General Patton's Leadership Essay

His Speech to the Third Army starts off in an almost lighthearted tone, “Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight” (1). This general mood is kept throughout Patton's speech, including an excess of profanity. Unlike a formal address to a similarly large audience, Patton's way of speaking and structure of words is akin to that of close friends, or soldiers talking in the barracks. As Patton continues to speak, he frequently brings up the importance of a team and the role a soldier has as unit. Even if you are the lowest on the totem pole, he believed that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If every man did his job with the

supporting them in their work as well as providing oversight. All directives given from me will be clear,

George Patton was a unique person.A boy who problems at school, a general who claimed victory and got into trouble, and a one the greatest heroes of World War 2.Patton was very colorful and original.He was considered a very successful general.He was not like any

At the end of the day, a true leader “in the army will do these three things live by the army core values, know the warrior ethos, and lead by example”-MSI textbook. Leaders both in and out of the army are held to a higher standard holding themselves in a professional manner at all times. The success of the group is attributed to the leadership styles and core values instilled in the solider to do his job effectively. General Eisenhower once

One important expression for army leadership is BE-KNOW-DO. Army leadership begins with what the leader must BE, the values and attributes that shape character. A leader can think of these as internal and defining qualities possessed all the time. As defining qualities, they make up the identity of the leader. Values and attributes are the same for all leaders, regardless of position, although refined through experience and assumption of positions of greater responsibility. For example, a sergeant major with combat experience may have a deeper understanding of selfless service and personal courage than a new soldier.

Being a professional soldier goes a long way. It means a person take pride in everything they do throughout life. It takes a lot of energy and time to earn this title so upholding its standard is a must. A soldier abides by all his and her codes and creeds. Also, the soldier must follow the army set values. There are seven values and all have a significant importance to our nation; loyalty, duty, respect, selfless-service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. These seven values are all a soldier needs to be professional in the army. Following each of them and executing them will build your character and define you as a soldier and a person.

Leadership can be viewed in many different ways and possess many different qualities. There are courageous leaders, respectful leaders, terrible leaders, and seemingly insignificant leaders but leaders nonetheless. But what is it that differentiates between a strong leader and a weak leader, or a powerful leader and an insignificant one? Is it the qualities in the leader or the decisions they make in key situations that define good leadership qualities? Some would define a good leader by their ability to do the right thing even if it is not the easiest choice. Others might define a good leader as one that possesses great integrity and leads by example. The military possesses many great leaders through a process of development and molding individuals to meet expected leadership qualities like honor, courage, commitment and integrity to accomplish any mission or goal. However, this process doesn’t always create the desired effect. So, let’s examine some good and bad examples of leadership qualities and break down what and how we can emulate them.

Patton was in charge of a fake army set up in southern France to be used as a diversion. He

There are a number of qualities that quantify good leaderships and good leaders. According to Kouzes and Posner in their book The Leadership Challenge, all successful leaders have (5) practices in common. They “Model the Way”, “Inspire a shared vision”, “Challenge the process”, “enable others to act” and “encourage the heart”(15). Never is there a more important time to have exemplary leadership, than in a time of war. Both the American Civil War and World War II showed what was possible through good leadership. From abolishing slavery and preserving the Union, to fighting tyranny and oppression abroad, both events in American history had a profound impact on all those involved. The impact would most certainly be different if not for the leadership of Colonel Lawrence Chamberlain of the Union Army during the Civil War and General George S. Patton during World War II. Both leaders possessed the 5 practices essential for god leadership, yet both leaders to different approaches to accomplish their goals.

“Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching” (qtd in The Official, Quotes). The quote was said by the mighty General George S. Patton, and the quote also sums up his personality. Patton was a man with a family tree of fighters. In about every war the U.S. has been in before World War I, Patton’s family was there to fight. Before World War I, Patton had experience fighting and trying to find Poncho Villa, in Mexico. After the Villa thing, Patton served in World War I, as amazing tank commander against the Central Powers. Since Patton has gotten familiar with warfare, he put his experience to good use in one of the greatest wars in the

From a fiercely brave General, who strictly enforces customs, bravery, formalities, and success; to a General with a lighthearted-mood, down to earth attitude, a steadfast courage, and a integrity and decency to lead the nations of the world into battle; while both these legendary Generals fought on the same side, both General S. Patton and General D. Eisenhower were distinctly different Generals. This paper seeks to outline the differences and similarities between the two Generals by taking a close look at their lives, and the impacts they had on WWII.

Throughout history our country has had many leaders. Whether you’re the leader of a business, military platoon, or the leader of our great nation you were withheld with the honor and trust to govern the actions and best interests of fellow Americans. But just because you have achieved the title of a leader does not by default make you a good leader. A good leader is a person who has risen above and beyond to show cooperation, perseverance, and respect to decisions made by those still above you at one point in time. “As a seasoned member of the military, you’ve risen through the ranks because you understood your mission and performed your duties with distinction. At this stage of your career, your most important contribution may be how well you take care of the service members and

A transformational leaders has several aspects and forms. Patton was people orientated, he would inspire his troops using intellectual leadership when talking to them. He implemented the qualities of an accolade leader by praising his troops when they’ve done good. However, Patton would approach his leadership on the heroic side. Burn’s portrays a

Born November 11, 1885 in San Gabriel, California, General George Smith Patton, Jr. was one of the most complicated, yet greatest leaders in military history. On June 11, 1909, he attended the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) for a year and then to the United States Military Academy at West Point where he commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the 15th cavalry Regiment. Growing up, Patton’s ultimate life goal was to become a hero and a successful leader. In Robert B. Williamson’s book, “General Patton’s Principles for Life & Leadership”, the author takes a personal account of Patton’s principles which he lived and fought for. These main principles consisted of the following: Leadership,

Patton and Montgomery were nearly uncontrollable and self-aggrandizing. But both were brilliant in the field. Eisenhower had to find a way to win their cooperation in spite of the fact that neither would be allowed to run the overall operation as they wanted. Patton was given an almost insulting yet critical role of being the diversion that kept Hitler’s eyes off the western beaches. (Later, he would be given control of US ground troops, a role he coveted almost as much as Montgomery’s role.) Montgomery’s constant, vocal advocation of a “spear-thrust” through France to Berlin had to be sidelined in order to prevent the Allies from making the same mistake in Europe that Hitler was making in Russia, i.e. extending the troops too far away from their support troops and supply lines. Managing these egos was a monumental task, and there weren’t many who could manage it as adeptly as Eisenhower did.