As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
When I was a teenager, I once had a kid who was studying me ask me bewildered, “How do you get kids to do what you want as you do it all the time?”
I had never contemplated the projection of my forced of will, but it began with the detachment of being with a group of friends, and saying, “I’m going here”, and no one moved to go along, and I just walked off alone as I was not going to be part of a something which was not of my will. Yes it was lonely and it was a trial, but it was a beginning of not being of the herd.
Leadership is something few people have. Most people can not lead. They either bask in the position or they treat people badly under them.
Once I started considering what I was engaged in, I concluded that I employed my force of will. I showed respect after people yielded to my will, and the one thing I always abided by was, “I expected something of people and demanded their completing what should be done. I did this without nitpicking, looking over their shoulders.”
I do know people are half assed in what they do, in you can tell the idiots what to do, and they will come up with how they want to do it, which is not what you want done, but you flush these incompetent trolls, as most people if you give them the guidelines in how they should do things, they can mould it to their way of doing things, and what should be done is accomplished.
That is why in President Grant’s memoirs, in his observations of General Scott and General Taylor, two very successful leaders, that both were absolutely opposite in their presentation. What President Grant does not explain is the reason for both of these leader’s successes. He simply states that it was a pleasure to serve under both men. That is the key in this. Both leaders did not abuse their men. They expected discipline and order. The men trusted them, so when their will was ordered, it was accomplished, because the men believed in the success of that will, and projected that will to make the enemy to submit.
I leave this in these two remarkable men to examine them. The key to both as I have stated, is the expectation of completion of their will which will create the respect these leaders then bestow on their men.
*********************************
I had now been in battle with the two leading commanders conducting armies in a foreign land.
The contrast between the two was very marked.
General Taylor never wore uniform, but dressed himself entirely for comfort.
He moved about the field in which he was operating to see through his own eyes the situation.
Often he would be without staff officers, and when he was accompanied by them there was no prescribed order in which they followed.
He was very much given to sit his horse side-ways—with both feet on one side—particularly on the battlefield.
General Scott was the reverse in all these particulars.
He always wore all the uniform prescribed
or allowed by law when he inspected his lines ; word would be sent to all division and brigade commanders in advance, notifying them of the hour when the commanding general might be expected.
This was doneso that all the army might be under arms to salute their
chief as he passed.
On these occasions he wore his dress uniform, cocked hat, aiguillettes, sabre and spurs, His staff proper, besides all officers constructively on his staff—engineers, inspectors, quartermasters, etc., that could bé spared—followed, also in uniform and in prescribed order. Orders were prepared with great care and evidently with the view that they should be a history of what followed.
In their modes of expressing thought, these two generals contrasted quite as strongly as in their other characteristics.
General Scott was precise in language, cultivated a style peculiarly his own; was proud of his rhetoric; not averse to speaking of himself, often in the third person, and he could bestow praise upon the person he was talking about without the least embarrassment.
Taylor was not a conversationalist, but on paper he could put his meaning so plainly that there could be no mistaking it.
He knew how to express what he wanted to say in the fewest well chosen words, but would not sacrifice meaning to the construction of high-sounding sentences.
But with their opposite characteristics both were great and successful soldiers ; both were true, patriotic and upright in all their dealings.
Both were pleasant to serve under—Taylor was pleasant to serve with.
Scott saw more through the eyes of his staff officers than through his own.
His plans were deliberately prepared, and fully expressed in orders.
Taylor saw for himself, and gave orders to meet the emergency without reference to how they would read in history.
Nuff Said
agtG
