"The less the people know about their laws and sausages, the happier they will be."
- --Prince Otto von Bismark
A POINTLESS STORY
Once there were two large herds of gazelles living on a large dry plain in East Africa. They wandered around aimlessly much of the time. Occasionally a lion or elephant would frighten them into moving a few hundred feet, but usually they were directionless.
In each herd there were several smart gazelles. One such male used his intellect to take advantage of the females. Another spent all his time finding the tastiest plants, missed by the less observant, to fill his belly. One gazelle came up with the idea that there might be something outside of the herd.
"What!?! Go outside the herd? Your crazy! The lions will eat you. The elephants will sit on you. The sun will make you shrivel up. What is the point of going out there?"
"I believe there is something out there which can be good for the herd. I am willing to risk myself to find it." So he walked out of the herd, into the unknown.
Just as this brave gazelle set out on his journey, another gazelle, in the other herd inadvertently started a journey of his own. He fell down a gully, and was cut off from the herd. He was scared, but fortunately there were no tired elephants standing around at just that moment, so he survived long enough to regain self control. He found a way out of the gully and started to look around.
Naturally the two heros met.
"Greetings brother buck, I am seeking new things. Have you seen anything?"
"I am lost. You are not of my herd so go away."
"I'll help you find your herd. That would help you and allow me to talk with you about what your world is like."
They of course had many adventures together, and learned much about the world. Perhaps the most interesting thing they learned was that the grass was greener down by the river. They even met new animals like cows and chickens. They should have learned that man is dangerous but only the brave gazelle seemed to pick that up. Finally they found the two herds they had strayed so far from.
"Goodbye brother buck. We've learned a lot haven't we?"
"Truly spoken. Now I will take my herd to the green grass so that we can grow fat!"
"I too want to lead my people, but I'm not certain the grass is really greener on the otherside of the fence. It may be okay for cows but gazelles are better off away from men. I think going up the river some would be a better idea."
"Suit yourself."
And so the two parted. Each wanting to lead their herd's to greener pastures. Here is how they did it.
The brave gazelle was welcomed back in his herd with much stomping and raising of dirt. They asked him about his adventures but didn't really listen. He realized this, so he kept his story short and left out many details. He told the full story only to those gazelles he thought could understand it. Their opinion was divided as to what to do. Some thought a move to the river could be good, others didn't.
Some thought men were safe others didn't. In short no consensus was reached. The brave gazelle was confronted with a problem. If he could not even convince the minority of smart gazelles of the benefits and dangers of the river then how could he ever get the whole herd to move?
Meanwhile the lost gazelle was welcomed back into his herd with much kicking and hair flying. They asked his adventures and he told them. Being a tricky buck, he knew that his friends were not at all interested in the truth. Instead he made up a fine tale of elephants sitting on lion's heads and of the green grass of the distant river.
The tricky gazelle took great pains to describe every bland of the succulent grass that he found there. When a smart gazelle said he thought that humans were not safe to be around, the tricky gazelle kicked him. "Monster! You just want to keep us here where only you know how to find good grass!"
Other gazelles agreed and quickly kicked the smart gazelle out of the herd where he was promptly eaten by a lion.
The tricky gazelle then directed his herd in the direction of the river, straight to were the cows lived. The herd set off at a slow walk. The tricky gazelle found being a leader easy, and the does gave his a lot more attention than they used to.
The smart gazelle meditated on his problem for a long time. He decided that humans were dangerous. So going to the cow pens would not be good. Further up river there were no humans but the grass was still green. He realized that he could not get all his herd to move there at once, but maybe he could lead a small group in that direction. If a small group started moving, then others were likely to follow. Some gazelles would become lost as the herd became more spread out, but that was a risk worth taking to gain better pastures.
He rounded up the few gazelles who believed he was right about the river. He asked them to follow him there and if they could to get their friends to follow them. They agreed. Soon a small group of gazelles began to head off to the river.
