Publisher's Synopsis
General Lyman L. Lemnitzer and General Charles H. Bonesteel III illustrate the need for the Army to better understand and value manager leadership at the same level as heroism on the battlefield. Their careers demonstrate why the Army needs to look beyond the heroic model of leadership and cultivate managerial leadership. Their contributions highlight the importance of staff planning to facilitate successful command decisions. Lemnitzer and Bonesteel's leadership illustrated the manager emphasis on war as an organizational problem that is won or lost by efficiently focusing the coordination of personnel and resources effectively at the battlefield's decisive points. Lemnitzer and Bonesteel influenced the US Army's understanding of operational art from their actions in planning operations, coordinating between institutions, and driving research and development to facilitate the incorporation of the ways and means available to achieve strategic end states for America. The generals planned numerous World War II operations and shaped the Cold War policy of containment. Lemnitzer and Bonesteel's coordination between domestic agencies, military services, the Allied nations and militaries, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization states, and their diplomatic partners were critical to linking ways and means to achieving the desired end states. Their energy in effectively directing research and development produced technological advancements which efficiently multiplied US military combat power and capabilities in the air, sea, land, and space realms. The generals' actions influenced the Army understanding of operational art to link the ways and means available to achieve the desired end state. Lemnitzer and Bonesteel's manager leadership philosophy during times of war and peace were critical to the American Army as being the most effective fighting force in each war she entered. This paper demonstrates the importance of the manager leadership style by exploring Lemnitzer and Bonesteel's linkage of tactical actions in time, space, and purpose through the effective arrangement of personnel and resources at decisive points to achieve strategic objectives. Current Army leadership is defined as "motivating people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and make decisions that accomplish the mission [with actions to include] acting decisively, within the intent and purpose of superior leaders, and in the best interest of the organization." Operational art is defined in Unified Land Operations as "the pursuit of strategic objectives, in whole or in part, through the arrangement of tactical actions in time, space, and purpose." The application of operational art is "the cognitive approach by commanders and staffs - supported by their skill, knowledge, experience, creativity, and judgment - to develop strategies, campaigns, and operations to organize and employ military forces by integrating ends, ways, and means." An increased emphasis on manager leadership within the Army's understanding of leadership would better mold future leaders for understanding, applying, and performing operational art to achieve strategic objectives.
