Air University Review, November-December 1981

A Korean's Perception of a Leadership Profile

Throughout history many great leaders have been cited for their outstanding qualities of leadership. Each was very effective in his time, but each seems to vary from the others in a variety of ways. What personal characteristics did these leaders have in common that enabled them to rise above others? If these traits could be discovered, then other men might be attuned to become leaders. Many studies have been done, but they ultimately conclude that there is no complete set of traits that categorizes these great leaders.

Recently I read Edgar F. Puryear’s Nineteen Stars, which is a study of military character and the leadership of four distinguished American military leaders during World War II: Generals MacArthur, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Patton.* Each of these men had distinctive idiosyncrasies yet contrasting traits. General MacArthur can be described as an autocratic figure, General Patton a driving figure, General Eisenhower a humanitarian figure, and General Marshall a bureaucratic figure. While these characteristics stand in isolation, the men themselves had the common values of duty-mindedness, devotion to country, empathy toward the people they served, and self-confidence. All were concerned with their physical fitness, all were excellent speakers, and all were intelligent and decisive.

*Edgar F. Puryear, Jr., Nineteen Stars (Orange, Virginia: Green Publishers, Inc., 1971).

There is a Korean axiom suggesting four virtues for a successful general (military commander):

"Shin" ([sic]): Physique, appearance.

"On" ([sic]): Eloquence, communication.

"So" ([sic]): Intelligence, wisdom.

"Pahn" ([sic]): Judgment, insight.

In my study of the four generals in Nineteen Stars, each so different yet each so much alike, there appear virtues expressed in the ancient history of Korea. These virtues represent a cumulation of values resulting in the integrity of the individual. While integrity is considered an intangible factor, it is nonetheless the foundation of the leader’s character that distinguishes him from other men. Integrity is the foremost quality of most successful military leaders. My analysis of integrity leads me back to the Korean axiom, beginning with "Shin" ([sic]).

"Shin" (Physique, appearance): "Shin" refers to one’s physical features, health, and appearance. The premise of his thought is "a sound mind in a sound body"; i.e., mens sana in corpore sano—Juvenal. A person’s physical features can complement his leadership; the man of poor physique, unkempt appearance, and an altogether unpleasant personality can never be a leader of others. A leader is expected to be a model his subordinates will either look up to or emulate. Pride in his physical appearance and meticulousness in dress and grooming standards are the first tools of his trade. A leader will convey by his appearance an image of competence and authority. His appearance will also be a reflection of dignity and concern for himself and others. Careful personal grooming was exhibited by all four generals in the book. For example, MacArthur never wore fatigues; he always wore his khaki uniform. Patton always wore a freshly pressed uniform and shining boots. The generals had an overriding concern with making a conspicuous and symbolic image: MacArthur and his corn pipe, Eisenhower and his "Ike" jacket, Patton with his decorated pistol and his highly polished helmet. Mentally and physically, inwardly and outwardly a leader must be concerned with how he projects his image.

"On" ([sic]Eloquence, communication): Again the four generals in question were by nature or by training all possessed of the ability to communicate their ideas via the spoken word. The quality of relation that a leader is able to establish with his subordinates is a reflection of his own values and beliefs as well as how he assesses the willingness and capabilities of his staff and the requirements of the situation. Leadership involves establishing rapport between the leader and his subordinates. Therefore, unless he can convey his ideas effectively and convincingly to his men, they will be nothing more than ideas, never acted on. This does not mean one-way communication. An effective leader reaches out to his subordinates by directing their activities and responding to their needs. Reaching out naturally entails risk—of being rejected, of being wrong, of being used. A leader needs confidence in himself. He needs to acquire both knowledge and skill, but he also needs to accept the fact he can get support, respect, and acceptance from others. Exchange is a two-way process. "You give and you get." He must develop his ability to listen and to hear what is being expressed with an open mind. To enhance communication, listening is as important as speaking. A good leader should know when to talk and how to listen to his men. Sometimes less speaking creates more eloquence. Reserved listening promotes a mystique of the leader which can be interpreted in an individual way. In fact, according to Korean custom, composure and reserve are the virtues of a master. A leader should be eloquent yet modest, to encourage his people to express themselves freely. One of the most important attributes for a leader is not to give the impression of being talkative and saying nothing.

