As amateur historians, my family has been visiting Civil War battlefields for decades. Nothing says family fun like thousands of re-enactors in three layers of wool replica uniforms shooting replica Civil War muskets at each other between cannon fire, right? My youngest was four when he saw his first re-enactment at Florida’s Olustee Battlefield State Park, and a passion for history was ensured for at least one more generation.

The battle of Gettysburg is definitely our favorite point of study in Civil War history, rich with lessons in leadership from both Union and Confederate commanders. One of the most commonly named heroes of Gettysburg is Col. Joshua L. Chamberlain, who, against overwhelming odds, led the 20th Maine to victory on Little Round Top on day two — the turning point of the battle and ultimately the war. Many modern-day business gurus have drawn parallels from Chamberlain’s military success to contemporary leadership practices, and, I’ll confess, Chamberlain has always been a personal favorite.

A new favorite point of study and a model for modern-day leadership may be Gen. George Meade. Of course, as the commander of the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg, Meade was responsible for leading the Union to victory, and his name and military successes were no secret. Yet, here was a man who was Lincoln’s second choice for the job, a man who would be handed the leadership of the Army of the Potomac just three days before an unplanned three-day battle widely characterized as the turning point of the Civil War. Still, Lincoln considered Meade a failure after Gettysburg. What I found interesting was that several of Meade’s command decisions, which were criticized by some as “weak,” were not only the very things that enabled him to succeed where others had failed in beating Lee, but are also the antecedents of today’s principles of Management by Style, Collaborative Leadership and Situational Leadership.

Management by Style

Last year, Dr. Kevin Weddle, director of war and military strategy at the U.S. Army War College, presented a lecture titled The Gettysburg Strategic Leadership Brief to the USAWC class of 2012, in which he described the path that shaped this man who would lead the Union to Victory at Gettysburg. Referring to how he was with his men, Weddle described Meade as “much like Patton….He [knew] which ones needed a kick in the pants and which ones needed an arm around the shoulder.” This is a great characterization of Management by Style. Good managers know that what motivates one employee is not necessarily going to work for another employee. The different hard-wiring and life experiences we each bring to a situation influence how we respond to the people, actions and demands in our environment. Knowing those nuances about each of your employees gives you a great advantage in bringing out their top performance. A great way to learn how to recognize those differences and the distinctive needs of different type of personalities is through the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). To get a good overview of the MBTI and its applications to management and leadership, check out NRPA’s Supervisors Management School in November. Using the MBTI can help elevate you past the Golden Rule (treat others the way you’d like to be treated) up to the Platinum Rule: treat others the way they’d like to be treated.

Collaborative Leadership

Gen. Robert E. Lee was known for being a strong and aggressive leader. Far from collaborative, Lee had always had a strong “number two” who was his main collaborator and sole sounding board on military strategy. Up until Gettysburg, that number two was Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. But Lee and Stonewall were so like-minded that Lee never really had to clarify what he meant or what he wanted when he issued orders. Unfortunately for Lee, Jackson was mortally wounded at Chancellorsville, so Gettysburg was Lee’s first engagement without his trusted partner and confidant. This is where Meade’s Collaborative Leadership style gave him a distinct advantage over Lee. Although Meade was criticized at the time for gathering his “senior team” (his corps commanders) at the end of day one to determine the standing of each commander’s troops and take stock of the movements, losses and intelligence each had to report, this collaborative approach to determine the next day’s battle strategy was exactly what this moment in time required to secure the victory. If Lee had taken this collaborative approach, recognizing that Jackson’s death and absence left him far more exposed than he might have expected, he may have obtained better intelligence and made better decisions (and there may never have been a Pickett’s Charge to haunt him through history). Although a Collaborative Leadership style may have been viewed as weak and insecure compared to Lee’s commanding independent leadership style, it built the confidence of Meade’s new team and helped gain buy-in going into the next day’s battle and ultimate victory over Lee.

Situational Leadership

The natural leadership extension of Management by Style is Situational Leadership. A departure from the process-driven, one-size-fits-all style of leadership that penetrated corporate culture through the growth of an industrial economy in the last century, Situational Leadership is now gaining popularity. Why? Because it’s effective. Managers must have the ability to read a situation and recognize that previously successful tactics may not necessarily generate the same results in a different instance.

Against Lincoln’s strong urging to “follow up and attack Gen. Lee as soon as possible before he can cross the river,” Meade pursued Lee’s army enough to “drive the invaders from our soil.” He knew the situation was not as Lincoln perceived it just because the numbers indicated a decisive victory might be possible. After all the battle’s losses, Meade may have still had 20,000 more men than Lee, but Meade had lost 11 corps commanders. Seven days into his command, three-quarters of his new senior team was brand-new again. He knew he would need to learn the personalities and styles of these new commanders as individuals before he could lead them as a team in a successful attack. Meade also knew better than to press a poor position on the move. This was not the high ground he had at Gettysburg. This situation required a different approach than the last time he had these same odds, and Meade knew different action was required.

I think Denis McLaughlin said it best in his article Is There a Best Theory of Leadership?:

Over the last hundred years or so, there have been many advances in our understanding of the theory of leadership. In many ways, I believe when we moved into the industrial age around the 1900s, there was much that seemed to be forgotten from the thousands of years of leadership lessons in the family, on the farm and in past civilizations that had to be relearned.

While there are certainly some great emerging leadership experts today who identify new trends in leadership and management techniques, perhaps we need not look much further than our American history books to find the tried-and-true practices re-emerging as “new” and “innovative” styles of leading our corporate troops to business victory.

Lauren Yost is NRPA’s Vice President of Operations.