Four-Star Leadership for Leaders
Interviews
with Distinguished Generals and Admirals
by
R. Manning Ancell
Foreword by
Charles “Tremendous” Jones
Smashwords Edition
* * * * *
Published on Smashwords by:
Tremendous Life Books
206 West
Allen Street
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(717) 766-9499
(800) 233-2665
(717) 766-6565
(Fax)
www.TremendousLifeBooks.com
Four-Star Leadership for Leaders
Copyright © 1997 and 2011 by R.
Manning Ancell
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
Smashwords Edition License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal use only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author’s work.
* * * * *
Praise for
Four-Star
Leadership for Leaders
“Your efforts to help us all share the leadership principles and ideals of these distinguished gentlemen are to be commended. As you know, our ships, airplanes, tanks, and weapons all change constantly, but good leadership is a timeless commodity that no force can survive without.”
—John H. Dalton
Former Secretary of the Navy
“The study of leadership is one which is crucial in both military and corporate settings and there can never be enough written on it. The insights provided by your subjects are timeless.”
—General Dennis J. Reimer
Former Chief of Staff, US Army
“I think you have chosen well the testaments you present from these unique men—and they add up to extremely useful perspectives and advice.”
—General Russell E. Dougherty
Former Commander in
Chief,
Strategic Air Command
“It is certainly a ‘tremendous’ compilation of advice from the top military flag officers of our generation.”
—General Charles C. Krulak
Former Commandant of the Marine Corps
“The principles of leadership set by these men and others have served us well throughout history. How well we lead depends in large measure on the way we prepare ourselves to motivate and inspire those in our charge. Learning the lessons of those who have served before us is fundamental to our success as leaders. Your book should help capture some of those lessons.”
—Admiral Jay L. Johnson
Former Chief of Naval Operations
“I am always inspired when reading about those who have contributed so much to our Nation, and believe we should strive to learn all we can from their experiences.”
—General Joseph W. Ralston
Former Supreme Allied
Commander
Europe
“Clearly, you have made a major contribution in presenting the qualities needed in leadership in the military.”
—General David C. Jones, Ret.
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff
“I personally believe role models are the most influential means of teaching/learning our profession. I am intrigued by the variety of individuals you interviewed, and I know their thoughts and insights will make for a thoroughly enjoyable and profitable read.”
—General David A. Bramlett
Former Commanding General,
US Army
Forces Command
* * * * *
Contents
Chapter 1: “From my
perspective a good leader can’t be selfish”
General
Walter E. Boomer, U.S. Marine Corps
April 6, 1994
Chapter 2: “You
don’t have any friends as CNO”
Admiral Arleigh
A. Burke, U.S. Navy
October 14, 1974
Chapter 3: “You’re
never going to prove it until you do it”
General
Jack J. Catton, U.S. Air Force
September 17, 1987
Chapter 4: “By
Example Was My By-Word”
General Raymond G. Davis,
U.S. Marine Corps
December 9, 1975
Chapter 5: “I’ve
always believed that reading is an important part of who I
am.”
General Martin E. Dempsey, U.S. Army
June
16, 2010
Chapter 6: “I
was more of a follow-it-up-yourself man”
General
Alfred M. Gruenther, U.S. Army
October 17, 1974
Chapter 7: “You’ve
got to get out and see things yourself.”
General
Thomas T. Handy, U.S. Army
May 1, 1975
Chapter 8: “You get
the right man in the job quickly.”
Admiral Ronald
J. Hays, U.S. Navy
August 22, 1986
Chapter 9: “I walked
out of the Pentagon my own man.”
General Harold
K. Johnson, U.S. Army
June 4, 1976
Chapter 10:
“Integrity is among the most necessary of qualities.”
General
William A. Knowlton, U.S. Army
October 29, 1986
Chapter 11: “Tell
people what has to be done and not how to do it.”
General
Frederick J. Kroesen, U.S. Army
October 21, 1987
Chapter 12: “Never
make a decision until you have to.”
