What Makes A Good Commander?

[Sivart]

What makes some considered a good commander? Is it all about making the right choices according to the situation, or is it something different? How does one make a name for themself as a commander? Why were Lee and Grant so highly regarded? Why was Bragg a poor commander? To be a good commander, do you have to be popular with your troops?

 

[Stryker65]

Courage, good tactical skills, being able to adapt to different situations, keeping your men happy healthy and clothed, and respectful of both other officers and private soldiers.

But 99% Being In The Right Place At The Right Time.

 

[leftyhunter]

What makes some considered a good commander? Is it all about making the right choices according to the situation, or is it something different? How does one make a name for themself as a commander? Why were Lee and Grant so highly regarded? Why was Bragg a poor commander? To be a good commander, do you have to be popular with your troops?

Having an excellent understanding of logistics and appointing officers who also understand logistics. Knowing that a good commander has good officers and NCO and can quickly remove bad ones. Also as much as possible while a commander can't meet every single soldier in his command at least meet small groups from time to time so said soldiers will spread the word just how great their commander is. It has been said although it can't be proven that Napoleon knew all his soldiers by name. That most likely a gross exaggeration but at least Napoleon hobnobbed with his troops as best he could keeping in mind time constraints.
Leftyhunter

 

[JohnG0609]

What makes some considered a good commander? Is it all about making the right choices according to the situation, or is it something different? How does one make a name for themself as a commander? Why were Lee and Grant so highly regarded? Why was Bragg a poor commander? To be a good commander, do you have to be popular with your troops?

Having had the honor to have commanded Airmen in the world's greatest Air Force (3 times) I have some thoughts on command. If anyone cares what an old fat Irish Colonel has to say about anything.

I've also been blessed to receive a senior officer level professional military education capstoned by graduating the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. And I can take all those diplomas add a sawbuck and buy a cup of coffee. All I have are opinions, no better or worse than anyone else's. It just allows me too see things through a few different filters when studying war.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Some are born good leaders, some grow to become good leaders, and most have no business as leaders. You can be taught to be a better leader, but you can't be taught to be a leader if you lack the aptitude. I've seen that firsthand from a couple managers in my life and I bet anyone who has a long career in the corporate or retail world has seen it far starker.

It takes a certain balance of confidence, decisiveness, wisdom, and people skills to be a good leader. Not everyone has the same balance. I say wisdom rather than intelligence because, although no good leader is dumb, effective leadership is about maximizing the use of intelligence around them. Highly intelligent people are better utilized as trusted advisors to leaders.

I will boldly say that, relative to their wars, the biggest difference between Eisenhower and Bragg is not strategic or logistical, but that Eisenhower was a master of handling subordinates and superiors while Bragg was inept at the same task.

McClellan and Johnston were both good with their subordinates, but both had terrible relationships with their commander in chief.

Lee knew how to tactfully get rid of subordinates he didn't like.

And yes, there's luck too. It's the most important and elusive superpower in the world.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Could confine it to evaluating three innate qualities of an individual field commander: 'judgement', 'decisiveness' and instinct'.

These qualities can be considered in a wide range of field functions from appointing/entrusting subordinates to timing/directing unit movements.

Regarding the most effective CW commanders (IMO) on the victorious Union side, like Grant, Sherman, Thomas and Sheridan, would add the qualities of 'tenacity' and 'ruthlessness'.

At the end of the day, though, suppose the mark of any good commander (with the sound innate qualities identified) can be measured by whether the troops they lead carry out what they are directed to do.

 

[JohnG0609]

What makes some considered a good commander? Is it all about making the right choices according to the situation, or is it something different? How does one make a name for themself as a commander? Why were Lee and Grant so highly regarded? Why was Bragg a poor commander? To be a good commander, do you have to be popular with your troops?

The question asked is, "What makes some considered a good commander?" I'd start an answer by seeing how the military branches answer that question. Each service has foundational doctrine documents:
USMC - MCWP 6-11 Leading Marines,
USA - ADP 6-22: Army Leadership and the Profession
USAF - AFDP 1
In those doctrine documents you can find what each service expects of leaders and commanders.

Pro tip: I think USMC doctrine comes closest to Civil War doctrine as the other services have become so technology driven it's hard to overlay it over a Civil War campaign. USMC has moved back to a more infantry focused doctrine, even so far as to divest themselves of tanks. They rely on celerity of movements and combined arms (infantry and artillery) and drones.

There's also Air Force Doctrine Publication 1-1 (AFDP 1-1), Mission Command, pp 8-10, which I really like. I think it gives a pretty good description of the Commander's responsibilities using that C2 methodology (excerpt attached).

