CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. –
On a recent family vacation to Ireland, we were walking around downtown Waterford trying to figure out where to spend the night and eat dinner.
As we were walking, my brilliant 4-year-old daughter, Katie, blurts out, "Daddy is the leader because he is the biggest."
I smirked to myself for a second, thinking about how my wife was probably silently disagreeing whole-heartedly on who the boss of the family really was.
As disturbing as this sounds being on vacation, later that evening while enjoying a drink, I thought about what Katie said and how I could turn it into this article.
Now, a child's perspective on life is always unique and sometimes very profound. Routinely, the size of something is the main driver for a child. They will always take the biggest cookie; big dogs are scary, puppies are cute; and adults are authority figures versus fellow children. As adults, some things never change. We strive for the largest house, the 60-inch plasma TV and yes, sometimes we still take the biggest cookie.
Is there a relationship between size and leadership capabilities?
Joseph Ellis, in his book His Excellency, highlighted how George Washington was singled out to lead the Continental Army, whether jokingly or not as John Adams noted, partly by his size which was described by contemporaries as "physically majestic." Lincoln was often described in similar terms as he was also taller than six feet. Patton also, of course, was larger than life along with being tall.
History is full of such occurrences where physical size was a main selection criteria, some ending like the American Revolution, others were not so fortunate. So, if you are an advocate that size does matter, how do you explain Napoleon, Gandhi and other great leaders throughout history who were not of significant stature?
The bottom line is: there is no direct relationship on the size of an individual and their ability to lead; however, all too often individuals who have obtained "size" through the office they hold, rank or position believe they are effective leaders regardless of their experience.
History is also filled with examples such as countries where people become king or queen just because of bloodline. The Roman Empire often suffered from this, eventually being one of the factors causing its downfall. Our own Civil War made numerous generals and colonels out of lieutenants overnight based on a single act of bravery. The instant ability to command a rank-equivalent group of soldiers did not follow the size of the promotion. Even today, the size of the campaign war chest will make or break a political candidate instead of their message or their ability to lead.
In his book, The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make, Hans Finzel wrote, "One big mistake dictators make is believing their own press reports. They think that the bigger they are, the more they know and the more they should control others."
We all have crossed paths with someone in civilian or military life who fits this description. Although not infallible, our military does an excellent job in preventing these shortcomings based primarily on two main concepts.
First, promotions both in rank and position are predominantly given based on merit and demonstrating the ability to accept greater responsibility. Along this journey, there are numerous checks and balances that weed out those who do not need to get any bigger.
Second and most importantly, we teach and offer leadership opportunities to everyone starting with the youngest of E-1s -- the "smallest" of our ranks.
Whether in a positive or negative manner, we all train and influence our future leaders from day one when they are small. The goal is, as they become larger both in rank and position, they are as effective as they are big.
In reality, size only matters when you measure it in factors of the care, feeding, mentorship and experience an individual offers or receives in their lives.