General
Curtis E. LeMay, U.S. Air Force
August 16, 1976
Chapter 13: “Be
brave-smart and not brave-dumb.”
General William
J. Livsey, U.S. Army
June 30, 1992
Chapter 14: “A good
commander is also a damned good manager.”
General
William F. McKee, U.S. Air Force
October 18, 1974
Chapter 15: “Even in
retirement mentors continue to play a role.”
General
Edward C. Meyer, U.S. Army
March 24, 1991
Chapter 16: “I
probably would not have stayed in the Navy if it wasn’t for Admiral
Zumwalt.”
Admiral Paul David Miller, U.S.
Navy
January 28, 1997
Chapter 17: “You’ll
never be a leader if you don’t tell the truth.”
Admiral
Thomas H. Moorer, U.S. Navy
June 3, 1976
Chapter 18:
“Persuasive and exemplary leadership is most effective.”
General
Carl E. Mundy, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps
April 7, 1994
Chapter 19: “You
can be successful in peace and a failure in war.”
General
Matthew B. Ridgway, U.S. Army
September 24, 1977
Chapter 20:
“Soldiers are not intimidated by generals any more.”
General
Roscoe Robinson, Jr., U.S. Army
October 24, 1987
Chapter 21: “Let ’em
lie!”
General David M. Shoup, U.S. Marine
Corps
May 2, 1973
Chapter 22: “Luck
goes all through this business.”
General Maxwell
D. Taylor, U.S. Army
October 21, 1974
Chapter 23: “I was
the best in the business.”
General Otto P.
Weyland, U.S. Air Force
February 11, 1978
Chapter 24: “I was
almost killed in Vietnam.”
General John A.
Wickham, Jr., U.S. Army
September 5, 1990
Chapter 25: “You
must set your standards high.”
General Louis L.
Wilson, Jr., U.S. Air Force
October 22, 1986
* * * * *
There is nothing nobler than a leader who has stepped to new heights of greatness through the respect of subordinates, and nothing more honorable than the act of selflessly offering up the service of one’s life in order to preserve a higher good. The profession of arms has filled the annals of history with some of mankind’s most powerful and poignant lessons. That alone, however, is not why people of all times and talents have continuously turned to it as the greatest laboratory where one can observe and master the art of leadership.
Much of military doctrine is founded on the premise that, although its ranks form the backbone for waging the art of war, peace is its profession. This somewhat ironic statement is the basis for one of the strongest leadership principles known to man and had been used long before the advent of military technology and standing armies. The military has always held the belief that in order to succeed, you’ve got to prepare for the worst. For them, it’s war; for the businessman, it could be bankruptcy; for the spouse, it could be the end of a marriage. Whatever the unthinkable, the most effective basis for deterrence is found in preparation. A leader, military or otherwise, must imagine the unimaginable and take it back from there. The United States could not have fathomed total nuclear holocaust during the years of the Cold War, and yet the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the unthinkable to the brink of reality. The United States emerged as a world leader able to handle crises of global proportions through preparation. Its leaders shouldered the responsibility of, and accountability for, the future of a nation. So whether the leader is responsible for a country, a company, or a family, these same principles of leadership apply.
The second principle that makes the military such a powerful laboratory for leadership is the oath of allegiance its members swear or affirm before they enter the service. Many professions hold such an oath of service—the medical profession, the profession of law, the institutional vows of marriage. But military leaders are unique because they alone are measured by how well they motivate the tens, or hundreds, or thousands of personnel under their command. If they don’t do this well, the results can be catastrophic. The military professional capable of motivating and disciplining only himself or herself can’t serve as an effective leader in the military. The leader must simultaneously mentor, inspire, discipline, and love. When dealing with the preservation of national security and survival of allies, history has shown that there is no more powerfully unifying or divisive event than warfare. The military professional has got to lead, or suffer consequences of potentially global proportions. With the tremendous advent of modern society and its complicated interweaving, the military leader cannot afford to hold his or her position as the weak link in the armor.