My personal experience and opinion as a former commander, the #1 thing an effective commander must possess is technical competence, notice I'm not using "good commander", as there is a difference. I've had bosses that were good but ineffective and I've had effective commanders that weren't really that good in many important ways. After my five years as a commander I looked back and there was an ocean between my effectiveness on my first tour and my effectiveness in my last. I was stunned at how little I really knew in my first time in the seat.

Leadership in my opinion is 80% technical competence (the science), 15% personality (the art), 5% luck (the fortunes of war) or what Clausewitz called chance, one of the pillars of his famous "Trinity of War", which I don't recommend trying to understand. I could never really make sense of it. struck me as so complicated as to become almost mystical. But I'm not General James "Warrior Monk" Mattis either.

 

[CWdiaryPA]

According to the Army, it's these "timeless practices":

• Always treating people with dignity and respect.

• Earning and building the trust of your Soldiers, civilians, peers, families, leaders, and the public.

• Setting the highest standards and holding yourself and everyone in your organization accountable for maintaining them.

• Communicating horizontally and vertically, openly, transparently, and continually.

• Mentoring, evaluating, and recognizing your team members honestly and fairly.

• Reading and reflecting on the Army profession, your branch, your organization, and your mission.

• Maintaining balance by devoting time to your family and community.

• Having fun by embracing your responsibilities with enthusiasm and optimism.

What makes a good leader?

Army leaders should make a daily commitment to do the right things, develop the right foundational leadership traits, and understand today's complex, expeditionary environment.

www.army.mil

 

[Nathan Stuart]

According to the Army, it's these "timeless practices":

• Always treating people with dignity and respect.

• Earning and building the trust of your Soldiers, civilians, peers, families, leaders, and the public.

• Setting the highest standards and holding yourself and everyone in your organization accountable for maintaining them.

• Communicating horizontally and vertically, openly, transparently, and continually.

• Mentoring, evaluating, and recognizing your team members honestly and fairly.

• Reading and reflecting on the Army profession, your branch, your organization, and your mission.

• Maintaining balance by devoting time to your family and community.

• Having fun by embracing your responsibilities with enthusiasm and optimism.

What makes a good leader?

Army leaders should make a daily commitment to do the right things, develop the right foundational leadership traits, and understand today's complex, expeditionary environment.

www.army.mil

Totally agree. These are relationship building qualities and can be applied to any organization context (not just the military).

After all, an organization achieves its goals through the actions of its people. An effective leader (commander) within, does whatever is necessary (e.g. by building relationships) to ensure actions are carried out for these goals to be met.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

According to the Army, it's these "timeless practices":

• Always treating people with dignity and respect.

• Earning and building the trust of your Soldiers, civilians, peers, families, leaders, and the public.

• Setting the highest standards and holding yourself and everyone in your organization accountable for maintaining them.

• Communicating horizontally and vertically, openly, transparently, and continually.

• Mentoring, evaluating, and recognizing your team members honestly and fairly.

• Reading and reflecting on the Army profession, your branch, your organization, and your mission.

• Maintaining balance by devoting time to your family and community.

• Having fun by embracing your responsibilities with enthusiasm and optimism.

I think of this list the most difficult are the two I folded.

Humans struggle with effective communication. Differences in frames of reference and education as well as trust issues and inadequate self-awareness, and of course all the regional quirks of language.

Setting high standards is a extremely difficult thing to do effectively because most humans naturally chafe against them - often pay them lip service or outright resent them. Even if you can get buy-in on high professional standards, high personal standards are almost impossible. Most men in stressful jobs seem to rely on juvenile behavior during their down time as their primary method of stress relief.

 

[tony_gunter]

What makes some considered a good commander? Is it all about making the right choices according to the situation, or is it something different? How does one make a name for themself as a commander? Why were Lee and Grant so highly regarded? Why was Bragg a poor commander? To be a good commander, do you have to be popular with your troops?

Administrative skills -
Communication
Logistics
Discipline

Science of war -
Topography
Lines of operation
Center of gravity

Art of war -
Intel
Deception
Initiative
Battlefield presence

 

[James Brenner]

Having had the honor to have commanded Airmen in the world's greatest Air Force (3 times) I have some thoughts on command. If anyone cares what an old fat Irish Colonel has to say about anything.

I've also been blessed to receive a senior officer level professional military education capstoned by graduating the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. And I can take all those diplomas add a sawbuck and buy a cup of coffee. All I have are opinions, no better or worse than anyone else's. It just allows me too see things through a few different filters when studying war.

Sounds like we have had similar career paths, AWC, 2004.

