The Teaching Task

HOW TO ANALYSE THE LEADERSHIP OF IMPORTANT HISTORICAL FIGURES AND WRITE AN ESSAY USING A WW 2 MILITARY COMMANDER AS A CASE STUDY

Dr Alan Hinge

Argument Mapping lends itself well to the critical analysis of leadership. All leaders take actions that lead to successes and failures over time and mapping these episodes is made easier using appropriate software that visually depicts the logic and evidence in an analysis. To connect or contextualise this relatively new topic of argument mapping to a senior military audience from 20 countries, the controversial leadership of US General George S. Patton during World War Two was used as a case study. The case study was very well received and the officers, who were students on a one year leadership course, were provided with an appropriate model for the critical analysis of a leader of their choice.

The Teaching Task

I was asked to introduce 180 senior military officers from 20 countries to Argument Mapping, as part of the critical thinking module of the Australian Command and Staff College. Most of these students were University graduates ranging in age from 30-40. They had achieved excellent results in their careers and were being groomed for higher command positions in their respective countries.

Argument mapping involves the visual representation of the structure of an argument – its logic and its evidence. How could I make argument mapping relevant to this diverse and demanding audience? A presentation centred on teaching formal logic would simply not work with these adult learners.

Johnson (2002: vii) suggests that the mind seeks meaning in context and defines contextual teaching and learning as: ‘…a system of instruction based on the philosophy that students learn when they see meaning in academic material and they see meaning in schoolwork when they can connect new information with prior knowledge and their own experience’.[1]

I would have to connect the new topic of argument mapping to their own frames of reference. This audience of military professionals would be interested in material that they saw as both immediately useful for their current academic tasks, and also of clear benefit to the next stage of their military careers.

The ‘Hook’

I went through their major assignment list for the year and the first key task for each student was to write a 4,000 word essay critically analysing the leadership of an historical military commander. The aim of the assignment was to use research and analysis of a commander’s experience to get the student to think about his or her own leadership style – that is, to promote development of the student’s personal leadership philosophy. The topic commanders could be chosen from any period in history – from Hannibal to Schwarzkopf.

How could I link this assignment to argument mapping? One way was to select a successful essay from a previous course and ‘map’ the argument visually to explain what made the essay successful in terms of an exercise in critical thinking and logical structuring. This approach to contextualisation might get their interest, provide an exemplar or appropriate model for their own essay task’s and give them an appreciation of critical thinking techniques.

In selecting an appropriate ‘benchmarking’ essay I had to select a commander who would be well suited to a critical analysis. A somewhat controversial commander would highlight the analysis and provide sufficient numbers of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ leadership episodes to reflect different schools of thought on his performance. So, given the international flavour of the audience, I selected the US General George S. Patton. My main reasons were that he was very well known and his performance could be judged over a relatively limited period of thirteen months in operational command. A suitable previous essay was found, the author’s permission was sought and received, and the essay was placed in the student reading packs.[2] All students were told to read the essay at least once prior to the argument mapping presentation.

The next step was to select the argument mapping software to visually represent the critical analysis and explain what made the particular essay successful.

The Tool - Rationale

Various argument mapping software are available. I chose Rationale because its Analysis Mode was easy to use and visually attractive. The argument analysis starts with a contention or conclusion followed by argument ‘layers’ comprising various arrangements of supporting reasons, objections and rebuttals (see accompanying A3 Handout and PowerPoint presentation)

The first step was to formulate the Contention - General Patton was a Competent Commander (it could equally have been ‘General Patton was an Incompetent Commander’ for the purpose of the exercise). The critical analysis would then be centred on developing arrangements of supporting reasons, objections and rebuttals to these objections. However, a framework for arrangement is always necessary in complex analyses.

The framework would be based on a small number of specific criteria for leadership or command effectiveness; that is, measures of (leadership) effectiveness. The author of the essay chose criteria suggested by Nye (1986) who took an interesting slant on command/leadership assessment.[3] Rather than develop a list of positive leadership criteria - like a simple checklist of leadership traits - Nye asked: When do we know a leader or commander has not been successful? He came up with the following criteria:

·  When the commander failed to achieve assigned missions;

·  When he or she wasted time, manpower and resources;

·  When his forces were not well trained; and

·  When the commander failed to maintain a moral and disciplined climate.

Criterion 1. Patton achieved his assigned missions

The essay’s author saw achieving assigned missions as the most important assessment criterion and came up with one main reason in support of and two opposing claims against the criterion.

Support. Patton’s major victories in Africa, Sicily and France supported the assertion that he achieved his assigned missions. He took more territory and weapons in France than any other allied general, but an objection to this was that these victories were against outnumbered, demoralised, retreating enemies compared to those fought by other commanders (such as Montgomery and General Hodges of US First Army). However, the rebuttal or objection to this objection was that Patton surpassed all other commanders in his brilliant counter attack against first rate German troops and tanks at the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge. So, we have here a main supporting reason / objection / rebuttal stream being set up. This indicates that the author is considering reasons for and against the assertion and is looking critically at the key issue of whether Patton achieved his assigned objectives.