The student of history can endlessly examine the causal events and historical accounts of the military, but for the student of leadership, the personal words and witness of proven leaders melded in the fires of the profession of arms offers a rare glimpse directly into the mind of greatness. Historical accounts, no matter how accurate, are fraught with subjective and emotional reactions, misinterpretations and mindsets. Rather than that standard historical account, this book offers numerous interviews with living and recently deceased military general officers. In essence, we get the rare opportunity to learn the secrets of history and to master the lessons of leadership from the men of greatness that made them happen.
A final word of clarification is called for here. If you’ve gotten this far but decided not to continue because you think this book is relevant only to people with some sort of military background, forget it. Leadership cuts across the midsection of society like nothing else and touches anyone who leads and, yes, follows others. It is my hope that no matter what your line of work or business, you can take some of these principles from the greatest leadership laboratory in the world and apply them successfully to your life.
Charles “Tremendous” Jones
General Walter E. Boomer
A decorated leader in Operation Desert Storm, Walter E. Boomer was born on September 22, 1938, in Rich Square, North Carolina. Following graduation from Duke University in 1960, where he earned a B.A. and a commission as a Marine lieutenant, he served at Camp Lejeune until assigned as a company commander in the 4th Marines in Vietnam from 1966-1967. He returned to Vietnam as an advisor in 1971. Promoted to brigadier general in 1986, Boomer led U.S. Marine Forces in the Central Command during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Promoted to four stars as the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps in 1992, he retired the summer of 1994 and entered the private sector. General Boomer resides in Connecticut.
•
1
“FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
A GOOD LEADER CAN’T
BE SELFISH”
A conversation with
General Walter E. Boomer, USMC
April 6,
1994
General Boomer, I’ve been talking about leadership with people for many years. It’s a fascinating but extremely complex thing. As an outsider looking in on the military service, it appears to me that there are a very finite number of superior leaders mixed in with a lot of other people who are not leaders. Why is that?
I think to some degree it may have something to do with being selfish or unselfish. From my perspective, a good leader can’t be selfish. Now that doesn’t mean that the unselfish person that I’m advocating as the good leader is any less of a good disciplinarian, if that’s what’s called for; or can’t be tough when the situation demands it. But the basic underlying fundamental premise of this unselfishness has to do with giving of yourself to your people. Caring about your people. Because if they perceive that you care, they will do almost anything for you. Many of them will die for you. You can’t fake it, though. And they will come to understand very quickly, it won’t take them too long a period of time, to know whether or not you care about them. Now the caring manifests itself in a whole host of ways. In combat, it means sharing their hardship. In combat, it means being up front where they are. Doesn’t mean being stupid, doesn’t mean sacrificing yourself unnecessarily leaving them leaderless; but it means going in harm’s way with them. It translates into giving them credit—letting your people take credit for the successes that occur. You shoulder the blame for the failures. There’s a certain amount of love involved. Now “brains” in soldiers and sailors get very nervous when you start talking about love. But I would dare say that most of the great leaders that I have known have loved their Marines. And I think everybody knows what I mean. I don’t think the selfish person understands any of that. Or if they understand it they can’t bring themselves to the level that’s necessary to get people to do things for you, to want to follow you.
Yours is a very persuasive argument for the notion, long debated, that leaders are born and not made, because you can’t learn to be unselfish, you can’t learn to love your fellow man. That’s something that you either have or you don’t.
Yeah. I would subscribe to the theory that you can make a pretty good leader, but that you really can’t make a great leader.
While you were growing up in the Marine Corps, whom did you classify as a great leader, somebody that you looked up to, perhaps provided inspiration to you?