"So" ([sic]Intelligence, wisdom): A leader will be concerned with broad-based intelligence. He will seek to expand his knowledge and not merely be satisfied with limited information gathering. Since leadership is "the act of influencing and directing men in such a way as to obtain their willing obedience, confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in order to accomplish the objective of the organization,"* unless a leader has expertise in his field, it is impossible for him to perceive the situation, thereby failing to influence his subordinates. A leader should be knowledgeable as far as his duty is concerned; therefore, he should always be consistent in broadening the spectrum of his knowledge. Knowledge in itself is not intelligence. Intelligence is concerned chiefly with the wisdom of the application of knowledge. Unless your knowledge is applicable in implementing your leadership, it will be of no use. Quite often we see a very knowledgeable officer fail to be a good leader, indicating his failure to transform his knowledge into a workable communication. This is well illustrated by the tunnel-vision personality found in highly educated leaders. Intelligence helps the leader understand his people more humanely. Intelligence gives him a sense of humor and the ability to develop a good human relationship with his subordinates. Comparative needs for dependence and independence vary greatly among people. Intelligence also teaches the leader that leadership is granted to him by his men; it is not forced on his men by him. Human nature is composed of many facets and cannot always be dealt with as knowledge alone based on logic and reason. The dictate of human behavior is such that at times emotion plays a predominant role between the leader and his men. A leader will develop wisdom to realize that he has to deal with different levels of intelligence and emotion depending on existing circumstances. This is best illustrated by Generals Eisenhower and Marshall when they dealt with the controversial slapping incident of General Patton. They used their wisdom to weigh the incident in its true perspective in relation to the importance of General Patton’s role as a field commander in an important theater of war.

*Leadership Guide, Fort Benning, Georgia, U.S. Army Infantry School, Department of Operations, FB-C-12, 14 October 1957, p. 1.

"Pahn" ([sic]Judgment, insight): A leader’s primary responsibility is to mandate decision-making. This involves choice and choice leads to judgment tempered with perception. All the preceding characteristics lead to this one crucial element of leadership. Without the ability to render decisions, a leader is virtually inept; particularly so under the strained and exacting circumstances of the combat situation. These decisions are not involved with monetary gains or losses; it is a matter of all or nothing, life and death, which is the culminative end of life as we know it. The decision should be enacted with precision and timeliness. Circumstances sometimes demand instant decision affecting not only thousands of lives but also the destiny and fate of nations. General Eisenhower’s decision of the Normandy landing and General MacArthur’s decision of the Inchon landing well illustrated the absolute loneliness of the leader who must take the final responsibility of making a commitment which no one else will endeavor to make for him. This finality of choice requires the fine-honed edge of the individual leader's integrity subsumed within the virtues of "Shin[sic]", "on"([sic]), "so" ([sic]), and "Pahn" ([sic]).

Integrity seems to be the principal trait found in most successful military leaders throughout history. But it is not easy to define the precise nature of this composite quality that has such a profound bearing on a man's effectiveness. To say a man has integrity is to pay him one of the highest compliments. Yet, we would be hard pressed to give it a scientific analysis, since it is more apparent in its results than in its nature.

Again, let me emphasize there is no set model we can follow to develop a "brand" or "canned" leadership. To put complete reliance on the imitation of another leader's traits or characteristics can only achieve a second-rate copy of the original model. The combination of attributes that you as a individual consider most important will be influenced by your own values, your own cultural background, and always existing circumstances. Acceptance of self is the first sign of a mature leader. Accepting oneself realistically entails a recognition of one's personal strengths and weaknesses unhampered by wishful thinking. Acceptance of both strengths and weaknesses in self, and in others, allows a leader to be concerned with motivating subordinates rather than manipulating them. It allows for collaboration rather than competition.

A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops; while, on the contrary, incapable leaders can demoralize the best of troops.
General John J. Pershing

Colonel So Chin Tae (Korean Air Force Academy; M.P.S., Auburn University) is Assistant Chief of Staff for Studies and Analysis on the Air Staff, Headquarters, Republic of Korea Air Force, Seoul, Korea. He has served as fighter pilot, fighter squadron commander and as Chief of War Study, Assistant Chief of Staff, Korean Air Force Headquarters. He is the author of a research monograph entitled South Korea and Its Security Environment. Colonel So is a graduate of the RAF Staff College and USAF Air War College.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor