Three major central lessons in preparing and strengthening a leader’s judgment
The first central lesson is that a leader should understand the enemy. In McNamara’s chronicles, it becomes clear that it is important for a leader, when preparing and strengthening his/her judgment particularly in the area of crisis and conflict, to empathize with the enemy. For instance, McNamara notes that the Soviet Union expressed its willingness to withdraw its missiles from Cuba if the US promised not to invade (Holden 48).
However, the Soviet Union immediately indicated that it would respond forcefully to any US attacks, thus placing President Kennedy in a conundrum. However, Tommy Thompson, the then American ambassador to Russia, persuaded President Kennedy not to attack, as failure to attack would prompt Krushev to withdraw missiles from Cuba, and thus boast of saving Cuba from American attack. Such a move amounts to empathizing with one’s enemies by reading their motives and minds.
The second key lesson is to maximize efficiency. During a crisis, a leader should focus on his/her strengths to reap maximum returns on any decision made. For instance, McNamara was solely responsible for the massive bombings of Japan during his command at the 58th Bomb Wing flying planes. The US had the opportunity of crippling Japan using aerial bombings and McNamara seized this opportunity, maximized on its efficiency, and bombed Japan, which ultimately placed the US at an advantage in the war.
Thirdly, the last central lesson is that one cannot change human nature. Conventionally, the Fog of War exposes the view that human nature is complex and this aspect complicates the nature of the crisis. McNamara notes that wars will continue to occur courtesy of the complicated nature of human beings and thus leaders preparing and strengthening their judgment during a crisis should appreciate this aspect.
McNamara’s strengths and weaknesses as a leader
One of McNamara’s strengths is that he was a strategic leader. For instance, he commended Tommy Thompson’s efforts to convince President Kennedy not to invade Cuba. Being a strategic leader, McNamara knew that an invasion would not move the country towards the right direction of restoring peace in Cuba (Shapley 249). In addition, McNamara’s strong education background and experience amount to leadership strength.
Being an assistant professor at the prestigious Harvard University was a plus to his strengths as a leader. Finally, the last outstanding McNamara’s leadership strength is the ability to think critically through a crisis. For instance, concerning the Gulf of Tonkin incident, amongst the many generals, McNamara is the only person who believed that probably a second attack had not happened. Therefore, in the decision-making on whether to send more troops after the alleged attack, McNamara was made the right suggestion that there was no need of more troops. Unfortunately, the Joint Chiefs overruled his decision, but they were wrong, and he was right courtesy of his critical thinking capabilities.
However, in spite of espousing numerous strengths as a leader, McNamara had several weaknesses. His greatest weakness was that he was a dictator, and thus intolerant to other people’s opinions. For instance, he could not withstand LBJ and instead of reconciling their differences as leaders, McNamara opted to step down. He did not give different opinions a chance and his decisions were always right. Consequently, he could not accept his mistakes. For instance, he never admitted that he was wrong on the Vietnam War. Instead, he shifted the blame to the president yet it was clear that he was amongst the president’s chief advisors on the issue.
Leading the leader
If I were working under McNamara during his tenure as the Secretary of Defense, I would have focused on assisting him overcome his weaknesses by commending his strengths. Salacuse (94) posits that the best way to advise a leader is to address his mistakes through the lenses of his strengths. On the Vietnam issue, I would use the Cuban confrontation to remind him of the importance of listening to other people’s views.
As aforementioned, Tommy Thompson saw the Cuban US-USSR confrontation from a different perspective. President Kennedy never thought of the possibility of refraining from invading Cuba as an option especially after the Soviet Union indicated that it would retaliate forcefully in case of an invasion. However, Thompson ultimately convinced the president that aborting the invasion would achieve the very results that the invasion sought to achieve. While the invasion would not have guaranteed the withdrawal of the Soviet Union missiles in Cuba, the failure to invade would achieve that goal, as Krushev was more concerned with his reputation of saving Cuba than engaging in a confrontation. Similarly, I would use the same approach to advise McNamara by letting him see the importance of listening to the divergent views of other people on the Vietnam issue.
I would also use his belief that one should reexamine his or her reasoning for the higher good. By reexamining his reasoning, I would highlight how easy it was to defuse the LBJ situation and have the two fellows work together as a team. I would remind him of how the Joint Chiefs were wrong on the Gulf of Tonkin incidence and he was right, but then they overruled his thinking. I would point that the same scenario may happen if, as a leader, he does not listen to the opinions of others in the team.
Works Cited
Holden, Stephen. “The Fog of War: Revisiting McNamara and the War he headed.” The New York Times. 2003: 48. Print.
Salacuse, Jeswad. Leading Leaders: How to Manage Smart, Talented, Rich, and Powerful People, New York: American Management Association, 2006. Print.
Shapley, Deborah. Promise and Power: The Life and Times of Robert McNamara, Collingdale: Diane Pub Co., 1993. Print.