Haig Leadership Analysis

Today, many historian has been thoroughly question on the subject of Gen Douglas Haig 's quality as a leader on the Western Front, especially his decision and conduct during the Battle of the Somme in 1916. Haig 's skills and abilities as a leader have been both heavily renowned and criticised through different views and opinions. Much evidence supporting both arguments whether he has been viewed as both 'Butcher of the Somme ' and the 'Architect of Victory '. However, the majority of people seem to favour the idea of Haig being a merciless leader, which is completely understandable. For instance, the Battle of the Somme hugely affected almost every person in Britain. For them, it would have been easy to blame the British losses solely

Path goal theory thoroughly examined the relationship between leaders and followers. It examine how leaders motivate subordinates in pursuit of objectives. It implied that leadership is not enforced on subordinates but exercised in conjunction with them, recognising that often leadership is wanted by those that are led, not imposed on them. Path goal theory emphasise on directive leadership which involved clear command, recognise and assign tasks, indicating how and when the task to be completed and the standards expected. This is a style of leadership that is familiar to most commanders and leaders. Undeniably, to a mainstream organisation this is

It is not a perfect solution or right style of leadership, but such leaders are highly effective. In the case of Gen Haig, he deliver results. In a crisis full with risk or uncertainty, path goal leadership can be positively beneficial by providing direction and a sense of control. This is why path goal theory is often associated with the military because on operations armies are frequently confronted by what most people would classify as crises. In short, the situation, the conduct of operations demands it. Path goal leader are repeatedly brilliant individuals, who are dedicated, committed, possess high personal standards and an determined sense of duty. This kind of leaders have a tendency to be decisive, confident, eager to take charge and willing to accept responsibility. They exercise command easily, but tend to extract obedience. This kind of leadership is imposed by power, dominating and fear of punishment. Normally they are suspicious of new ideas, except for their own and cautious of discussion. They retain control, use initiatives and focused by the need to achieve. To them, task and achievement is everything and failures is not an option. This qualities and characteristic fit well with the leadership style of Gen Sir Douglas