Ike: Countdown to D-Day

Abstract

In the 2004 movie, Ike: Countdown to D-Day, a profile of the leadership style of General Dwight D. Eisenhower is presented as planning and preparation for the single greatest invasion in the history of the world is engaged. This paper examines the leadership style and qualities of the Supreme Allied Commander as presented in the movie and in other literary references.

Management in the Cinema вЂ" Activity 2 Paper

Introduction

Dwight D. Eisenhower was appointed to be the Supreme Allied Commander, directing a force of over 1 million men in an operation designed to liberate Europe from Germany’s control. He was selected for his management style as evidenced by his organizational skills, his political skills and his personal character. This paper answers several questions about those aspects of the man who was tasked with planning and executing the largest, most complex invasion in the history of the world.

Assignment Questions

What managerial strengths does Ike bring to the Allies as they organize for D-Day?

Eisenhower was an excellent choice for Roosevelt and Churchill as Supreme Allied Commander because he had the managerial skills of organization, flexibility, diplomacy, humility, delegation and a sense of duty. These characteristics, in the right proportions, allowed Eisenhower to direct a number of difficult subordinates into planning and executing the massive and difficult invasion of Europe.

Eisenhower had demonstrated his organizational skills during the performance of his duties in World War I and in the following years. Douglas MacArthur, his boss at the time and a subsequent (unwilling) subordinate, wrote of Eisenhower that “This is the best officer in the army. When the next war comes, he should go right to the top.” (Ambrose, 1994, p. 65). His command of the Allied forces in Africa against the Desert Fox, Erwin Rommel, showed his ability to be flexible, and to learn from his mistakes. This trying experience also provided examples of his innate skills at diplomacy mingled with his appropriate sense of humility (Ambrose, 1997, p. 69). His humility also permitted him to delegate responsibilities, though he did have to learn the hard way that delegation can only work when you select competent managers (Ambrose, 1997, p. 69). Perhaps most importantly, Eisenhower had a sense of duty and integrity that kept him connected with his men and his mission. When one of his generals violates the clear orders for secrecy Eisenhower is faced with deciding what to do with him. The right response is to remove him from his command and send him home. But the offending general was a friend and former classmate, and Eisenhower knew that taking his command would end his friend’s military career. Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff tells his boss that very few people know of the infraction, implying that Eisenhower was free to protect his friend’s reputation and career. Eisenhower simply states, “I know.” He then proceeds to take the appropriate, if difficult and distasteful course of action. His job was to protect his men and mission, even at the expense of personal friendships.

These managerial skills gave Eisenhower the appropriate tools he needed to assume leadership of Operation Overlord. The success of the operation and the acknowledgements of his subordinates, peers and commanders help to solidify the idea that Eisenhower was precisely the right man for the job.

How would you describe Ike’s management style as compared to Churchill, Patton, Montgomery and Bradley? What do you see as distinguishing managerial factors that lead Ike being named the Supreme Allied Commander?

Eisenhower’s style of leadership was noticeably different from other candidates for the position of Supreme Allied Commander. Patton and Montgomery were known for their ego-centricities, and Marshall was unavailable. Eisenhower was most like Bradley in style; usually deferential but ferocious in advocating a position, and accepting of decisions by superiors even when they are contrary to personal opinions.

Indeed, Churchill and Roosevelt clearly understood the nature of the challenge the Supreme Allied Commander would have. Patton and Montgomery were nearly uncontrollable and self-aggrandizing. But both were brilliant in the field. Eisenhower had to find a way to win their cooperation in spite of the fact that neither would be allowed to run the overall operation as they wanted. Patton was given an almost insulting yet critical role of being the diversion that kept Hitler’s eyes off the western beaches. (Later, he would be given control of US ground troops, a role he coveted almost as much as Montgomery’s role.) Montgomery’s constant, vocal advocation of a “spear-thrust” through France to Berlin had to be sidelined in order to prevent the Allies from making the same mistake in Europe that Hitler was making in Russia, i.e. extending the troops too far away from their support troops and supply lines. Managing these egos was a monumental task, and there weren’t many who could manage it as adeptly as Eisenhower did.

Do you think the decision to have a Supreme Allied Commander was the right managerial structure since it was a highly centralized command structure or would there have been another command structure you would have taken with more participative management?

The question implies that Eisenhower did not have a participative management style. Most historians would seem to disagree (Johnson, 2006, p. 2). The purpose of having a Supreme Allied Commander was not to elevate one person due to his talent and skills, but to organize a team of competent managers and to provide the leadership to make the hard decisions when a group consensus was unattainable. In the military ranks, this is called the Command imperative. Soldiers understand, more than most, that successful armies require a strong command structure. As alluded to in the movie, each candidate for Supreme Allied Commander stated the same requirement for taking the job; complete and absolute control.

Having that level of control did not mean that Eisenhower did not have a participatory management structure. An example of this important distinction is illustrated in the movie when the decision had to be made regarding the placement of the paratroopers. Montgomery and Bradley, concerned with the sea and land force objectives, wanted the paratroopers to land close enough to the shore that they would be immediately available for diversion and landing support. Mallory