The smart gazelle found that his friend followed best when he was out in front of them. He set their direction and defined their goals. They in turn conversed others to follow them. Slowly, by word of mouth the whole herd learned of the movement. Most ignored it. But some saw the brave gazelle out in front, risking life and limb for their benefit. They felt a lump in their throat and followed him.
Some gazelles strayed off the course set by the leader. They chose to swerve around brush rather than go straight through it. The smart gazelle realized he could not control this. He only set the direction, others were in charge of executing it. He accepted they choices and the mistakes that they often made. Some gazelles were lost on the way but he eventually got to the rive with his small group of followers.
The tricky gazelle also reached the river. Few gazelles were lost since the whole herd agreed to move. The human's were amazed. They thought to attack the herd or at least to drive it off. But a wise woman said "No, open the gate. Let them come into our pasture. They look like they want to be tamed." So they let them in.
The gazelles then became just like cows. Yes they were fat. But the men took many of their numbers to eat. Eventually they took every last one. Even the tricky gazelle.
The smart gazelle had lead a small group of gazelles to the river. More had followed them. Later, as word spread back to the others of the green grass, others followed. The smart gazelle never did convince all the members of the herd that this was a good move. In fact he did not even try to do this. He let the benefit speak for itself. He realized that by setting a direction and a goal, by providing a physical example, and by being willing to accept respocibility for the loss of a few gazelles he had done all he could do as a leader.
He lived to be an old fat gazelle, respected by some and hated by others. He encouraged smart gazelles to go on adventures and some of them even followed in his footsteps and lead the herd in even better directions. The fat gazelle smiled at this.
WHAT IS A LEADER?
Can you see in the dark? I can't. So when I find myself out at night, I take great care not to get lost. If I did get lost though, what kind of guide would be the most useful, one who could see in the dark or one who couldn't? Naturally the one who could see would be better able to get me back on track. I would do well to follow him. If he said "be careful, there is a hole right in front of you." I would heed his warning and stop. Is he then my leader?
Consider the following example.
A room full of men just standing around waiting for something are not a group. They do not coordinate their actions any and they will do no more than they are presently doing. Imagine that one of them stands up and says "I want out of here. Who will help me?" Probably several of the men will respond. The first man can then organize their labor towards the goal of breaking out of the room.
This is an example of leadership.
Imagine the same room, with the same men in it, 5 minutes before the first man speaks up. Another man says "Gee would anyone like to get out of here?" Several men say yes, but no one has any idea of what to do. "Gee, what should we do?" asks the man. Nothing happens, no leadership was exhibited.
Which brings us back to the question. What is a leader? Obviously someone who goes first. Some one who people follow. A measure of trust is implied, and certainly responsibility.
The first leaders one normally encounters are parents. Parents care for their children. They feed and clean them. They protect them from lives dangers. They set rules governing children's behavior. They enforce their discipline with spankings and other punishments. They nurture and educate their children in the hopes that they will someday grow up to be independent adults. At least that is the way it is suppose to work!
Next children encounter new leaders. Teachers control and direct their class rooms. Ministers preach the gospel in their churches. Rules are set and enforced. Expectations are created. Some of them are even satisfied.
Then kids find leaders among themselves. Bullies who force the others to play his way. Spoil sports and brats who force their will on others by throwing fits. Greek Gods who are naturally able to do what others want, and who kids love to follow. And then there are just nice guys who make suggestions for the group to do.
By the time a man is 18, he fully understands that there are people who lead and people who follow. He will know what the outward appearance of a leader is. He may have some role models. He is excellent material for military training.
The young man is inducted into the military and propelled into a world where the leaders are on top and lie is on bottom. He learns to act when told to act and rest when told to rest. The sergeant is more a mother to him than his own mother has been since he was 6! When the shooting starts he will be ready to do what his mother tells him to. Kill or be killed.