I was influenced very early on by my company commander. This occurred at a time when I did not know whether I was going to stay in the Marine Corps or get out. I came in with the intention of only staying for a very short period of time, so I was at a very impressionable time in my career. A captain by the name of Willard J. Woodring, a mustang—a man who had enlisted in the Marine Corps and gotten commissioned—was my company commander. He was a man who cared, a resourceful person, even-tempered. I don’t recall him ever flying off the handle. He probably did, but it happened so seldom that I’ve forgotten about it. We understood that he was going to do the very best he could to take care of us. He knew his job. So here’s a captain who had a great deal of influence over me; in fact, probably had much to do with my staying in the Marine Corps. I was influenced later on by a man who was a major, when I first met him, by the name of Gene Bench. Gene was a very dedicated guy who became sort of a mentor to me, but he was another individual who cared and who took the time to teach me and explain things to me, as well as others. Later on he was my battalion commander in Vietnam. He was a good battalion commander. The traits that I had admired early on had exhibited themselves again in combat. One of my personal heroes has been General Bob Barrow. I use him when I talk to young Marines about leadership. He was a gentleman. I never heard him cuss or raise his voice. He had a quality about him that made you look up to him. A marvelous combat record in Korea, later on in Vietnam as a regimental commander. He was here in my office last week. Still straight as an arrow. Exudes all of those things that make you want to be around him, that make you want to talk with him, that make you want to seek his advice. And he cares.
Are Marine leaders better and more effective because Marines have a greater sense of tradition and esprit de corps, perhaps even a greater sense of following and knowing how to follow orders, than their brothers and sisters in the other services?
I think all of those things that you’ve mentioned contribute to good leadership in the Marine Corps. I have a great deal of respect for the other services and there have been marvelous leaders in each of our services. I must say that, collectively, I think that our officers exhibit more positive leadership. They seem to be more concerned about it. They seem to be more into this whole business of being a leader and I think it starts very early. We have a very rugged and demanding officer candidate course. And, quite frankly, if you find yourself in the middle of this course and really don’t want to be there, you will not make it. We then follow that with a six-month course called the basic school. No one else does this. So the first thing right off the bat is six months of school during which time we focus on leadership, primarily. We focus on just what it means to be a good officer. And it’s at that point in time that we begin to talk about sacrifice: your Marines come first. We demonstrate that in a whole host of things that have become tradition to the Marine Corps over the years. For example, officers always eat last in the Marine Corps, always. If there’s one officer, he’s the last one to eat. If there are ten officers, those ten are the last ten to eat. So, as a result, I think we have instilled in our young officers very early this sense of what it’s all about to be a leader. Then from that point on they go to their specialty school. For example, if a Marine officer was going to be a tanker, he would go through the officer candidate course, then six months of the basic school, and then he would go to his basic school to learn how to be a tank officer. So we make that investment right up front.
At what point in your career were you suddenly faced with a situation where you had to really pull together all of your leadership strengths and perhaps even to ask yourself, what do I need to do in this situation to really turn this around or really make this happen?
I think to a degree it may have been instinctive, but it was helped by good and wise counselors along the way. For example, when I was a platoon commander—when I was a lieutenant—we deployed to Guantanamo Bay. This was when tensions were running high in that part of the world. In fact, it was before the missile crisis, but during the build-up to the crisis. So our company was there at Guantanamo separate from our battalion. We were building fortifications with picks and shovels, digging trenches. We did that almost every day. My concern was that the Marines were going to get bored with that, and number two, they were going to get tired of it because it was darn hard work, so how do I keep them motivated? Well, I had a very good platoon sergeant and what we did was a very simple thing, but I think a very important thing. We took our turn at the shovel just like everybody else did in the platoon. They saw this. We weren’t standing around with our hands in our pockets watching them dig. We were down with them digging. Not every minute of the day, but we were always there with them helping them build with our hands as dirty as theirs were, as hot and as miserable. That took my platoon through that period. So there have been times like that all along the way that I’ve been challenged. I would be the last one to say that I rose to the occasion every time. But I think in a Marine Corps career you can’t go through it without being constantly challenged.
As you know, ours is a very permissive society where virtually everything is forgiven. How difficult is it to keep that very thin line between the commander and his troops without developing the relationships that then become those that could best be described as fraternization?
