Billy Mitchell's Visionary Leadership
What if I told you that the “Father of the Air Force” publicly criticized and attacked his superior leaders, to include the White House? Brigadier General William “Billy” Mitchell was a Visionary Leader, but an Unethical Leader that successfully campaigned his message extensively while criticizing all of his superiors during his air power movement. Between WWI and WWII, Mitchell used his rank and name recognition to spearhead the push for air power relevance. In Hurley’s (1975) writing, he said Mitchell, “exemplified the dedicated patriot, whose single-minded devotion to a cause, would lead him to a degree of recklessness, resulting in his own downfall”. First, we will discuss his Visionary Leadership when he used Management by Exception
…show more content…
Mitchell was solidly in the Drive for Success ethical trap. According to our lesson plan in Ethical Leadership, Drive for Success defines that, “Drive for success occurs when decisions are made based on a “win at all cost” attitude rather than on military rules, regulations, and codes of conduct” (TBEE, 2016). As time went on, he became more and more outspoken when the Air Service was reduced funding, while the Navy’s funding had increased. In 1925, Mitchell charged the government of, “incompetency, criminal negligence, and almost treasonable administration of the national defense by the Navy and War Departments” (Maksel, 2009). Mitchell also announced to the nation declaring, "Brave airmen are being sent to their deaths by armchair admirals who don't care about air safety" (Jones, 2010). President Coolidge had enough of his conduct. Mitchell was ordered to appear in court for a court-martial in 1925. The trial wasn’t any smoother. Some say that Mitchell put on a show to further drive his point. Others say it was just his character. Regardless, he displayed steep Loyalty Syndrome. According to our lesson plan in Ethical Leadership, Loyalty Syndrome defines that, “making decisions based on respect and/or loyalty to an individual, unit, or organization rather than on military rules, regulations, and codes of conduct” (TBEE, 2016). Mitchell had some mentionable testimonies from his court-martial, such as, “The people have placed their trust in the War and Navy Departments, to provide a proper defense for the safety of the nation. It has not been done. I consider this failure to be… the criminal offense of treason” (Hurley, 1975). Mitchell continued to stand firm, “The bodies of my former companions in the air, moulder under the soil in America, and
Mitchell was solidly in the Drive for Success ethical trap. According to our lesson plan in Ethical Leadership, Drive for Success defines that, “Drive for success occurs when decisions are made based on a “win at all cost” attitude rather than on military rules, regulations, and codes of conduct” (TBEE, 2016). As time went on, he became more and more outspoken when the Air Service was reduced funding, while the Navy’s funding had increased. In 1925, Mitchell charged the government of, “incompetency, criminal negligence, and almost treasonable administration of the national defense by the Navy and War Departments” (Maksel, 2009). Mitchell also announced to the nation declaring, "Brave airmen are being sent to their deaths by armchair admirals who don't care about air safety" (Jones, 2010). President Coolidge had enough of his conduct. Mitchell was ordered to appear in court for a court-martial in 1925. The trial wasn’t any smoother. Some say that Mitchell put on a show to further drive his point. Others say it was just his character. Regardless, he displayed steep Loyalty Syndrome. According to our lesson plan in Ethical Leadership, Loyalty Syndrome defines that, “making decisions based on respect and/or loyalty to an individual, unit, or organization rather than on military rules, regulations, and codes of conduct” (TBEE, 2016). Mitchell had some mentionable testimonies from his court-martial, such as, “The people have placed their trust in the War and Navy Departments, to provide a proper defense for the safety of the nation. It has not been done. I consider this failure to be… the criminal offense of treason” (Hurley, 1975). Mitchell continued to stand firm, “The bodies of my former companions in the air, moulder under the soil in America, and