This week, we read Grant’s observations on the leadership he witnessed throughout the Mexican War. He does an excellent job of capturing and critiquing everything from the actions of tactical level leaders to the decisions made by strategic level generals. And while Grant’s experiences are placed in a period over a century ago, the business of leading men and women in situations characterized by friction, fear of violence, and great risk make them useful for us to study today.

Instead of answering a specific question, we asked participants to select a passage on leadership which resonated the most with them, and to explain why they thought it was still relevant today. Below are a few of the thoughts expressed throughout the week.

The Authenticity of the Leader is Important

Grant’s memoirs are written primarily based on what he saw, rarely mentioning how he felt, and so far telling us very little about what he actually did. Therefore, when Grant compares the personalities of General Taylor and General Scott, he does it purely based on what he saw… “General Taylor never wore uniform, but dressed himself entirely for comfort.” “General Scott was the reverse in all these particulars. He always wore all the uniform prescribed or allowed by law.” “But with their opposite characteristics both were great and successful soldiers; both were true, patriotic and upright in all their dealings. Both were pleasant to serve under — Taylor was pleasant to serve with.” The message here is BE WHO YOU ARE. Both generals were completely different, but they were true to themselves and true to their soldiers.

Another comment on the same passage:

Very interesting that while he assesses them to be at polar opposites of the spectrum, they both were effective leaders. The takeaway being that there’s more than one way to succeed—it’s up to each individual leader to optimize their leadership style to their own traits. If you’re not Patton, then don’t be Patton

Leaders Must Understand Commander’s Intent and Know the End State

In chapter XI, Grant remembers the charge on the Mills. “Worth’s troops entered the Mills by every door, and the enemy beat a hasty retreat back to Chapultepec. Had this victory been followed up promptly, no doubt Americans and Mexicans would have gone over the defenses of Chapultepec so near together that the place would have falling into our hands without further loss… This was not done.” “It is always, however, in order to follow a retreating foe, unless stopped or otherwise directed.” This is the central idea of mission command. Clear understanding of a commander’s intent and end state allows subordinates to exercise disciplined initiative. This is one of the many lessons Grant carried with him and contemplated heavily on following the Mexican War.

Early Experiences Play a Key Role in Shaping Leaders

A recent article in Military Review on junior officer development quotes DA Pam 600-3, stating that “Troop leadership is the best means to become educated in Army operations and builds a solid foundation for future service.” As I read these early chapters and think of Grant’s command of the Army of the Tennessee and later the entire US Army, the details that he highlights from his experiences in Mexico and Panama specifically reinforce this concept. These earlier experiences laid the foundation for Grant’s conduct of the war, and are illustrated by his own leadership style, the importance he found in logistics and his empathy.

So far, this experimental summer reading program has further reinforced for me the importance of not keeping our thoughts to ourselves when it comes to professional development. One of benefits of discussing leadership with such a diverse group of people, is that everyone brings their own experiences, perspectives, and passions to the table, thus shaping our own ideas on the topic. In order to be effective leaders, we must also be able to see leadership through the eyes of others.

And now for this week’s topic:

Week 4-A Break in Service (Chapters 16-17)

This week, Chapters 16-17 cover Grant’s time away from the military and his return to the uniform as war approaches. During this period he dabbles in business, reconnects with his family, and gets involved in local politics.

Is there a connection between Grant’s break in service and his later success as an operational commander? Do you think a break in service, such as Grant had, would be valuable in developing leaders today?