I often think back to an Officer Professional Development session I attended as a 2LT. In it, my battalion commander commented that he relied on three priorities throughout his career, regardless if he was in a command or staff position: mission, men, and me. (That obviously includes women, but the alliteration doesn't work otherwise). The list is in order of importance, but there are times when those priorities shift and the challenge is recognizing that fact.

That memory aid seems to work. He made two stars.

 

[Stryker65]

Having had the honor to have commanded Airmen in the world's greatest Air Force (3 times) I have some thoughts on command. If anyone cares what an old fat Irish Colonel has to say about anything.

Definitely love to hear it!

 

[JohnG0609]

Sounds like we have had similar career paths, AWC, 2004.

I often think back to an Officer Professional Development session I attended as a 2LT. In it, my battalion commander commented that he relied on three priorities throughout his career, regardless if he was in a command or staff position: mission, men, and me. (That obviously includes women, but the alliteration doesn't work otherwise). The list is in order of importance, but there are times when those priorities shift and the challenge is recognizing that fact.

That memory aid seems to work. He made two stars.

Oh wow! That's awesome. Truthfully, I debated whether to even reveal possessing a PME. I'd be mortified if someone thought I was "putting on airs", because all we got are opinions, same as everyone else. But dang it I am an expert in these things and it's a great question. We study the same question all our military lives. I did AWC by correspondence in 2014 so so degree. And I wanted more and something to have (a degree) after all the work. So I was able to slip into USAWC without selection because the Army War College was starting their joint qualified program and they needed USAF officers. Had to have at least one from every branch to be joint.

Anyway, I talk too much.

That BC was spot on. More formally he's saying "execute the mission, lead people, officers eat last" DAFI 1-2 does a good job covering this. But the issue becomes how to actualize that "execute the mission and lead people" and in my opinion technical competence is where the rubber meets the road. To lead you have to know the fundamentals, the "blocking and the tackling" as my old boss would say. If you're not proficient in your job you'll never get the chance to lead.

I have a million little leadership vignettes. But what does it matter if I can't hack the mish?

 

[archieclement]

I would think being liked and able to inspire your men is largest factor and intangible.

To some degree, depending on level overall strategy is largely determined by others whether CiC or higher ranked commanders.

Tactics is obviously important.......but then comes back to the first, as if cant/dont inspire and motivate troops to execute the tactics in timely matter and with vigor.....having an excellent tactical plan that isn't executed as planned becomes.......somewhat pointless

 

[Scott1967]

What makes some considered a good commander? Is it all about making the right choices according to the situation, or is it something different? How does one make a name for themself as a commander? Why were Lee and Grant so highly regarded? Why was Bragg a poor commander? To be a good commander, do you have to be popular with your troops?

Id take Lee to win my Battles and Grant to win my Wars.

Lee arguably the best field commander of the war and I always compare him to Hannibal he will win you battles but not much else, As a commander he had that noble aloofness that his men would follow anywhere and this was true throughout the Southern Confederacy the Planter class were looked upon as minor nobility by the plebs and thus in most cases could command a higher level of devotion and respect than their Northern counterparts which offset the better supplied and armed Union Troops Shiloh being a classic example.

The Union commanders had to work a lot harder to win their troops round imo mainly due to the masses of immigrant troops under Union command many of whom had been the US for a short period of time so it was important to have leaders of the same ilk which was very hit & miss , The Union commanders tended to be more dour & business like they lacked the charisma of their Southern Counterparts their were of course exceptions and as the war progressed many Union Generals like Sheridan and Sherman began to command the respect of their troops.

And of course Lady Luck cannot be discounted you call Bragg a poor commander I would call him an unlucky commander who had to deal with some real *****y subordinates , Bragg had some sound plans that were badly executed or downright scuppered by pouting commanders , Of course Bragg could have handled the situations better but his anger would get the better of him in some cases I'm not surprised.

 

[Sheltowee]

At its base level, I would throw in that an effective leader is one who can clearly define the objective.

The rest builds from there.

 

[James Brenner]

In the book, Killer Angels, one of the commanders (I don't remember who) commented that to be a good officer you had to love the Army. To be a good commander, you had to be willing to kill the thing you love.

 

[Harms88]

I've been reading McClellan's memoirs and one thing that sticks out to me, at least in the 63 pages I've read so far, is that as far as he's concerned, he's the only one that actually had any good ideas, and anyone who didn't respond immediately to what he wanted were simply incompentant or had the wrong priorities.

Good commanders, in my opinion, understand that they are not the sole generators of good ideas but other people have good ideas too. They also show they are good because they understand that at times, people sometimes have to prioritize their time to other people and situations and not rush to you every time you want attention.

 

[CWdiaryPA]

Coincidentally his 92nd birthday.