I think it’s relatively easy. I’ve never perceived that to be a problem. I was taught very early on that you don’t operate on a first name basis in the Marine Corps, between officer and enlisted. You don’t put yourself in social settings which lead to situations that become very difficult. You avoid those. Now some might say, well, how does that tie into your thesis of caring? Very easily. Number one, that’s really not what your Marines, in our case, expect of you. They don’t want to go out drinking with you. Number two, they really are uncomfortable calling you by any name other than your rank. So you don’t need to fall into those traps. Going back to my original premise that they perceive that you care about them, those kinds of things aren’t important to them. What’s important to them is that you know your job and that you’re going to take care of them and if they’ve got to go into combat, you’re going to figure out what the heck it is that has to be done so they can come back home alive. That’s what they want from you. They don’t want to be babied by you, they don’t want to be coddled, they don’t want to be on a first name basis with you. They really do thrive on this whole concept of mutual respect. They want you to respect them for who they are. If you do that, they’ll respect you for who you are. So this whole thing of fraternization is not as big a problem as some people make it out to be.
Were there times during Desert Storm where you were able to observe young officers who rose to the occasion and exhibited leadership strengths only because of the situation that they were suddenly thrust into?
We expect a certain level of leadership competence. We expect that to be exhibited, demonstrated. And, yes, we had lots of young officers, lots of young staff NCOs and NCOs who just rose to the occasion, who exhibited a lot of courage, calmness under fire. So as a result, they stood out and I would like to think that we were able to reward those whom we know about. But that has always been the case. You always go into war with the majority of your officers having never experienced combat. This was true in Vietnam, with the few exceptions of those who had been in World War II or Korea, and they were beginning to fall by the wayside. So that was our first time in combat. This time, during Desert Storm, many, many of the Vietnam veterans had long-since retired. So each time you take a whole new batch of really untested Marines into battle. Then the test is whether or not they perform.
I remember General Shoup once said that he believed that great leaders come about because of the willingness of the people they are leading to be led. Is there some truth to that?
I think there’s some truth to that. To a degree a bit of that is instilled at Parris Island at recruit training and at Quantico at officer candidate training. This whole thing of followership is emphasized during those periods. I think for the most part it sticks with Marines throughout their career, because during those two periods of time in particular, unless you’re willing to follow, unless you’re willing to shed a bit of yourself for the common good, you won’t make it through.
I think I picked up, General, early in our conversation, that you felt that you were mentored. Have you been a mentor?
I would say that I became a mentor to several people about the time that I was a lieutenant colonel. By that point in time I had considerable experience, two tours in combat, battalion commander. So I began to feel that there were those that I could help, whose personality and whose leadership traits I admired. So I have tried to do that with a number of people over the years.
As warfare becomes more technological, does that infringe in any way on leadership or replace it or substitute it in any way?
No, I think it makes good leadership even more important. Just one example, and that is the whole issue of fratricide. If you don’t do things almost perfectly today, the chances of someone getting hurt from friendly fire are so much greater than they were when I was in combat in Vietnam. I recall one day in Vietnam my company was moving across a hilltop, we were separated from everybody else by design, and all of a sudden from nowhere an artillery barrage came down right on top of us, right square on top of the company. It was as if somebody had been plotting our movement for hours and then very carefully had fired artillery at us. I didn’t think that it could be the enemy because I didn’t think they had that kind of artillery anywhere in the area. As it turned out we discovered very quickly that it was friendly fire. It was a South Vietnamese battery that didn’t know that we were there. In other words, the word hadn’t come down from the U.S. side, down through the Vietnamese channels, down to this artillery battery. We finally got it turned off. But interestingly enough, I only had one man hurt. Now there were a few miracles involved there, I suppose, but my point is, here is an artillery barrage right square on top of this company. I mean, right square on top of us. I only had one guy badly wounded. He was my XO. That’s the way artillery is. That’s the way older weapons are. Fragmentation weapons, you can come out of a tough situation unscathed. With the missile, it’s a different story because the missile is going to hit. If you point that missile at another tank or another armored personnel carrier and pull the trigger, so to speak, everybody in that vehicle is going to die. And if you made a mistake, you’ve made a horrible mistake. And we made a couple of those mistakes during Desert Storm. So technology makes knowing your job even more important. And, of course, knowing your job is one of the critical pieces of good leadership.