If the leadership is clear, and the objectives achievable the soldier will do his part and win the war. If it is not clear then the best possible outcome is a pyrrhic victory or more likely a defeat.
FUNCTIONS OF LEADERSHIP
The movies make leadership look so simple. Just get up in front of a group of people and say "Follow me!" But it is not that simple. "If the leadership is clear, and the objectives achievable..." is a subtle phrase that begs the question. After all what is clear leadership? What are achievable objectives? We don't know. Yet if the leader guesses wrong then all is lost.
A clearer way to view leadership is in what he does in relationship to the psychology of his men. From previous morale articles it is clear that 1. men are not natural killers, 2. men will kill if they feel they are backed into a corner, 3. men who do what they think is wrong become psych casualties, 4. cognitive dissonance can be resolved by thinking about the world in a different way, 5. and leaders have an almost religious aura about them.
With the above in mind, it would appear that leaders have a couple of jobs to do.
- 1. They have to get to know their men, so as to know what they think is right and wrong.
2. They have to know the enemies men to know how they think.
3. They have to decided which actions to have their men do to destroy the enemies will to fight (usually some form of attack).
4. They have to communicate this plan to the men.
5. They have to supervise its execution, altering it as required as the situation develops.
6. And finally they have to take care of their men after the action is over so that they may fight again the next day.
This is a lot to ask of one person.
The leader has to "see in the dark". To guess at what will happen in the future. Given this is it any wonder that leaders take on a mystical aura? Some leaders are called "insightful" "inspired" "visionary". This is just what mystics aspire to be. In truth though, leaders do not see the future. They decide what the future will be!
MAKING IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG
The first function of a leader is to decide what his vision of the future is. Without a vision, the leader will have no goals of his own. This makes him very vulnerable to being lead by others (namely the opposing leader, who will "lead" him to disaster). The vision can be long term, as our presidents like to tell us they have. Or short term, like a captain telling his company to "take that hill." In either case, the leader has in mind from the onset where he wants his men to be at the end of the action. This may not happen but if it doesn't, the vision tells one to keep on trying.
I don't know how leaders acquire vision. They mystics claim it comes from God. That we must follow a discipline to open ourselves up to it. This may be so. On the other hand discipline means following someone else's orders, which can stifle initiative. So maybe redefining the word vision might be helpful. Vision is "making it up as you go along" and that is creativity! A lot is known about what inspires creativity.
Having a vague idea about what you want creates a goal. For instance, I have the goal of making and disseminating the idea of Matrix Gaming. One follows a discipline of work that will lead in that direction (in the distant future). For instance writing articles, publishing rules and running convention games. As the work is done, the work itself inspires more creation. The work communicates the creation to others which in turn inspires them. This works with smiling at people (which inspires smiles back) as well as with game creation, silver smithing, or computer engineering! It creates synergy.
So leaders (or would be leaders) do not have to wait around on mountain tops, waiting for God to speak to them. They can discover their message by working towards a goal. We have that much control at least.
COMMUNICATING THE MESSAGE
It is not enough to have a vision. A leader who has great vision, who tells no one, is no leader. While a leader with a vague, unclear vision who tells others, and works on learning more, may be a great leader.
Communication has been the problem of leaders and mystics for centuries. Words alone are not enough. Modern radio communications, and Landsat location finders can give a commander a truly wargamer's view of a battle. But as we found out in Vietnam, instant communications do not make for good communications. During partition in India, Gandhi communicated the message of non-violence to the whole of Bengal, without a radio. The people heard him and no one died. 50,000 British soldiers in the PunJab, with radios and modern weapons failed to communicate the same message. Thousands died.
Military leaders seem to he Just realizing what the mystics have been struggling with since Adam. Namely, "How does one communicate the vision to someone who do not have the vision?"
The same mechanisms are used. Training and disciplines, obedience and submission. These are what leaders have created in the past to "carry the word."
