Leadership as Seen Through Cornwallis

Leadership as Seen through Cornwallis Organizational leadership requires a sensible balance between commitment to the strategic interests of a business and to the human interests of the business. Indeed, research and experiential evidence will tend to demonstrate that there is a symbiotic relationship between these aspects of organizational orientation which suggests that effective strategy must inherently consider the implications of the experience of the personnel who will implement said strategy. Using the lessons denoted by James Buchanan's unique historical narrative on the subject of the American War for Independence and underscoring these with expected core competencies associated with leadership in the perspective of the United States, we will draw conclusions regarding the quality of leadership as derived from vision, culture, communication and team orientation. Ultimately, this will contribute to a discussion on the recommended needs for leadership to remain abreast of a fast changing and unendingly rigorous challenges of military service. A focus on the life and service of British counter- independence General, Lord Charles of Cornwallis as discussed by Buchanan will show that the core competencies offered by Army Field Manual 6-22 (FM6- 22), entitled Army Leadership are somewhat timeless and universal in nature. The cross-section found in these two sources will help to fulfill a need for recommendations for the military leadership scenario. Buchanan's text is a remarkable take on a story often told, honing a sharp focus on a significant campaign waged by the British during the American War for Independence. With a specific attention paid to the leaders who alternatively served to benefit or obstruct the British efforts at preventing American independence, Buchanan relays the events transpiring by sea and land in the Carolinas. Here, under the mutual but ultimately deeply conflictive relationship between Generals Cornwallis and his immediate superior officer in Commander in Chief, Sir Henry Clinton, the British army would engage one of its most tenacious and decisive attempts at swaying American fortunes. As the Buchanan text articulately details the characters and conflicts which consumed the faltering British army, it also succeeds in relaying concepts of leadership that resonate in the discourse on army leadership today. As Buchanan expresses of Cornwallis and his ilk, "there is an inborn subtlety to leadership that those who do not possess it never understand." (Buchanan, 79) Perhaps it is in this unique distinction that we may find the definitive interest of military personnel determination. In those whom leadership is naturally occurring such as our discussion subject, there is a drive and an instinct which together vibrate in unison with military tactical and philosophical aims. The unique orientation of the military allows for the evaluation of leadership according to the balance which one is able to achieve in "balancing the care of followers against mission requirements so they are a productive resource." (DoA, 67) According to the unique demands of the military context, broad and multidimensional responsibilities determine that the leadership displayed by one will be stitched into a much larger fabric of action. So was this true for Cornwallis, who must bear the dubious association of his side's historical failure to retain the American colonies even as evidence suggests that his best efforts were extended as exemplary traits of leadership. Certainly, as Buchanan reports, "it is also a measure of his leadership that in all the actions in which we have observed him his militia performed like seasoned regulars." (Buchanan, 190) This relationship between leader and organizational members is an expected demand of the military. Perhaps more surprising and pleasing with consideration of unique anecdotal detail of the Buchanan text is the core competency listed by the military requiring "the ability to operate in an environment, encompassing higher and lower command structures, and using one's influence outside the traditional chain of command." (DoA, 67) This means that a leader is expected even such formally and bureaucratically impacted contexts to hold a certain degree of freedom extended from his own unique insights and skills. That is to denote that the mere quality of being a leader is often justification for one to appeal to his ingenuity. Given the unprecedented nature of the siege on the Carolinas which ultimately failed the British in their broader ambition of preserving authority in the colonies, it may said that Cornwallis would have to possess this capacity for tactical innovation. In a certain respect, the Buchanan text reveals to us a proclivity toward such in his military upbringing. In this regard, it is said that he was in some measure unconventionally brash, "but that has never been a barrier to successful leadership in irregular warfare." (Buchanan, 140) Quite to the contrary it was this ambition that would allow him to climb the ranks of British command and ultimately to supercede Clinton in commanding the ill-fated troops who would surrender to the American rebels. To an extent made certain by his viable and respectable service, Cornwallis demonstrates that pride which may be taken in leadership under the duress of failure and defeat. For as the various and prodigious tasks intended to carry the British effort met with failure or disappointment, his ambition, influence and creativity would be crucial forces to retaining a struggling effort. Regrouping, retooling and leading in the face of insurmountable odds all are qualities essential to effective leadership, particularly in the military context where setbacks and adversity are an everyday part of the job.