Some have said there are no longer any Pattons or Chesty Pullers because senior generals are required to do so much now. They have to not only be effective leaders but they have to be part manager, part administrator. There are several other parts that make it up. Do you find that to be true in the Marine Corps today, the premise that there is no longer room for what has traditionally been known as the warrior?
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think you can leave this headquarters or any other office and go out and be a very fine warrior. For most of a military person’s career he’s not involved in combat. So as a result, today, as well as yesterday, you are required to be a manager, in some cases an entrepreneur, a whole host of things. But that doesn’t, that shouldn’t, in my view, affect what’s in your heart and that is a warrior spirit. Now that manifests itself in a lot of ways. Some people are quiet warriors, others are more flamboyant. Either kind can get the job done. Although I must say that I’ve seen more quietly determined successful people in combat, than I’ ve seen the flamboyant types.
Did you witness any exceptional leadership by the enemy in battle during Desert Storm?
No. None.
What does that tell you, General?
It tells me that they don’t understand the investment that has to be made in order to be successful in this profession of arms. They’re not willing to work at it hard enough. This is a very, very tough business. It requires hard work every day, whether you’re in the office or in the field. If you’re in the field, it requires training, day after day, month after month, year after year, and an investment in training. In my view, they don’t understand how great an investment that is. Even if they understood it, they’re probably not willing to make it. I was glad that I didn’t see it. It made our job a lot easier. They did a few things well. They put up a barrier across Kuwait in perhaps record time. They did a couple of fairly decent engineering jobs in conjunction with that, but then when it came down to really being ready to fight us, they were not. Some of that had to do with arrogance on their part. That had to do with their culture. They had to convince themselves that they were better. So as a result I suppose that they felt they didn’t need to do very much in order to prepare. Well, they were mistaken. As we watched the situation from Saudi Arabia from an intelligence perspective, it became obvious to me that over time they weren’t doing any training. They never moved. Tanks were dug in and that’s where they stayed for weeks. We, on the other hand, trained every day. In fact, we trained so hard that...several weeks before the attack into Kuwait I told my commanders to pull back a little bit. I was afraid that they were going to wear our troops out training so hard. But that’s the difference in mentality. So we were primed and ready to go. Speaking of that barrier, we had taken that barrier, or we had taken a picture of the barrier and used that to construct a mock-up of it in Saudi Arabia. So we trained against that, day after day, because that was a concern to us to get through that barrier quickly.
One final question. On your last day in uniform, what words are you going to leave with your successor and your fellow generals and fellow Marines on the subject of leadership?
I’ve thought about that. I think what I may do, and I haven’t told anybody this, is I may have at that final farewell a brand new Marine from Parris Island there. Maybe I’ll have a male and a female. And what I will say to them is, if in your decision-making process you keep these two youngsters foremost in your mind, you won’t make a wrong decision. If your decisions are based on what’s good and necessary for them, they will be good decisions. Not only at the headquarters level, but at the platoon level.
Admiral Arleigh A. Burke
Thirty-One Knot” Burke, the nickname he earned for his exploits as a daring destroyer captain in World War II, was born on October 19, 1901, in Boulder, Colorado. A graduate of the Naval Academy in 1923, he alternated assignments with the Bureau of Ordinance and at sea. Following World War II he was chief of staff to Admiral Marc Mitscher, commander of the Atlantic Fleet, earning promotion to rear admiral in July 1950 despite the controversy of his involvement in the “revolt of the admirals.” In August 1955 Burke became Chief of Naval Operations, propelled by President Eisenhower to four stars over the heads of ninety senior admirals. He served an unprecedented six years as CNO, retiring in August 1961. In 1983 a new class of destroyers was named in his honor. Admiral Burke died on New Year’s Day, 1996.
