THE KILLER ANGELS: A SURVEY ON STRATEGIC SECURITY MANAGEMENT, DECISION-MAKING & LEADERSHIP

May 15, 2021

William S. Marcisz, JD CPP CHPA - President & Chief Consultant

Strategic Security Management Consulting

William.Marcisz@SSMCSecurity.com

www.SSMCSECURITY.com

As a Security Consultant or Security Expert Witness, it is our job to determine the effectiveness of Security Programs, identify process gaps and liability exposure. Simply put, organizations invest in Security to keep people safe and mitigate risk & loss. For Industries that deploy a significant amount of manpower in their Security-Force, such as Hospitals, Theme Parks, Colleges, Hotels and Airports, the recurring salary overhead can represent up to 98% of the Security Program’s annual operational cost. Thus, the effectiveness of Security personnel should be one of the top priorities for a Security Leader. Said another way, a high performing Security Force will almost always be a better return on investment than any other aspect of the organization’s Security Program. As such, it necessarily follows that an effective leader of personnel will derive a better return on investment in terms of productivity and output from an engaged and mission driven workforce. Generally, having a good Security Manager or Director with excellent leadership skills will almost always make the organization safer, experience less loss, and less liability exposure.

As part of the overall assessment, a Security Consultant or Security Expert Witness would be remiss not to evaluate the client’s Security Director or Manager’s ability to effectively connect with and lead personnel to determine whether the organization is receiving good value in their Security Program investment. I would submit that prioritizing formal leadership development will be rewarded down the road with increased efficiency, engagement, and ultimately better team output.

It has been my experience that teaching effective Leadership skills to Security Managers and Supervisors can be challenging. Not that Security personnel don’t like education and training. Quite the opposite. It’s just that the standard books and dry training materials written or provided by leadership experts is only marginally successful. A core target audience of Security Supervisors or Managers do not exactly relish the thought of sitting in a classroom for eight hours discussing the finer points of developing leadership skills or reading books by John Maxwell in their spare time. As a Security Director, I want the job to be as enjoyable for our Security Team as possible. Training and Education is often viewed as a welcome respite for Security personnel. As such, training & education should be fun.

A few years back I challenged our Security Training team to develop a leadership training program geared toward Security Managers and Security Supervisors with the goal to make training time interesting and productive. Prior to this we had been doing a “Book of the Month Club” approach. This entailed selecting books on leadership & team building, and having our 50 Managers and Supervisors read a book together and discuss issues relating to effective supervision and management. Initially, it worked well as an intentional culture and leadership team level-set. This was required at the time as we had promoted several supervisors who were new to leadership positions. However, after the third book, the team stopped responding. After some critical input from our team we stopped the program. Not wanting to give up on leadership development, we re-tooled and began injecting real-issue training scenarios into our monthly department leadership meetings. Essentially, we set aside 10-15 minutes at each meeting and provide a training vignette to drive discussion around problem solving, and leadership. We also tie it back to organizational service standards. We found a "spoon-feeding" approach was more effective with mid-level leaders than having them swallow the whole bottle at once.

However, there is still a place for “Book of the Month Club” training with mid-level leaders who enjoy reading books, have a sincere desire to refine their leadership skills, and wish to advance their careers. For Directors and above, learning strategic planning and decision-making is a necessary skill to survive and function at the Executive or Administrative level. However, just like your average Security Manager or Security Supervisor, there are many Directors and Vice Presidents who, although they would not admit it openly, find reading traditional books on leadership, well let us be honest, a drag.

Now, I would never suggest not to read books on leadership or pass-up on leadership training. Every leader could benefit by building their library of leadership reference materials and by attending training sessions. These are also great opportunities to network and showcase your talents.

A few years back, I was fortunate enough to be selected by my employer to participate in a 9-month leadership training program run by a retired Lieutenant General. One thing that cannot be disputed, the United States Military knows a thing or two about leadership and motivating personnel to achieve results in extremely challenging environments. Leading Security personnel in any environment is difficult, mainly because the primary responsibilities for any Security Officer is to enforce the rules and policies of their organization. In healthcare where 85% of workplace violence derives from patients and visitor confrontations, I would submit Security Officers face the daily challenges of managing aggressive behavior, while at the same time, trying to do this with a customer service focus.

