Recently, I was reading The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932–1972 by William Manchester, published in 1974. The book spans from FDR's New Deal to Nixon's Watergate, covering significant events such as WW II, the Korean War, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and the Vietnam War.
One part that particularly intrigued me was the removal of General Douglas MacArthur (1880-1964) during the Korean War. MacArthur was fired by President Truman in 1951 when he was 71 years old.
Essentially, Truman and MacArthur had very divergent visions for the war. Truman sought a "limited war" to avoid a massive expansion in Asia and the potential onset of WW III with Soviet involvement.
MacArthur, on the other hand, publicly advocated for a more expansive use of American military power, including bombing China, employing Nationalist Chinese forces from Taiwan, and potentially using nuclear weapons. He believed anything short of this wider war represented “appeasement,” an unacceptable concession to the communists.
MacArthur was ultimately fired for insubordination. One notable instance was when he thwarted Truman’s attempt to negotiate a ceasefire by ordering his troops to invade North Korea and push past the 38th parallel.
There are a few key lessons from the clash between Truman and MacArthur.
First, Truman considered the global situation, including potential Soviet and European moves, while MacArthur's regional focus failed to foresee the destructive consequences of his actions. A Chinese saying "大局为重" (dà jú wéi zhòng)meaning: "Seeing the bigger picture is of utmost importance." It emphasizes the importance of considering the larger goals and broader strategic perspective.
Second, American society highly values individualist heroism, exemplified by MacArthur’s bold strategies and assertive personality. However, both the military and corporate environments require teamwork and adherence to a chain of command. MacArthur's insubordination highlights the tension between individualism and the need for hierarchical cooperation.
While individualism is celebrated, there must be a commitment to collective goals. MacArthur’s removal was due to his ego conflicting with the broader strategic objectives set by civilian leadership.
Third, General MacArthur was highly popular in America. Removing him from power could mean political suicide for Truman. It takes a great courage of a great leader to do the right thing for the country and for the people. For this, I have a great respect and admiration for president Truman.
Finally, in any work environment, while innovation and initiative are encouraged, they must align with the organization’s goals and respect its hierarchy. Being a team player means contributing to collective success, even if it requires subordinating individual preferences. There is few room for individualist heroism in a company's culture.
Ultimately, the clash between Truman and MacArthur is a testament to the delicate balance between individual initiative and collective responsibility. It reminds us that true leadership requires vision, collaboration, and a steadfast commitment to the greater good.