•
2
“YOU DON’T HAVE ANY FRIENDS AS CNO”
A conversation with
Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, USN
October
14, 1974
Admiral, toward the end of the war you were on the staff of Vice Admiral Mitscher, an aviator who didn’t care much for surface ship drivers. How did you fit in?
When I went there he did not want me on his staff at all. He had a good chief of staff, an aviator, and he wanted to keep him. I came aboard at sea when I came up with my destroyer squadron someplace north of the Solomons while he was on the way to make the first carrier strike west of Truk. I came aboard the Lexington by highline, went right up to the flag bridge, and reported who I was. He said, “Where’s your gear? Is your gear aboard?” I said, “No, sir. I don’t have any.” All I had was on my back and my shaving gear. He said, “You’ve got to go down and take a good hot bath. Go down to my cabin and turn in. I know you’re tired—it’s been a long time since you slept in a bed.” And it was, too. So I went down and took a shower and sent for some clothes—khaki uniforms and under clothes. I thought, well, damn—I’d really like to sleep but I felt if I turn in I’ve had it. I dressed and went back up to the bridge and reported in. Of course you don’t ask him what you’re supposed to do—you’re supposed to know what to do. He just grunted, so I talked with other members of the staff to find out what they were doing. Truman Hedding, the man I was relieving, was not aboard. I went over to give Admiral Mitscher an opportunity to see me if he wanted to or call me over, but he didn’t. He wasn’t going to talk to me—he didn’t say anything. This went on for about three days. I read everything I could think of that might be useful. I talked with aviators. After I worked on that he gradually came to trust my judgment and depend on me, but he never did like non-aviators. He tried to get me to go to Pensacola right after the war. “Admiral, I don’t want wings. I’d be an ersatz aviator. I wouldn’t be any good.”
He sounds like a tough fellow to work for.
He was very understanding of his men. He drove his men hard. They performed or else. I was his hatchet man and when a flag officer or senior officer did not perform it was my duty to get rid of him and go tell him, “Sorry, you’ve had it. You have to go back to the states.”
Where does a flag officer who’s just been canned go?
Out. He’s had it. War is that way. It may be beyond his capability, but that’s too bad. When you permit improper performance of duty you accept an excuse and excuses get poorer and poorer and people don’t try very hard. This is why it’s absolutely necessary that you have very high standards and you make sure those standards are met or you cut throats.
What did you determine to be your number one priority as you took over as CNO?
I realized that my most difficult job was to obtain the maximum effort out of the senior officers toward a common direction. Sometimes you lose a friend, but you usually get him back. You have to make choices. One of my friends is an excellent admiral—four-star admiral. He felt he should have had a job that I gave to someone else. The other man did a very good job but you have to make a choice. I did what I thought was right but I could be wrong.
Lots of times there are things that other people know and you don’t know and you make the wrong choice. But you’ve got to make it based on what you know and not what somebody else knows. You’ve got to make sure you know as much as you can but neither can you wait forever until you find out. You lose sometimes.
Did you receive the cooperation you needed from the senior officers in order to make things happen when they needed to happen in the Navy?
One of the early things I learned was that I could not get anything accomplished by giving an order because I didn’t have the time to follow through on that order. What I could do, though, was convince somebody that this was a good thing to do and get him to follow through on it.
Wasn’t there resentment among the admirals who were senior to you before you became CNO?
Sure, they were all resentful. Why not? No man reaches a position like that without feeling he is qualified. They’re all good people. They all spent a lifetime—thirty, thirty-five years working. Of course they resented that they had been passed over. Now there was my biggest job—to get rid of that resentment. You can’t order it out. It’s natural. It’s there. They can pat you on the back and be nice but still resent it on the inside. They aren’t going to perform until they don’t resent it inside. Your destiny is dependent on those admirals. The most important thing I had to do was get their confidence that what was being done were the correct things to be done for the Navy—for the country. They had to believe that. No organization can go very far unless it has a cause that’s bigger than itself.