Soldiers are trained how to use their weapons, how to march, and what they are to fight for (be it to defend the constitution, to maintain their social elite status, or to rescue damsels in distress!) Part of the training is in how to do things a certain way. With repetition, performance improves. Discipline is learned. Soldiers are organized into higherarchys. Disciples are required to be obedient and submissive to the will of their leaders. When it works, leaders have a way of communicating their will to a group of people.
So is having a rigid higherarchy the answer to all problems?
No.
INITIATIVE, SUBMISSION AND TYRANNY
Remember that it is a function of leadership to know one's own people. Given this, would you think it a good idea to try to force a company of Tennessee volunteers in the 1830's into Prussian discipline? No. They would inevitably rebel. Davy Crockett would not stay at the Alamo, and a national myth would not be. Davy knew that his men would fight like wild cats if they wanted to, so his job was to make them want to. He did and they died gloriously.
Higherarchys focus our actions in a single direction, but they have to follow the character of the people within them. So the leader must tailor his message to fit the time and the place he is in. American backwoodsmen (former Ulstermen in Davy's case) had the reputation for being rugged individualists. They had to be lead delicately. Yet they showed great individual vision. In WWI another backwoodsman, Sergeant York, accomplished an amazing feet on his own initiative.
Russian troops (peasants with guns) have been noted through the last 300 years as being stalwart fighters, but useless if poorly lead. Germans are noted as being resistant to hierarchies, but once they haver submitted to be very obedient (to the point of stupidity). One could go on listing commonly known stereotypes ab infinitum and not know much more about leadership. Suffice it to say, that any group of men, if properly lead can accomplish greatness.
Rigid discipline may work for some people. Others come into the army with a world view that includes the word "Tyrant." They have been taught to resist tyrants. They can make good soldiers, but flogging them is counter productive. This is not to say that beating such people will not make such people obey you. Anyone can be beaten into submission. The trouble is that they may not be any use as soldiers after such beatings. They could be psych casualties just waiting to be defeated by the enemy. "Cowed" soldiers are more likely to be "cowards" later.
"I saw a woman flogged the other day. You would hardly believe the change it made in her character ...for the worse." So said Jonathan Swift 250 years ago. So leaders are faced with a paradox. Men require a structure/higherarchy to be able to accomplish meaningful action. But to rigid a higherarchy will destroy the men's ability to do the job. Keep in mind, Davy got his men to fight at the Alamo, but the lost that fight! Sometimes an orderly retreat is the right thing to do.
THE BIG LIE
Beware ye of false prophets. They will tell what ye want to hear. They will lead ye, as lambs to the slaughter!
How then do followers know when their leaders are following a "false" vision? Should they even worry about this? Can't they just say "I was only following orders." at the war crimes trial? At what point are they morally responsible to follow their own vision and say "no"? There are no easy answers to these questions.
There is a risk though. Civilization and the higherarchy that supports it, is the creation of men of vision. It has allowed us to create everything we have to day. But once a higherarchy is in place, it can be steered by who ever is in charge. Sometimes unworthy people take over the seat of power.
One tactic on how to do this is "The Big Lie". Hitler used it in the 30's and 40's. It involves telling people a vision that is more geared to flattering the people than it is at telling a "true" vision. Hitler scape goated the Jews (amongst others) to focus the German people's energy towards destructive ends. The Kaiser, a morale man, surrendered Germany in 1918, after it was clear that they had lost. Hitler would not follow this example, preferring instead to commit national suicide. When the leader says "fall on your sword for me" maybe that is time to question his judgement!
Napoleon, admonished his generals not to follow orders that they knew were wrong. Gandhi based his entire approach on the notion of resisting evil through non-cooperation. So why is it so difficult to do?
