What do you think?
Rate this book
Command and Control: Great Military Leaders from Washington to the Twenty-First Century
This course is about great military leaders. However, the study of great generals raises the question: What makes a good leader in the first place? Bass and
Stogdill claim in their book Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications that nearly fifty percent of an organization’s performance
is based on the ability of the leader.
I think Harry Truman provides us with a good working definition of leadership. He said that “leadership is the ability to get people to do what they don’t want
to and like it.” One could say that leadership in any domain boils down to the process whereby an individual influences a group to achieve a common goal. Coercion is thus not good leadership. Think of the example of the General Motors car executive who said, “I want you to tell me what’s the matter with GM even if it means losing your job!”
Stogdill claim in their book Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications that nearly fifty percent of an organization’s performance
is based on the ability of the leader.
I think Harry Truman provides us with a good working definition of leadership. He said that “leadership is the ability to get people to do what they don’t want
to and like it.” One could say that leadership in any domain boils down to the process whereby an individual influences a group to achieve a common goal. Coercion is thus not good leadership. Think of the example of the General Motors car executive who said, “I want you to tell me what’s the matter with GM even if it means losing your job!”
Audiobook
2 people are currently reading
15 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 13, 2024
Note the chapters are incorrectly labeled, but that isn’t the author’s fault.
I listened to two other lectures that Polelle conducted for The Modern Scholar, and found them frustrating. He made some glaring errors of fact-one of which he corrected in this lecture.
In this lecture, he only made one error that I caught. He said three great empires fell as a result of World War I. He listed the German Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.
Note that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was where World War I started with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife. The empire was the largest political entity in mainland Europe before World War I, compromising 10 ethnolinguistic groups. It collapsed with the end of the war 1918.
I don’t know how Polelle missed that one.
This was a short overview course of command and control in the American Army from the Revolution to the 20th century. It’s no surprise who Polelle picks as command figures—they’re about who one would expect.
However he seems unwilling to properly analyze the flaws of each of these individuals, or even list some of their leadership liabilities.
Ulysses Grant, for instance, most likely had a drinking problem when he was serving in the Western theater of the Civil War. The evidence suggests that. It in no way detracted from the man’s greatness as a general. Polelle denies a drinking problem existed at all. (Reference Ron Chernow’s superb biography on Grant)
Douglas MacArthur was a vain narcissist who incompetently handled the defense of the Philippines and the Korean War. Polelle downplays or avoids his mistakes in these two conflicts. (For an excellent analysis of MacArthur and his staff see David Halberstam “The Coldest Winter”)
There was an opportunity here for Polelle to contrast good and bad command qualities in these generals. He didn’t do it. Grant and Washington were humble characters, Patton and MacArthur anything but. How did it affect their command style? How did it affect their control?
And why were there no naval commanders listed?
If you know nothing about military history, this wouldn’t hurt you to listen to, provided you don’t stop with it. It will leave you with misperceptions of generals whose lives and professions were far more complicated than this course suggests.
Use it as a springboard. Not a foundation.
I listened to two other lectures that Polelle conducted for The Modern Scholar, and found them frustrating. He made some glaring errors of fact-one of which he corrected in this lecture.
In this lecture, he only made one error that I caught. He said three great empires fell as a result of World War I. He listed the German Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.
Note that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was where World War I started with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife. The empire was the largest political entity in mainland Europe before World War I, compromising 10 ethnolinguistic groups. It collapsed with the end of the war 1918.
I don’t know how Polelle missed that one.
This was a short overview course of command and control in the American Army from the Revolution to the 20th century. It’s no surprise who Polelle picks as command figures—they’re about who one would expect.
However he seems unwilling to properly analyze the flaws of each of these individuals, or even list some of their leadership liabilities.
Ulysses Grant, for instance, most likely had a drinking problem when he was serving in the Western theater of the Civil War. The evidence suggests that. It in no way detracted from the man’s greatness as a general. Polelle denies a drinking problem existed at all. (Reference Ron Chernow’s superb biography on Grant)
Douglas MacArthur was a vain narcissist who incompetently handled the defense of the Philippines and the Korean War. Polelle downplays or avoids his mistakes in these two conflicts. (For an excellent analysis of MacArthur and his staff see David Halberstam “The Coldest Winter”)
There was an opportunity here for Polelle to contrast good and bad command qualities in these generals. He didn’t do it. Grant and Washington were humble characters, Patton and MacArthur anything but. How did it affect their command style? How did it affect their control?
And why were there no naval commanders listed?
If you know nothing about military history, this wouldn’t hurt you to listen to, provided you don’t stop with it. It will leave you with misperceptions of generals whose lives and professions were far more complicated than this course suggests.
Use it as a springboard. Not a foundation.
July 27, 2021
The only downside of this is, it could have included many more military leaders, and it couldn't hurt to be more focused.
August 1, 2012
A little bit dry at first, but as I got into it, that was no longer a problem. It felt like we really couldn't get into depth with one lecture on each general. (This is a set of 7 audio CDs with 14 lectures.) Still, it was interesting & I learned from it.
General Lee was especially surprising. 1) He was not popular with the Southerners at the start of the war. 2) He was more successful at defensive operations. 3) The possibility of him serving on the Northern side had never occurred to me.
HIs perspective on the more modern generals was also interesting.
Lecture 1 The Politics of Military History and Military Leadership
Lecture 2 Washington: The Indispensable Man
Lecture 3 Napoleon: The First Modern General
Lecture 4 U.S. Grant and the Art of War in the Industrial Era
Lecture 5 Sherman and the Advent of Total War
Lecture 6 The Great Southern Hope: Robert E. Lee
Lecture 7 Moltke and the German Way of War
Lecture 8 Pershing and the American Expeditionary Force in World War I
Lecture 9 Eisenhower and World War II
Lecture 10 Patton and the Romance of War
Lecture 11 MacArthur: The American Caesar?
Lecture 12 Curtis LeMay and Generalship During the Cold War
Lecture 13 "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf and Desert Storm: Remaking the American Military after Vietnam
Lecture 14 Lessons of Military Leadership
http://www.recordedbooks.com/index.cf...
Since they have a lot of them, I intend to continue to check out recordings from the Modern Scholar series from my local library.
General Lee was especially surprising. 1) He was not popular with the Southerners at the start of the war. 2) He was more successful at defensive operations. 3) The possibility of him serving on the Northern side had never occurred to me.
HIs perspective on the more modern generals was also interesting.
Lecture 1 The Politics of Military History and Military Leadership
Lecture 2 Washington: The Indispensable Man
Lecture 3 Napoleon: The First Modern General
Lecture 4 U.S. Grant and the Art of War in the Industrial Era
Lecture 5 Sherman and the Advent of Total War
Lecture 6 The Great Southern Hope: Robert E. Lee
Lecture 7 Moltke and the German Way of War
Lecture 8 Pershing and the American Expeditionary Force in World War I
Lecture 9 Eisenhower and World War II
Lecture 10 Patton and the Romance of War
Lecture 11 MacArthur: The American Caesar?
Lecture 12 Curtis LeMay and Generalship During the Cold War
Lecture 13 "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf and Desert Storm: Remaking the American Military after Vietnam
Lecture 14 Lessons of Military Leadership
http://www.recordedbooks.com/index.cf...
Since they have a lot of them, I intend to continue to check out recordings from the Modern Scholar series from my local library.
July 12, 2012
Good introduction to American war strategy and the generals who developed and used it.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews