Introduction
Leadership is “the ability to lead…to direct the course of, by going before or along with” (Neufeldt, 1991). True leaders are more than men who have a commanding presence or attain greatness through achievement; leaders have character and integrity that endure challenging situations, obstacles and the passage of time. The men who are true leaders exemplify this ability to lead, direct and support by being the example of what they instruct others to do. Robert E. Lee was one of history’s most celebrated leaders. His self-proclaimed aim, to achieve “the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed,” reveals his commitment to personal greatness (Crocker, 1999).
An examination of Lee’s approach to leadership will reveal a very reserved but successful style. It will further show how his success is directly tied to the Biblical principles that he emulated. A study of both current and foundational leadership theories will prove what a great leader Robert E. Lee was, not only historically but with regards to the concerns and theories that are prevalent today. Even in light of current issues, Lee’s life and example remain superlative rather than outdated. As is the case with all true leaders, Lee not only exercised power, but empowered those around him.
Robert E. Lee’s Approach to Leadership
Lee’s approach to leadership was very modest. General Lee focused more on introspection than extroversion. Lee’s first standard was always personal excellence; he held himself to a standard of rigid self-control, which he expected to see in those who would lead under him. He also gained the admiration of his peers for his faithfulness in following orders and going beyond the call of duty to empower others. Lee’s approach to leadership was service driven; nothing he did was egocentric, but in everything he sought the betterment of others. Although his standards were exacting, all who served under him praised his approach to leadership.
Following his graduation from West Point, he received his first command as an officer and implemented his personal standards on those in the ranks beneath him. He was known to withhold commissions and promotions with the explanation that “I cannot consent to place in the control of others one who cannot control himself” (Long, 1983). Rightly so, Lee was determined to live as an example and hold others only to standards that he personally maintained. His belief was that one should illustrate the standard he meant to uphold, and should be found faithful before expecting the same of others.
Captain Robert Edward Lee served well in the Mexican War and gained notice because “the compliments won him were deserved- that he was active, untiring, skillful, courageous, and of good judgment…making roads over difficult routes” (Long, 1983). Lee was observed by those around him to be an asset and those in authority over him took note of the way he was aptly regarded as a leader by his peers. Never doing only what was asked of him, Captain Lee quickly became a colonel and then a general because of his faithful obedience and extra effort. It was Lee’s support of his commanding officers and his respect for his fellow soldiers that made him admired by both.
Lee’s desire to offer his service to those both in authority over him and in subjection to him was a large part of his successful leadership approach. During the Civil War, confederate President Jefferson Davis liked to be intricately involved in all decisions. Certain generals, General Joseph E. Johnston in particular, avoided interaction with the president as they liked to be in control and make the final decisions. General Lee, however, respected Davis’ position and deferred to his authority. Lee believed that “you cannot be a true man until you learn to obey” (Robert E. Lee, 2007). Through his regular communication and open attitude, Lee gained the unswerving trust of Davis and was granted the freedom to make any decision he wished. It was Lee’s acceptance of authority and understanding that Davis was ultimately in control that allowed him to act as an extension of the president. In essence, Davis empowered Lee; President Davis trusted Lee because of his willingness to be accountable and after Lee had proven himself, the president entrusted many important decisions into Lee’s capable hands.
Another situation in which Lee’s propensity for service is to be noted is in studying post-war times. Lee was one of the first men to sign a pledge of allegiance to the newly born United States; he did this to prove his dedication to the leadership above him. Lee not only led the south in unity towards the new government, he also tried to train the next generation to be men of ideals and loyalty. In his role as president of Washington College, Lee gave of his own personal shares of stock so that all young men would have the opportunity for college, whether they had financial support or not. The General succeeded in his goal of knowing every student by sight and name. His intimate knowledge of the workings of the college enabled him to assist the students in tailoring their education to suit their post-graduation goals.
There are varied approaches to leadership and many leaders have several tactics based upon the situations in which they find themselves. Robert E. Lee, however, demanded of himself a standard of consistent excellence. His drive to be found faithful in all things led to his propensity for empowerment; Lee understood how to submit to authority as well as how to wield it so that men over and under him alike found themselves enabled. Lastly, Lee’s goal to serve made him the recipient of respect and honor, as well as the instigator of great accomplishment.
Robert E. Lee’s Leadership in Light of Scripture
Robert E. Lee’s amazing propensity for leadership was largely based upon his Christian upbringing. Lee had a very simple understanding of human nature taught to him by his Episcopalian parents; men were born into sin and to expect otherwise from them was to expect to be disappointed. In spite of this, however, a Christian -and a southern gentleman- needed to rise above this through self-discipline. It is also to be noted that Lee did not view power as something to be attained; rather, he saw it as a gift through which many men allowed themselves to be corrupted. Lastly, it was Lee’s imitation of Christ’s example as a servant that saturated his service and prayer life that set him apart. It was these basic traits that allowed Lee to be such an inspiration to those he led and to be an effective leader.
Understanding that man is sinful was a foundational thought for Lee’s leadership style. He never expected men to be perfect, and did not allow himself to be shocked when they failed. Rather, he spent his time teaching them to overcome their penchant for sin and how to rise above their baser instincts. “He knew the challenge of leadership was to understand the fallen nature of man and succeed in spite of it” (Crocker, 1999). Lee knew that the “spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” and viewed men accordingly (Mt 26:41).
His parents and his church, however, taught Lee that although he should hold no expectations on others, he should hold himself to a higher standard. Lee’s self-discipline kept his troops safe through the war and made certain that he and those around him did not falter during Reconstruction. Lee once told a mother to teach her son to deny himself. The very heart of Christianity is denying oneself (Mt 16:24). It was this lack of arrogance and self-importance that inspired others to follow Lee through the many ups and downs of southern life.
Lee’s view of power was perhaps his most admirable trait. He was often referred to as a ‘reluctant leader’ because he did not seek out that authority (Blount, 2003). Rather, he found himself a leader because he empowered others. Christ did the same when he told his disciples that they should be holy as He was (1 Pe 1:16), that they should love as He loved (Jn 15:12), and that they would do greater things than He (Jn 14:12). It is this empowerment of others that give true leaders their power. Like Christ, he made certain that his leading was through action more than word. It was said of Lee by his authorities in the Mexican War when he was a mere captain that he “enabled the commanding general to give orders” (Long, 1983). A man who knows the genuine heart of submission and lives to empower others can himself be a great leader through his humility rather than a display of might.
Scripture’s greatest example of leadership is that of Christ Himself. The ultimate servant leader, He sacrificed even His own life and led by example the principles He wished to instill in those who would come after Him (Mk 10:45). Lee’s men were so inspired by his humility and his integrity that they respected the man, even more than they did the General. On three separate occasions it has been recorded that when Lee tried to lead his men into battle rather than directing them from behind as was customary of other generals, the men refused to go forward. They insisted that he go to the rear and protect his own life (Jones, 1880). Only a man who continually laid his life on the line without thought of reward could command such intense loyalty. When Lee corresponded with the Board of Trustees at Washington College to explain what he thought the key role of the president should be, he wrote that “it is particularly incumbent on those charged with the instruction of the young to set them an example of submission to authority” (Long, 1983).
Also in the pattern of Christ, Lee was a man devoted to prayer (1 Thes 5:17). His relationship with God was no less important to him than his relationship with his family, his troops or the students in his college. Lee continually sought the guidance of God and prayed for His will and His intervention. Lee prayed for his family, his friends, his fellow warriors and even his enemies. It has been recorded that Lee even stopped in the midst of battle to spend time in prayer. Lee’s personal mediation was “Help me to be, to think, to act what is right because it is right; make me truthful, honest, and honorable in all things; make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and honor and without thought of reward to me” (Robert E. Lee, 2007).
Lee took to heart Christ’s admonitions to “love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you” (Lk 6:27-28). In fact, he took a public stance when others denounced northern aggression or expressed bitterness over the defeat of the confederacy. The General once said, “I have fought against the people of the North…but I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them” (Long, 1983).
Leadership Theories as They Pertain to Robert E. Lee
Bolman and Deal point out that “leadership arises in response to a need”. They go on to point out that the concept of leadership is somewhat “elusive” because it varies not only from situation to situation, but also from “one historical time to another” (1991). As leadership theories have changed and grown, so the type of leader that is perceived as good and effective has evolved. From the Great Man and Trait theories of the early twentieth century to the Contingency and Transformational Theories that are current, Lee has withstood the test of time. Primarily, it is for his military presence that Lee is well-known today. However, Lee was also a man who was followed and revered as an individual in his day because of his personal leadership style.
It was in the early part of the twentieth century that leadership focused on the person with the authority, rather than the results they rendered. The Great Man theory asserts that leaders are born, not made. Those who surrounded Lee did not see him as someone who had the potential to become a leader, nor was he someone who learned to direct men; authority and empowerment were intrinsic to his being. Using the Trait Approach, Lee would be considered a leader of amazing qualifications (Bolden, et al, 2003). In the war, he was found to be dependable, dominant, consistent, clever, tactful and strategic. Lee was also very clear in explaining his strategies and their outcomes, ensuring that those under his command were able to succeed in what he laid before them (Crocker, 1999).
In today’s society, this would make him very popular according to the Contingency Theory of Leadership, specifically the Hershey-Blanchard Model of Leadership. In this theory, the focus is on identifying what the challenges or variables might be in any given situation and fitting the leader to the need. The focus is on equipping the subordinates for the task, the relationship of the authority to the team and the maturity of the leader (Bolden, et al, 2003). Robert E. Lee believed strongly in identifying the challenges that were set before him and making sure that the men sent in to handle them were fully equipped. In fact, when he was offered the job as president of Washington College, Lee’s initial response was to decline. He very clearly outlined what he believed to be the requirements for a person who held such an office and showed his own shortcomings. The Board responded with their expectations, showing Lee that he was indeed the person they sought. Only after satisfying himself that he could meet the standards for presidency would Lee accept.
It is the opinion of this author that the men who served under General Lee would also support him as a Transformational Leader. Lee’s goal in life was to always say that he had done all he could and he transferred that thought to the men under him. The focus of Transformational Leadership is change; the change of the individual as well as the organization so that both will be ultimately effective is key. Lee’s actions revealed his transformational focus throughout his lifestyle of leadership. Prior to the war, Lee’s focus was on changing himself. He went from a headstrong and carefree young man to that of a responsible husband and businessman. During the war, he took passionate southerners and helped them become valiant soldiers. During Reconstruction, Lee used his influence to convince the men of the south to unify and show support for the new United States. While he was president of Washington College, Lee helped young men find their own talents and tailor their academic career to their giftings and goals.
Lee’s leadership was great because he took his own advice: “Do your duty in all things…You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less” (Crocker, 1999). Virtually every leadership theory proves Lee’s effectiveness and success as a leader, in his day and in light of current theories. His personal leadership style set him apart from those of his time and even leaders today. Above all, however, it was his character that that set Lee apart as a remarkable leader. In a society of situational ethics, a man with absolute mores is hard to find.
Current Issues in Light of Past Leadership
In the twenty-first century, traditional views of leadership are discounted and a leader is viewed from standards that are less absolute than in previous decades. Leadership success is currently based upon several factors, one of which is the success of the endeavors of that leader. Another primary issue in leadership today is vision. In addition, ethical behavior among leaders is a crucial issue facing today’s society. Studying the life of Robert E. Lee in light of these issues, it is obvious that even today his leadership would be considered superlative.