During the 9-month leadership program, we had to read four books on …. You guessed it …. Leadership. There was a reading list that included “The Killer Angels”, a novel by Michael Shaara. Throughout my life I have studied the American Civil War and had previously read this book. The Killer Angels is set in July of 1863 around the Battle of Gettysburg. In fact, it is the inspiration and basis for the movie, “Gettysburg”. The Killer Angels is unique in that it not only covers the events leading up to, and during the battle of Gettysburg, but the author takes us through the battle from the perspective of the Generals who fought the battle. In reading through the book this time, I was specifically keying in on the concepts of leadership, and the characteristics of each of the Generals as they dealt with strategic planning, decision-making, managing relationships, issues involving engagement (Morale), and at times, coaching, mentorship, and discipline. All are essential to effective leadership.

Although there are many Generals whose stories a are featured in The Killer Angels, much of the story is told through the vantage points of Generals Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet from the South, and Colonel Joshua Chamberlain for the North. The author takes literary license in his assumptions of the thought processes behind each man’s planning, decision-making and situational leadership. While it probably was not the author’s intention, his well-researched book is packed with situations involving strategic planning, situational leadership, and small innocuous scenarios that exemplify positive leadership traits.

Generals, Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, and Union Colonel, Joshua Chamberlain came from diversely different backgrounds and each had differing leadership styles. However, the book describes each Officer’s ability to adapt, make analytical assessments, engage in decisive decision-making, and show compassion. Setting aside the military backgrounds, consider for a moment if either of these leaders worked at your organization. I think it would be easy to imagine them applying their leadership attributes to your company or hospital’s business standards. For example, assume your business or hospital valued the following Leadership attributes: “Be” (Character and Presence), “Know” (Intellect), and “Do” (Leads, Develops, Achieves). Below we can assess and correspond these leadership qualities and characteristics to some of the situations these Generals found themselves throughout the battle of Gettysburg.

LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES: BE, KNOW, CHARACTER, PRESENCE & INTELLECT

Analytical Assessments & Situational Decision-Making:

Robert E. Lee: Prior to the battle of Gettysburg, the Civil War had been fought almost exclusively on Southern soil. In a change of campaign strategy, General Lee decided to take the offensive and bring the war to the Northern States. In late June 1863, Lee's army began moving through Maryland and into Pennsylvania. Lee’s goal was to advance toward Harrisburg, PA, with the hope of luring the Union army (away from Washington DC) into a position where Lee could engage and destroy the Northern Army. This would leave the Nation’s capital exposed, thereby forcing President Lincoln to make peace with the South.

Although a risk, Lee’s judgment was based upon the momentum and success of the his army up to that point in the war. Up through the summer of 1863, Lee and his Generals had won nearly every major engagement against a numerically superior army that had better equipment, resources, and supplies. In fact, a few months earlier in the battle of Chancellorsville, VA, General Lee had such confidence in his army and leaders that he divided his army twice in the face of a numerically superior enemy. His army executed two flanking maneuvers that achieved a decisive victory. The outcome at Chancellorsville psychologically undermined the morale of the Union Army and the confidence of the Northern States that they could win the war.

General Lee proposed invading the North (innovation), even though some of his generals preferred to fight the war on their home ground because he faced (a critical business decision) the South could not continue to fight a prolonged war of attrition it would eventually lose due to the Northern Army’s access to greater resources. Lee understood that despite having fought a successful campaign to date, unless he changed the business model, the war would be lost. In sum, isn’t this the essence of strategic evaluation and risk-based decision-making. Think about your business and having to advise your shareholders they need to make an aggressive business decision now or face the ultimate loss of your business to competition. Does anyone remember Kodak, Circuit City or Blockbuster? This is not dissimilar to the strategic business decision Lee had to make in 1863 to prosecute his military campaign.

