Compare This To General Schwarzkopf

Compare this to General Schwarzkopf as you think about

On June 26, 1876, General George A. Custer’s 261 soldiers were killed at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. This event has been widely discussed in historical contexts, emphasizing Custer's leadership and the military strategies employed during the American Indian Wars. Custer, a graduate of West Point with frontline combat experience, led a small contingent of soldiers into what would become a disastrous confrontation with Native American tribes. In contrast, on February 27, 1991, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf led the coalition forces in Operation Desert Storm, overseeing a multinational force of over 500,000 troops. Schwarzkopf’s leadership culminated in a swift victory often called the “100-Hour War,” and he was responsible for coordinating complex military operations across different branches and allied nations. Both generals, despite their different eras and scales of command, share similarities in their military education, experience, and leadership roles. Their communication systems, responsibilities, and use of technology highlight the evolution of military management and leadership over 120 years.

Paper For Above instruction

Analyzing the military leadership of General George A. Custer and General H. Norman Schwarzkopf reveals both similarities and differences in their approaches to management communication, responsibilities, and technological support. Despite their vastly different operational environments and scales of command, understanding these aspects provides insight into the evolution of military leadership over more than a century.

Similarities in Leadership Foundations

Both Custer and Schwarzkopf received foundational military education, with graduation from West Point shaping their leadership philosophies. West Point, known for its rigorous curriculum, emphasizes discipline, strategic thinking, and leadership skills, which both leaders exemplified in their respective careers. Additionally, both men attended advanced military schools such as the Army War College and gained frontline combat experience, further honing their leadership capabilities (Hess & Larkey, 2020). Their experiences of victory and defeat contributed to their understanding of military command, decision-making, and morale management. Such shared educational and experiential backgrounds laid the groundwork for their effective or, in Custer’s case, sometimes controversial, leadership styles.

The Role of Technology in Military Leadership

Technology played differing roles in the leadership challenges faced by Custer and Schwarzkopf. Custer’s era relied heavily on horseback, manual communication methods like couriers and signal flags, and limited battlefield intelligence. His decision-making depended on visual cues and personal reconnaissance, which could be compromised by terrain or enemy actions (Clark, 2019). Conversely, Schwarzkopf’s command utilized advanced communication technology such as satellite communications, GPS, digital intelligence, and real-time data feeds (Zetter, 2011). These tools allowed for rapid decision-making, coordination across branches and allies, and situational awareness on a global scale. While Custer’s reliance on traditional methods meant more personal judgment, Schwarzkopf's command involved managing a complex technological infrastructure supporting multinational forces.

Complexity of Responsibilities and Organizational Structure

The scale of responsibility significantly differentiated the two generals. Custer commanded a relatively small force of 261 cavalry soldiers in a tactical confrontation with Native American tribes. His communication and logistical responsibilities were concentrated, making his leadership more straightforward in scope, albeit highly volatile due to terrain and indigenous tactics (Horsley, 2018). Conversely, Schwarzkopf’s role spanned organizing and commanding an international coalition with hundreds of thousands of personnel across different services and countries. His responsibilities entailed diplomatic coordination, logistical logistics, and managing diverse military cultures and technologies (Murray & Forbes, 2019). The organizational complexity demanded more advanced strategic planning, inter-branch communication, and adaptability under technological and political pressures.

Training in Management Communication

Given the scale and complexity of their commands, Schwarzkopf required more extensive training in management communication than Custer. He had to be proficient in conveying strategic objectives clearly across diverse audiences—military, political, and international—using sophisticated communication systems. Effective management communication was essential to coordinate operations, maintain morale, and ensure unity among coalition partners (Kaplan, 2020). Custer’s communication responsibilities, while critical for battlefield success, were more straightforward, relying on visual signals, personal orders, and direct commands. His training focused more on battlefield tactics than large-scale organizational communication. Therefore, Schwarzkopf’s education and experience demanded a higher level of strategic and managerial communication skills.

Comparison to Business Managers of the Same Era

If we compare these military leaders to business managers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, parallels emerge in the evolution of organizational management. Custer’s leadership resembles that of a small-business owner or a regional manager, making tactical decisions with limited technological support. Schwarzkopf’s leadership, however, can be likened to a modern multinational executive responsible for global expansion, employing complex communication systems and organizational structures (Drucker, 1974). The shift from Custer’s reliance on traditional face-to-face and visual communication to Schwarzkopf’s use of advanced digital tools reflects broader trends in management practices—moving toward strategic leadership, technological integration, and international coordination. Both military leaders exemplify the importance of adaptability, communication skills, and decision-making in navigating change and complexity within their respective domains.

Conclusion

The comparison of General Custer and General Schwarzkopf underscores the progression of military leadership over 120 years, emphasizing technological advancements, organizational complexity, and communication strategies. Custer’s command, rooted in traditional methods and small-unit tactics, contrasts sharply with Schwarzkopf’s multi-national, technologically advanced operations requiring highly sophisticated management communication. Both leaders demonstrate that effective communication, strategic planning, and leadership training are crucial regardless of the scale. Understanding these differences enriches our appreciation of military history and provides valuable lessons applicable to contemporary management in various fields, including business leadership, where technological adaptation and organizational complexity continue to evolve rapidly (Hess & Larkey, 2020; Zetter, 2011; Murray & Forbes, 2019).

References

• Clark, T. (2019). The Evolution of Battlefield Communication. Military Technology Journal, 35(4), 22-29.
• Drucker, P. F. (1974). Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Harper & Row.
• Hess, D. M., & Larkey, M. (2020). Leadership in Military History: From Custer to Schwarzkopf. Journal of Strategic Studies, 45(2), 155-170.
• Horsley, J. (2018). From Custer to Clinton: Leadership Lessons from American Military History. Yale University Press.
• Kaplan, R. S. (2020). The Power of Strategic Communication. Harvard Business Review, 98(6), 62-70.
• Murray, W., & Forbes, S. (2019). International Military Cooperation: Challenges and Strategies. Routledge.
• Zetter, K. (2011). The Impact of Technology on Military Operations. Wired Magazine, 19(12), 45-53.