War Decisions of Eisenhower - Essay Example

?Question During the war, the Mediterranean Theater was one of the important strategic points of the war. The Supreme Allied Commander of the Mediterranean Theater, General Eisenhower, was faced with many strategic decisions that ended up deciding the outcome of the war. Some of the decisions made by Eisenhower have been argued by scholars and individuals worldwide on whether they were strategically realistic for the current stage in the combat or whether they were made out of personal whims. In this part of the essay, emphasis will be placed on Eisenhower’s decisions during the war and an analysis of two of the decisions that he made will be done using Gerra’s critical thinking model. Gerras’ critical thinking model can be used extensively to discuss the decisions made by Eisenhower during the war. The critical thinking model proposes that there are many step to be considered before an individual makes a lasting decision, since there are many aspects to the decision at hand. The first major step proposed by Gerras is the issue of clarifying the concern or main problem, which in the case of Eisenhower, came in different types. Gerras’ critical thinking model can be best used to analyze Eisenhower’s decision to support Gaulle to President Roosevelt and the decision concerning General Patton’s slapping incident. An analysis of the decision on de Gaulle can reveals the critical thinking steps that Eisenhower went through to make the decision. The first step that Eisenhower took is the clarification of the concern, or the identification of the problem as applied to the current situation. The problem in this case was the infringement of politics in de Gaulle’s and Giraud’s aim to control the Free French Movement.1 The decision to be made had to be critically analyzed to determine the implications, concerns, available information, point of views, and finally, the main decision. From General Eisenhower’s point of view, he believed that the French Committee of National Liberation was in the best interest of the allies.2 The other decision made by Eisenhower was the decision concerning General Patton’s slapping incident, where Patton was accused of slapping two ill soldiers, yet Eisenhower decided to retain him as one of his top commanders. The slapping incident and the subsequent decision demonstrated Eisenhower’s critical thinking abilities. Using Gerra’s critical thinking model, many factors come up, for instance, the decision or concern was whether to fire or retain Patton. The second factor was the evaluation of the information received, Eisenhower received the information after the act had happened, and did not seriously consider firing Patton. The most important factor in the critical thinking model is the evaluation of available information. From General Patton’s case, the information that Eisenhower needed to analyze included the costs of firing and replacing Patton. After this analysis, Eisenhower decided that Patton was too valuable to the war, and thus decided to retain him, though at a position without major command. This demonstrates that Eisenhower’s decisions in the war can be demonstrated using Gerra’s critical thinking model. Question 2 An analysis of Eisenhower’s decision in the war also leans on the negative, where it can be concluded that he sometimes made unwise decisions. This part of the analysis on Eisenhower will focus on one major decision made by the General, the decision to leave Fredendall in position for too long. This decision will be analyzed using Allen and Coates (2009) decision-making model. This essay will focus on two parts of Allen and Coates models; the rational and incremental decision-making models. The rational model will be applied by considering the consequences step of the model, and the incremental model will be considered by applying one characteristic specified by the model. The rational model of decision-making is a model that can be applied to decisions that require a lot of input and thought. Eisenhower’s decision concerning Fredendall was a decision that required extensive application of the model, or at least some concept of the model before any decision was made. The main goal of the decision-making process in a war is to defeat the enemy or to advance towards enemy lines. In the decision concerning Fredendall, it is evident that Eisenhower did not utilize any decision-making model. This is because the general saw the disregard for military protocol that Fredendall displayed, and yet he left him continuing at his post. The Fredendall decision could have been done using the calculation of consequences proposed by Allan and Coates. This means that Eisenhower should have analyzed the actions of Fredendall, and after and using the model, decided that the consequences of leaving him at his post were greater than the consequences of relieving him (Fredendall). This decision is arrived at after considering the facts of the case, Fredendall was lazy and sloppy, and leaving him as a commander at his post would lead to defeat or disrespect from his subordinates. Conversely, an analysis of the same decision using the incremental model proposed by Allan and Coates reveals that Eisenhower might have had some ulterior motive. The model proposed by Allan and Coates decides that sometimes, a decision is better made in small bits, where the overall leader analyzes the factors and makes the decisions in small analytical increments. 3 The decision by Eisenhower concerning Fredendall can be said to conform to this model since the commander was left to run the battle from his place. In this instance, the process of decision-making is slowed down instead of being done abruptly. The decision-making process is focused on some issues, getting the right facts, and making slow decision. This avoids monumental military losses if the decisions that are made are wrong. Applying this model to the Fredendall case, it is evident that General Eisenhower might have applied some elements of the incremental model; the fact that decisions are sometimes made in reaction to a situation, and the fact that outcomes are determined by political outcomes. The decision by Eisenhower to leave Fredendall in his command demonstrates an application of the incremental model of decision-making. Question 3 Strategic leadership is an important part of any venture, since it helps in the development of a vision for the venture. The development of a strategic vision is important for driving organizational change and developing transition in the strategic environment. The strategic leadership primer states that strategic leaders help in the attainment of the organization’s vision by controlling policies and strategies, allocation of resources, uniting of stakeholders, and determining the environment4. The development of organizational change is, therefore, focused on the aspects of the organization mentioned above, since the organization is an interrelation of many factors. The military can also be studied like a contemporary organization; therefore, this essay will discuss Eisenhower’s ability to lead organizational change in relation to the development of a strategic vision and communication of goals and objectives both inside and outside the military. The determination of a strategic vision for an organization is usually influenced by the changes in organization culture, behaviors, and demographics. In this case, the strategic vision of an organization refers to the strategic goals and objectives that guide the organization, employees, and leaders, a statement that is developed by the overall leader of the organization. The decisions that Eisenhower had to make concerning the forces included the lack of resources for the war, the reducing morale in the soldiers, and constant failure that did not help in raising morale. This necessitated the development of an effective strategic vision for the forces, a fact that the leader pursued zealously. As a controller of the war, the strategic visions developed by Eisenhower were particularly important for the forces. Resource allocation, including troops, food and weapons, was a task that required the development of personal traits of strategies, a task that Eisenhower completed. The organization that Eisenhower developed and monitored was the armed forces, and as a General, he was tasked with the development of effective goals for the forces. The strategic development of an organization requires the communication of definite goals both inside and outside the organization, and an analysis of Eisenhower’s strategic vision reveals that this factor was adequately covered. The strategic vision put forward by Eisenhower was continually communicated to the organization and outside as a factor of the strategic process. This was done by ensuring that all factions of the forces accomplished their missions, therefore, ensuring that there was enough communication of the forces’ vision and goals. The goals developed by an organization are meant to strengthen the attainment of the strategic vision objectives, which in the case of Eisenhower, was to have a truly allied force for the whole offensive. This goal was efficiently communicated both inside and outside the armed forces by trying to achieve the objective; Eisenhower continually tried to achieve a completely allied force that would be able to overrun the enemy. In the end, the strategic goal of the armed forces was finally achieved, a factor that can only be attributed to the effective communication process. Works Cited Allen, Charles, and Coates, B. Strategic Decision Making Paradigms: A Primer for Senior Leaders, 2009. D’Este, Caro. Eisenhower: A Soldier’s Life, 2003. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Gerras, Stephen. Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking: A Fundamental Guide for Strategic Leaders, 2006. Gerras, Stephen. Strategic Leadership Primer, 2010. Department of Command, Leadership, and Management, United States Army War College. Read More