"Know" – Mental Agility:

General Lee to General Longstreet:

"To be a good soldier you must love the army. But to be a good officer you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love. That is… a very hard thing to do. No other profession requires it. That is one reason why there are so very few good officers. Although there are many good men."

The author uses this quote by General Lee in a part of the story where Lee is “coaching or mentoring a subordinate” General Longstreet on being overly cautious. Ironically, there are two critical points in the battle of Gettysburg where Union Army leadership demonstrated the same situational awareness and decisiveness Lee was advocating to Longstreet. The decision-making by General John Buford and Colonel Joshua Chamberlain significantly contributed to the North's victory at Gettysburg and changed the course of the war.

John Buford: On June 30th Union Cavalry Commander, General John Buford, observed Southern troop movements in Gettysburg and correctly assessed these soldiers were part of the main body of the Army of Northern Virginia. Earlier that day he had surveyed the ground around Gettysburg, PA, and observed a position south of town that would give his army a strategic advantage if a battle were to be fought there. He notified his superiors of the enemy’s troop movements and the strategic value of the identified position.

The following day, General Lee gave orders to his army to converge at Gettysburg in preparation to meet the Union Army in the engagement that Lee had strategized. General Buford observed enemy troop movements advancing from the West & North of town and ordered his cavalry to dismount to meet a numerically superior force approaching from both directions. Buford was aware that a Union Division led by General John Reynolds was in route. Buford surmised that if he could delay the enemy’s advance, he could prevent them from occupying the tactically superior high ground South of Gettysburg. Throughout the morning, Buford’s dismounted cavalry successfully repelled Southern advances from the West. Buford assessed his dismounted cavalry would at some point be overrun so he reinforced the Western line with the portion of his cavalry he had positioned North of town.

Buford strategically committed the entirety of his cavalry and sustained heavy losses. But he successfully bought enough time for Reynolds’ division to reach Buford and join the engagement. Buford's decision to commit allowed the Union army to occupy the strategically important high ground outside Gettysburg, which was one of the most significant contributions to the Union victory. In addition to intellect and mental agility, General Buford’s actions that day showed character, and presence through his bearing, resilience, and confidence in his actions.

Colonel Joshua Chamberlain: A pivotal part of the book occurs on the second day of the battle concerning the events leading up to and including a bayonet charge by the 20th Maine regiment ordered by its commander, Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. The 20th Maine occupied the southernmost position of the Northern Army’s line on a hill known as “Little Round Top”. Throughout the day the Southern Army had been attacking the right side of the Union line. Failing to move the Union off their position, the Lee’s Army attempted to flank the Union Army and continuously attacked the position occupied by the 20th Maine, which exhausted its supply of ammunition. Chamberlain believed his position would be overrun during the next wave of attack. If the enemy were successful, it was possible they could gain the advantage of this strategic position and shift the momentum of the battle to their favor.

Through an exercise of mental agility and situational assessment & awareness, Chamberlain made a critical decision to order a bayonet charge. By executing this counterattack, the 20th Maine were able to change the momentum of the attacking Army and save the Union’s position.

LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES

“Do” – Leads, Develops & Achieves:

There are many examples throughout the book of various leadership competencies. The following is a sampling:

Leads – Building Trust, Extending Influence, Leading by Example & Communication.

Colonel Joshua Chamberlain: Before the first day of battle, Colonel Chamberlain was presented with 120 soldiers who were deserters from the 2nd Maine regiment. The deserters were force marched at the point of bayonets and under armed guard to Chamberlain after they had been arrested and were facing court-martial. Chamberlain was given latitude to deal with the 2nd Maine as he saw fit, including an option to execute the deserting soldiers.  

Chamberlain faced a dilemma. First, his regiment was undermanned and did not have the resourcing and manpower to guard 120 prisoners. who may in fact hamper his army’s ability to keep up with the rest of the Division. Second, Chamberlain was from Maine, and any decision to deal harshly with the prisoners from the 2nd Maine would cause him difficulty after the war.

