These questions came from another site called Aeon. I was reading about Xenophon and how he had been in a disastrous military effort and retreat and it got me to thinking about the leaders from the Civil War - either side - and especially how the average soldier kept on. They had their desertions back then too, btw.
So who do you think had it and why.
"What makes a good leader? What kind of leader can induce humans to endure hardships and expend effort toward a common goal? What exemplary traits mark out a leader and allow him or her to execute the requisite tasks with skill, induce a harmonious fellowship among those for whom he is responsible, maintain loyalty and mission clarity among the ‘troops’, whomever they might be?"
Without getting too deep into leadership theory, the trait approach, which was based on identifying traits of successful leaders, has been basically abandoned in favor of leadership styles and situational leadership.
Basically, the leadership style needs to fit the situation and the unit's level of maturity.
You can look at Lee and Grant, two very different types of leaders who exhibited different traits.
Lee developed an aura of invincibility. By putting together a string of victories, Lee made his men believe he and they couldn't be beaten. He created an image of being all-knowing and all-seeing. His patrician, aristocratic bearing fed into that image.
Grant, on the other hand, exuded a quiet sense of competence. When Grant was in charge, things moved and happened. Men got fed. They got clothes and ammunition. The men believed in him because he showed them he knew what he was doing. He wasn't worried about appearances. He was worried about just getting the job done.
Each man was a successful leader. Grant was far more successful on a personal level with the troops when he was in the west, where the soldiers also didn't worry so much about appearances, than he was in the east. When he came east, he wisely kept Meade and the majority of the corps commanders in place. This army was more concerned with image, a holdover from the McClellan years. The eastern generals had the image the soldiers expected of a general. But things moved when Grant took over, and the soldiers saw that. He wasn't much for fancy reviews, but they got the idea he knew what was happening. And when he turned south after the Wilderness he won the soldiers over because he showed them he wasn't quitting.
Two different generals, two different styles, different traits, and both successful.