This one is easy to answer. Humans do not like to "see" what is really in front of us. We often try to live unexamined lives. We avoid taking any responsibility. We are not natural leaders. Unfortunately this means that inept or evil men often come to power. This is a challenge to the people to find some one better. But to do so we are forced to sacrifice our comfortable complacency. And we only agree to do this when we are in enough pain!
OLIVER CROMWELL THE TEACHER
Leaders are really teachers more than warriors. Richard the Lion Hearted was a great killer of men. But it was the subtle Saladin who won. King Arthur was never seen to be as good a fighter as Lancelot (or even Gawain) but he was the leader. Round tables, and orders of chivalry, were based on the ghazi communities the crusaders found in the Near East. Ghazis were fierce warriors and mystics. Their leaders, like the leaders of the Templars and others, were teachers of religious morality. Each war has its teacher. I want to focus in on one person who has always been influential for me...Oliver Cromwell.
Cromwell started his career as an educated East Anglian gentleman. Member of parliament, religious puritan, he was not at all a born warrior. He learned how to fight during the lst Civil War. He had a hand in training the New Model Army. He believed in the cause of parliament vs the crown. He favored a congregational approach to religious organization, which was quite radical in its time. Then in 1646, he and the whole victorious parliamentary side had to decide what to do next.
Up to 1696 Cromwell teaches the lesson of the value of faith in a cause. He provided a personal example of courage and fortitude to his men. He enforced a strict discipline which he followed himself. He read his people right and won. That's when the trouble started.
The Rump parliament and later Cromwell alone faced three major problems. 1. What to do with the King. 2. How to rule the people, who were still divided in politics. And 3. How to resolve the descent within his own ranks.
Cromwell's answers to the above problems teach his other great lesson. He kills the King, establishes himself as tyrant, and crushes the descent in his own ranks. The end result is that he rules till he dies in 1659, and Charles II returns to England as King. So Cromwell loses!
But Cromwell was a morale man. He did not immediately jump to any of the above answers. The King was held captive for 2 years by the English and Scots. He plotted and escaped. He was still the lands rightful king, and nothing parliament could do could alter that. Eventually in frustration Charles was executed. Which of course lead to the 2nd Civil War, and the need to invade Scotland and Ireland.
At the same time as the King was plotting in his cell, the New Model Army was self destructing. Levelers, Diggers, Constitutional Royalists, and others were vying for control. The Levelers were the strongest and most interesting to me. They believed that the country should become a republic. That there should be universal suffrage, and that there should be public education. Very radical! Cromwell did not just crush them immediately.
No, he held a public debate at Putney to hear them out. He apparently was a little sympathetic to their views. But he decided to ignore their vision and go his own way. Of course the first step on his way was to crush the radicals and purge the army! He cut himself off from new ideas, and a ready pool of leaders.
That left only ruling the country!
Cromwell experimented widely. A republic with very limited voting rights was tried a couple of times. One such parliament was dissolved when Cromwell said "Tut, tut, gentlemen. I'll stop your prating!"
So military rule was tried. The Major Generals with a national police force stopped all music, dancing and theater in the country for 10 years. But they couldn't rule. Eventually Cromwell created himself as King under the name of "Lord Protector". He found that once one went down the road of immoral force, it was hard to turn back. Immoral means can actually prevent one from reaching desired ends.
For me Cromwell's politics teach that
- 1. force is eventually self defeating.
2. National police forces can cause more danger to liberty than crime does.
3. That personal morality is irrelevant if it is not acted out in public action.
4. Accepting descent is vital if compromise is ever going to be reached.
These are pretty good lessons.
AFTERWARD
Teaching and being creative seem to me to be the real keys of leadership. We all could stand to learn more about persistence and determination, self sacrifice and courage, acceptance and grace. Those qualities make us better people, as well as potential warriors. As chivalrous ghazis we can follow good leaders, resist bad ones, and become leaders ourselves when life requires us to be.
Back to Experimental Games Group # 26 Table of Contents
Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1993 by Chris Engle
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com