Chamberlain solved both problems by offering the 120 prisoners amnesty if they joined the 20th Maine. However, Chamberlain understood that the 2nd Maine was a “disengaged workforce” and utilized several leadership techniques to build trust and begin the process to re-engage this team. Upon receipt of the prisoners from the Pennsylvania detail that were assigned to escort the 2nd Maine to Chamberlain’s location, he made a show of disapproval of how the Pennsylvanians had treated the prisoners in front of the deserters. He announced that no armed men from his regiment would be used to guard the prisoners. Next, Chamberlain ordered food for the 2nd Maine, and listened to their grievances.

Later, Chamberlain gathered the prisoners and made an impassioned request that the men from the 2nd Maine join the 20th Maine, and that after the battle he would investigate the issues that caused the men to desert. Chamberlain built a bridge by explaining that he and the 20th Maine had also shared in some of the issues (such as poor leadership & loss of men) that caused them to desert. Chamberlain was honest and straight forward in laying out the situation before them and implored the 2nd Maine to join the 20th. In short, Chamberlain bridged the gap of grievance and distrust by demonstrating the leadership characteristic of “Authenticity”.

In the end, 114 of the 120 deserters opted to join the 20th Maine and fought at the battle of Little Round Top. Had the 114 2nd Maine deserters chose not to join Chamberlain, the battle may have had a different outcome. Chamberlain exhibited compassion and excellent communication skills to build trust and solve several problems by re-engaging these men.

General James Longstreet: After the second day of battle General Longstreet was engaged in conversation with his subordinate, General Lowell Armistead about issues that were personal in nature, and subjects that neither General could discuss with most others. Longstreet mainly listens to Armistead reflect upon their mutual friendships with several Union Generals, particularly Winfield Hancock. Knowing that Hancock is also at Gettysburg, Armistead questions the appropriateness of meeting with his friend. Longstreet reassures Armistead that when an appropriate time presents itself, that he could arrange such a meeting with Hancock. The two Generals also discuss the Southern Cause in a manner that suggests both may be a little exhausted by the subject. The exchange indicates that they have privately discussed the matter before, and that although they will continue to fight for the South, their reasons for continuing to fight have moved beyond and they perhaps no longer supported the cause.

The discussion between Longstreet and his subordinate, Armistead, shows that Longstreet had the ability to demonstrate compassion. It also demonstrated that Armistead substantially trusted Longstreet to have conversations that were personal and sensitive in nature or on topics that would be inappropriate (and possibly treasonous) with other members within their circle. In sum, Longstreet’s relationship with Armistead showed that he was a leader who was capable of building trust, to extend influence, and have open lines of communication.

SUMMARY

As a Security Consultant and Security Expert Witness, evaluating effective leadership is a requirement to provide assessment and opinions on all elements that comprise the Security Program. We frequently find the difference between an Effective and Ineffective Security Program resides with it's leader. I have been very fortunate in my lifetime work for some very good leaders and learn lessons from leaders who were not effective. If you are looking for a unique exercise to learn and teach the art of leadership, take a slow read through The Killer Angels and stop and analyze the decisions and results of those decisions made by these Generals. Also, examine how they handle situations, such as approaching superiors and managing subordinates. After going through this exercise, I now find myself closely examining strategic decision-making and leadership qualities in fictional characters in other books, Television Shows, and Movies, as well as real business leaders and people who hold various Offices in our Country.

While The Killer Angels may not be suitable for many types of business environments or cultures, it is a great study in strategic planning and leadership decision-making, often under stress. Taken in this context, this exercise can translate well to several business Leadership Models. I would suggest that most of us who have occupied the role of Security Manager or Director can relate to many of the situations the Generals in this book faced. Security personnel are constantly challenged by having to manage adverse and sometimes violent situations. Security Leaders frequently make critical decisions under stress in managing through critical incidents. The Leadership Attributes and Competencies found within the book, and as told through the eyes of these Generals, is directly on-point with the experiences of Security Professionals who frequently find themselves in extraordinary situations and are required to make critical decisions in the moment with only their training and life experience to help guide them. This is why I think this book translates well as a survey in leadership, or touchpoint for those requiring advanced leadership skills.