Oppose. However, Patton did not achieve assigned objectives in Brittany – including taking the assigned southern ports - after arriving in France. The rebuttal to this was that Patton did not arrive in Normandy until one month after the invasion and these southern objectives were no longer relevant. Moreover, Patton is seen by many authors as being right in extending the allied breakout area after the Normandy bridgehead was made.

Oppose. The second objection to Patton achieving his assigned missions was that he failed at the sieges of Metz and Houffalize. He used frontal assaults and lost many men and much material and time at Metz in particular. A rebuttal then suggested that the delays and losses at these towns were not actually failures to achieve the mission, because both towns were eventually taken. A weak supporting reason for the rebuttal was offered in stating that no commander is expert in all facets of warfare - even Rommel and Hannibal were poor siege commanders.

On balance the author concluded that Patton had achieved his assigned missions.

Criterion 2. Patton did not waste time, manpower and resources

The argument here was limited to making the assertion (stating the criterion) followed by an objection and then a rebuttal.

Oppose: Patton did waste significant time and troops at Metz , Houffalize and on the disastrous raid against Hammelburg. On this raid he sent a small force with the mission of liberating a German prison camp which contained his son in law, Colonel John Waters. Nearly 300 men were killed in the poorly planned raid and considerable equipment was destroyed. Patton always denied that he ordered the raid to rescue Waters.

Rebuttal: These three losses were small relative to Patton’s Army’s conspicuous successes in France, as well as in Sicily.

On balance, the author concluded that Patton had not wasted manpower, time and resources during the French campaign and that his actions during the Battle of the Bulge had outweighed these setbacks.

Criterion 3. Patton trained his forces well.

One main reason was given in support of this assertion and one main objection was given. These were followed by another ‘layer’ of argument.

Support: Generally, it has been accepted in the literature that Patton’s troops were first rate and the author cites Munch (90) and D’Este (95) as examples.[4] However, the author also cites Whiting’s (1970) opposing claim that Patton’s forces were never really tested against equal opponents; that Patton was merely ‘Master of the Pursuit’ against already beaten, demoralised and poorly equipped forces.[5]

Oppose: The Germans assessed the leadership displayed by the Patton’s troops at Metz as ‘bad and timid’.[6] Patton also appeared to lose control of troops when they committed war crimes in Sicily. Certainly, at Metz his troops refused to obey orders after heavy losses due to repeated frontal assaults. However, the Sicily argument could be opposed by suggesting that his troops committed atrocities out of response to his bellicose speeches; it being argued that they took him literally and actually obeyed his orders.

On balance the author concluded that Patton’s record on training forces was ‘patchy’, but with his training leading to successes outweighing failures.

Criterion 4. Patton did not maintain a moral climate

In this case the author chose to argue strongly in the negative; that Patton did not maintain a moral climate. He gave three reasons in support of his assertion and none to oppose.

Support: Patton did make speeches that may have inspired atrocities by his troops in Sicily (some of the accused used this as part of their trial defence). He also slapped shell-shocked soldiers in Sicily on two occasions, calling them cowards and was almost sacked himself by Eisenhower as a result. However, to give some balance, the author noted that these incidents did not recur after Sicily during the decisive campaigns in France. The third reason / incident in support of the assertion is that Patton showed a lack of integrity on at least one occasion, when he lied to his commanding officer about his motivation behind ordering the Hammelburg raid. It is pretty clear that he lied about his reason for the raid and that it was indeed ordered to save his son in law (Eisenhower had advised Patton of Waters’ location earlier).

Conclusions and Teaching Outcome

Argument Mapping lends itself well to the critical analysis of leadership. All leaders take actions that lead to successes and failures and mapping these episodes is made easier using appropriate software, such as Rationale. Furthermore, the Argument Mapping presentation was very well received and students were given an ‘exemplar’ or appropriate model for the critical analysis of a leader of their choice.

Students responded with several questions and observations about alternative approaches to analysing commanders in different eras. Technical questions were also asked, such as one bearing on the amount of ‘proof’ that needed to be provided for claims made within the map.[7] However, the impact of the essay assignment on development of each student’s individual leadership philosophy could be assessed only after completion of the essays. Follow up work is being done in this area.

The essay methodology that was demonstrated to have worked well through argument mapping involved:

First, picking a suitable timescale over which to assess the leadership of an individual – most careers have successful and unsuccessful phases. Assessments of leadership will change depending on the period chosen.

Second, setting up a few key measures of leadership effectiveness as objective assessment criteria is important in arranging the argument. These criteria should put the leadership exhibited in context and be authoritative in terms of being recognised in the leadership literature.

Third, leadership is by definition about activity. Documenting a sufficient density of real leadership episodes – involving both good and bad activities – is essential. These episodes provide solid evidence and add weight to supporting reasons, objections and rebuttals. Importantly, linking these episodes tightly to the leadership assessment criteria is the cornerstone of a good leadership analysis.

Finally, a reasoned and balanced conclusion should be stated, satisfying the essay’s reader that the author has made the effort to consult the literature widely, marshal the facts logically and be objective in the analysis.

4

[1] Johnson, Elaine. B, (2002) Contextual Teaching and Learning – what it is and why it is here to stay, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, California.

[2] Guiney, S. (2003) An Essay on the Competence in Command and Leadership of General George S. Patton, Master of Management CLM essay (Unpublished), Australian Command and Staff College, Canberra