’s Way, depicts a
leader who created a work environment where all crew members,
regardless of role, had to perform menial tasks and, at the same time,
were expected to be positive, cheerful and cooperative with each
other. At Gettysburg, we learn that Union commander General George
Meade was appointed to his role two days before the battle, having no
time to create an operating climate of his own other than the usual
military discipline. This gap can be viewed as contributing to his
subordinate Dan Sickles’ feeling free to take independent action which
led to confusion and potential ruin on Day Two of the battle. To this day,
new managers are tested by direct reports who soon learn that strong
leaders set up clear boundaries and expectations for performance.
Demonstrate An Emotional Edge:
Every leader creates an emotional reaction in his or her followers,
based on the level of commitment and dedication he or she overtly
displays. The leader can demonstrate high moral values, boundless
energy, steady and calm resolve, affection for employees or courage;
there isn’t a right way to demonstrate an emotional edge. What counts
is how the leader shows up as a person, exposing his or her
commitment, beliefs and energy. When a leader captures his or her
employee’s attention and respect, their motivation will follow. Lee was
regarded with great affection by his troops. Even in defeat, Robert E.
Lee was highly respected by both sides. The idea of emotional edge is
completely subjective; it is one of those factors that you know when you
see it. Buford’s resolve at McPherson’s Ridge, Chamberlain’s courage
on Little Round Top and other examples all have modern equivalents in
corporate and civic leadership. Who could not feel moved by Rudi
Guiliani’s sense of command and compassion on September 11? Who
could not feel impressed and excited by Steve Jobs’ announcement of
another innovation? Of course, a prime example of emotional edge is
Lincoln’s speech at the Gettysburg battlefield. The humility and respect
he paid to those who gave “their last full measure of devotion” and the
simple resolution that they “have not died in vain” and that the
government of, by and for the people “shall not perish from this earth”
shows what courage can be in the face of uncertainty.
These three elements and the more specific behaviors which further
describe them, taken together, represent an easy to remember and
apply view of leadership. We wanted our model to be “portable” so our
participants could carry it around with them in their memories and recall
it when we discussed different leadership moments. As we learned, the
model became the springboard for discussion; participants were able to
critique the character’s leadership moments and relate their own
corporate examples using the elements of the model.
The Flow and Timing
With the leadership moments and model in mind, we created a flow of
events, linking these together from the beginning of the battle to its
calamitous conclusion at Pickett’s Charge. Our idea was to tell the
story of the three-day battle in chronological order. We would start with
Buford, move to Lee’s decision, Ewell’s uncertainty, ending Day One of
the story. Day Two of the battle would cover a discussion about Lee’s
conflict with Longstreet, his decision to conduct a coordinated attack,
Sickle’s excursion into the Peach Orchard, and the story of Chamberlain
on Little Round Top. We would cover Day Three of the battle by
revisiting Lee’s decision to attack the middle of the Union line while
attempting an end-run cavalry attack, how Lee’s management style
changed from more or less laissez-faire to highly directive, Longstreet’s
reluctance and his choices as a leader, and the consequences of
Pickett’s Charge. The final lesson would take place at the Gettysburg
cemetery where Lincoln made his famous address.
Each “Day” of the battle would require at least a half day of instruction
and would visit at least three different locations. We would begin early,
head by bus to each venue, pause for lunch and continue. A chase car
driven by a staff member would accommodate the need for people to
take a break. We selected locations that were off the beaten track, for
the most part, or we visited them when crowds were minimal. For
example, the group found itself quite alone on Little Round Top at the
end of our first day of the experience.
We had a debrief session after our day on the battlefield in a classroom
like setting at our hotel. The discussion involved comparing what
happened to incidents participants were familiar with and in extracting
key messages and ideas that became illuminated and magnified by the
experience.
Telling The Big Story: Setting the Context
Our approach was to tell the story of a series of decisions by a relatively
small number of people and discuss these in terms of the leadership
model we created. The larger story was now background while our
leadership moments became foreground. Our participants needed to
understand the historical context and the larger issues being played
out by the characters in the story.
Toward that end, we planned to ask our participants to read Michael
Shaara’s Killer Angels prior to coming to the leadership experience.
Knowing that some participants might not read the entire novel, we also
provided them with a short historical synopsis of the origins of the Civil
War and the history of the battle of Gettysburg. In our opening
introductory session, our military historian-facilitator planned a concise
lecture description of the how the war was going just prior to Lee’s
decision to invade the North. Finally, we found that the bus chartered
for the experience had audio-visual capabilities, allowing us to use
scenes from the movie, Gettysburg, to orient our participants before
arriving at a location as well as reviewing significant incidents after we
left a location. We felt we could craft these elements into a design that
would start with readings, continue with an orientation lecture, and be
supported by handouts and movies.
Making the Link
The leadership lens became the key vehicle for linking the program to
each participant’s real-world leadership challenge. We used the model
to summarize our discussions of the key leadership moments, and we
drilled down on them for specific “how-tos” in our debriefing sessions.
For example, if participants had stated that motivating staff was an
issue for them at work, we would return to that personal learning theme
whenever the leadership moment we were discussing was relevant.