In the early weeks of your watch how did you choose new staff people?
I didn’t choose any staff.
You kept all of Admiral Carney’s staff?
Yeah, complete—except for one man, his flag lieutenant. He was due to go. This could have been a mistake—I don’t think it was—but this one young fellow was due to go so I looked down the list. I had a list of all my destroyer captains. The flag lieutenant is very close to the admirals. He has to know how he thinks, what he’s going to do. He has to act for him lots of times, so it ought to be somebody with the same sort of background. I chose my flag lieutenant from the list of captains of COMDESLANT, that I’d just been with, and I chose a man I had never met because he had such a hell of a good reputation. I had one ship per page and every time I heard about the ship I put down what I heard. I’d pick up bluejackets. “What ship are you from? How good is it?” Sometimes they didn’t know who I was, sometimes they did. Everything I could get on the ship I would have. So I looked down there and picked Weschler. He turned out to be a hell of a man. He’s commander of destroyers now in the job I used to have. But he was the only one. All the other staff stayed. The staff were picked by Admiral Carney. They were loyal to him. They were used to doing it his way. They thought he had gotten a raw deal, a dirty deal and I was a usurper—knowing damn well it wasn’t my fault, I didn’t do it, but still I was a usurper. They resented the hell out of me but they were experienced and they were loyal to the Navy. I called them in and said, “Now, look, I don’t give a damn whether you like me or not. That’s not the point. What I’d like you to do is the very best job you can. Advise me.” That group of people never did like me like they liked Admiral Carney—you couldn’t expect it. But they did a good job. I had a group that was experienced but a group I had to always be careful with. They didn’t give a damn if they were pleasing me or not. They were operating strictly from a duty proposition and that’s good. Uncomfortable, but good.
Admiral, taking on a new, larger assignment with increased responsibilities really puts someone’s leadership skills on the line. When you moved up in rank and responsibility did you employ a particular strategy?
You can’t have a personal strategy. You can contribute, more or less, to your total effort, but when a man tries to build himself, or to impress his own views upon the service, or his unit, or his organization—whether it’s in the service or not—usually he’s wrong. It isn’t that his ideas are altogether wrong—they’re usually pretty much right—it’s that he didn’t know how to do it. The first thing he’s got to have is a cause. It’s got to be bigger than he is. Now, within that is what he’s best capable of doing. He’s got to have a cause bigger than himself. Nobody was attracted to John Paul Jones because of his being a damn good sailor. They were attracted to him for what they believed in, what they wanted to see accomplished. He was skillful enough—a professional—and they knew that.
Can you quantify the factors that made you a capable and effective leader throughout your naval career?
Being immodest about it, I was a professional. I knew my trade. I knew the limitations, as well as the capabilities of the equipment and the people. I knew that you can get a lot out of men if you inspire them to do their very best. First you have to tackle what is reasonably possible. Timing has a great deal to do with it. I was fortunate that I felt the time for missiles had come to the Navy. I felt the time for nuclear power had come for the Navy. And we were able to develop these things. The people in the Navy recognized that first—this was for the good of their profession and organization and they were permitted to contribute their maximum to it and they did. A good deal of this is timeliness. Also a great deal of it is knowing how to get people to do their very best.
Are you telling me, Admiral, that throughout your career the timing was just right for all the events that occurred and you just happened to be there?
Yes, a good deal of that. I pushed it, maybe, a little faster than someone else would have done. Really, I just happened to be there. Now this is true in battle, too. I made a pretty good reputation in combat and a surprisingly good deal of that was being there at the right time and the right place. The thing that I had was the ability to use that time and that place. I had the skill to do that, but someone else could have come along and done just as well—maybe even better. It’s not just happening to be lucky but luck does play a part in it.