Result-based leadership holds many perils. If a leader is judged primarily on his output, then it gives license for questionable methods to yield a desired result. A good safe guard against this pitfall is solid accountability. As General Lee fully submitted himself to the scrutiny of President Davis for guidance and insight, even when he felt it was not needed, so the leaders of today should have a board or other structure that holds them responsible for their actions. Lee’s character was remarkable. Character is not situational, and what makes Robert E. Lee stand out from other men who were equally successful in times of war and trial is that he was constant. As a man, a husband, a friend, a father and a general he was a man of character. In a letter to his son, Lee said “you must study to be frank with the world…never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one…above all else, do not appear to others what you are not” (Crocker, 1999, p. 187). This advice, given freely, was powerful because it had been lived before it was taught. A true leader shows the proper course of action with ethical deeds long before he utters a word.
There is much focus in organizations today for vision. According to Proverbs 29:18, “where there is no vision the people perish.” Businesses, churches and even schools now have vision casting teams to analyze their current state and to explore where they would like to be in the future. Lee saw the end of the war as inevitable; the unknown factor was who would emerge the victor. In understanding that he could not guarantee a southern victory, Lee instead focused his vision on each battle and each individual course of action that was taken. In the same way that vision is a focus today so that organizations can determine their end goal, so Lee cast his own vision. He was determined to lead his men safely and with honesty, so that at the end of the war they would be proud of their decisions. Likewise, in his presidency of Washington College, Lee’s vision for a flourishing south found itself being nurtured as he poured into each young man the potential for individual greatness.
Ethical behavior is perhaps the most obvious issue facing leaders today. Many deals are completed on a golf course of over dinner, while board rooms provide the formalities required. Lee never dealt behind a man’s back, nor would he ever stoop to speaking out of turn about a leader. Once, when confronted by President Davis about some rumors of malcontent, Lee replied that he could answer only for himself. He assured the leader of the confederacy of his loyalty and admiration and mentioned that those who were in contact with him would be assured of Lee’s support for the President. Lee believed in being frank and true to oneself (Crocker, 1999).
Every age in history has leadership issues. Some are timeless, like those of ethics and behavior. Others, such as vision, are relatively young. However, true leadership qualities are enduring. Lee’s attachment to the moral course of action would make him revered in any time. Likewise, his ability to look towards the future and anticipate repercussions would serve him well no matter where he found himself. The foundational element of integrity that was revealed through his moral dealings in all situations was perhaps his greatest achievement. It is this commitment that made him equal to face any leadership issues.
Conclusion
Robert E. Lee has been admired by many. There have been books and articles and letters written that speak highly of the man, the general, the president, the father, the husband and the Christian. After his death, John Mitchell published an tribute to Lee that that said America would be shocked “to find that there is such a gap, such a blank in the world” (Long, 1983). Lee truly fits the definition of a leader; he went before his troops, walked alongside the men in his command, and directed many young men to greatness by his teaching and example.
Lee’s greatness was not in his power, but in his ability to empower others. Even when placed under scrutiny in light of current leadership issues, Lee is found to be an exemplary man. Leadership theories prove that his style was effective and timeless. General Lee was a faithful steward of all he was given and Biblical principles were prevalent in all of his decision. Although his was a meek and unpresumptuous approach to leadership, he was nonetheless very effective and compelling.
References
Blount, Roy Jr. (2003). Robert E. Lee. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc.
Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., & Dennison, P. (2003). A review of leadership theory
and competency frameworks. Center for Leadership Studies: University of Exeter.
Bolman, Lee and Deal, T. (1991). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crocker III, H.W. (1999). Robert E. Lee on leadership: executive lessons in character, courage,
and vision. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing.
Jones, J. William. (1880, January). General Lee to the rear! Southern Historical Society Papers,
Vol. 8 (1).
Long, A.L., (1983). Memoirs of Robert E. Lee. Secaucus, NJ: The Blue and Grey Press.
Neufeldt, Victoria (Ed.). (1991). Webster’s new world dictionary (3rd ed.). New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Robert E. Lee (n.d.) retrieved on January 23, 2007 from:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/About%20the%20General.htm
All Scriptures cited come from the King James Version