“What did you learn from Lee’s behavior about how a leader should or
shouldn’t motivate his direct reports?” would be a typical summary
question. Through discussion of the historical character’s difficulties
and actions, participants were able to appreciate the impact of having a
clear, relevant, challenging Fundamental Idea—Vision can be to direct
reports. In debriefing, we would ask participants what the historical
characters could have done differently in setting a vision and what
some good examples were of corporate leaders who had motivating
Fundamental Ideas. From this exchange, the facilitators were able to
tease out the characteristics of a strong Fundamental Idea and how it
could be used to motivate direct reports. The participants collected
these useful thoughts and incorporated them into the learning
journals.
That aspect of making the link between the story and real work is a fairly
predictable design feature. There were, however, other factors unique
to a historical learning experience that made the lessons memorable.
The drama of each leader’s story, the very act of standing on the
ground where the story took place and the poignancy of the outcomes
created a strong emotional reaction in each participant. That reaction
cemented the underlying meaning of the leadership principle into
place. The image of General Ewell standing at the base of Cemetery
Hill, struggling to make a decision, his hesitation, the vague
instructions he was given, the fading daylight, the opportunity lost adds
a dimension to the concept of analysis paralysis that can’t be conjured
up in a classroom discussion. Walking the same mile or so of ground
that Pickett’s divisions crossed under heavy fire, taking momentary
refuge in the swales, emerging exposed under the Union’s guns
imprints a lesson about courage, loyalty, and a leader’s emotional edge
in choosing to take a huge risk offers a lesson that is impossible to
forget.
Months after the experience at Gettysburg, selected participants were
asked to report what they remembered and what they put to work in
their practice of leadership. Not surprisingly, their comments most
often reflected an image from the battlefield. A typical comment would
be, “I will always remember how Chamberlain came up with an idea
under intense pressure, communicated it to his troops and pulled it off
without panic or confusion. It’s an idea that I access when I feel under
the gun.”
Bear in mind, we were telling our leadership stories on an empty stage;
the actors had gone long ago. What ultimately makes a historical
leadership lesson work is the power of place, the stories of real leaders
and the imagination of participants.
Learning Leadership From History: Lessons Learned
The Gettysburg battle is only one example of a how leadership can be
learned from history. We have also conducted brief sessions on board
“Old Ironsides”—USS Constitution—in Boston Harbor and have plans
for non-military venues. Thomas Edison’s workshop, the site of the first
nuclear reaction under the football stadium at the University of Chicago,
Lewis and Clark’s fort on the Oregon coast are examples of sites that
have potential for this approach.
From working with these settings, it is clear there are some
requirements for a successful historical leadership learning experience.
A significant, well-documented story with dramatic events.
The historical event has to have a powerful story where momentous
decisions were made and far-reaching implications were played out.
Like any good story, there has to be drama, conflict, overwhelming
odds, emotion and a lot of “what-if” moments. In addition, the story has
to be documented, preferably from a number of first-hand sources.
A compelling set of characters.
The story needs to contain main characters and lesser lights who have
dimensionality, personality, and depth. When we learn that General
Ewell had just returned from convalescent leave and had been married
while away from the war, his hesitation at Cemetery Hill takes on
another dimension. In preparing this kind of learning activity, the
facilitators and designers are obliged to do their homework and dig
through the sources for facts that round out the characters.
An accessible, intact setting.
As noted, the site of the leadership lesson is a critical asset. Being in
the same exact place where momentous events took place pulls on
participants’ imagination and helps dissolve time. Granted, not every
participant is able to make the imaginative leap or has the sensitivity to
see what historical characters can teach them. However, with careful
pre-readings, a thoughtful scene-setting presentation, expert
facilitation from group leaders who have a flair for story telling, the
emotional connection can be made for those who engage the idea.
Clear lessons from decisions, initiatives, opportunities.
Finally, the story itself has to contain a number of leadership moments
where the characters in the historical story are placed in a dilemma,
faced huge obstacles or overwhelming odds. The designers of the
experience have to be able to show how what happened--for better or
worse--reflected valid leadership principles. That implies creating or
applying a leadership model that can be used as the learning content of
the program. It also suggests that that leadership principle will be
meaningful and useful to participants and that they can relate present-
day stories to it. Without this framework as a foundation, participants
can lose the thread of the lessons being taught.
Summary: The Final Ingredient
In all candor, an historical leadership experience is not for everyone.
These venues can be difficult to reach, physical conditions are not
always ideal for walking around, let alone learning, and the onus for
making links to current work challenges is squarely on the participant.
Despite that, we have found that the best participants are those who
have sought out the experience and come voluntarily, are willing to do
the pre-readings, engage in discussion and work at conjuring up the
past. So, the final ingredient in making a historical leadership learning
experience effective is the commitment of the participant. When the
combination of right venue, story, leadership model, dedicated
facilitators and engaged participants converge, this kind of learning
event can have a life-long impact.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Visit Singularitygroup.com
| Singularity White Papers |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Singularity Group For more information: www.singularitygroup.com |