BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Winston Churchill's Terrible Leadership Failure

Following
This article is more than 8 years old.

This article is by Dean Williams, a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School and author of Leadership for a Fractured World: How to Cross Boundaries, Build Bridges, and Lead Change.

Winston Churchill is often hailed as the model of a great leader, but a hundred years ago this month, in the early days of World War I, his leadership was dreadful. As Britain’s lord of admiralty (secretary of the navy), he made the fateful decision to attack Turkey on its Dardanelles coast, specifically at Gallipoli. The eight-and-a-half-month-long battle involved a total of about a million men on both sides, of whom nearly one half became casualties. The failed campaign led to the humiliation of the British. Churchill was dismissed from his cabinet position, excluded from the War Council, and allowed no hand in the further conduct and administration of the war.

Gallipoli has become an enduring symbol of the worst kind of military folly and waste. Even Churchill considered it the greatest tragedy of his political career. “Looking back, with after-knowledge and increasing years,” he later wrote, “I seem to have been too ready to undertake tasks which were hazardous or even forlorn.” His wife, Clementine, would later tell a biographer that, given the burden of this failure, she thought Winston “would die of grief.”

Why did Churchill fail to provide adequate leadership in this critical situation? What did he miss? What went wrong?

When it came to dealing with this leadership challenge, Churchill was pig-headed. His stubborn attachment to his own point of view, coupled with a can-do attitude that verged on the hubristic, led him to ignore, discount and distort vital data. He forcefully imposed his strategy and did not give ample space for dissenting voices to challenge his assumptions, express their views, or explore alternative strategies. The merits of his plan seemed completely self-evident to him, and he was hell-bent on seeing that his strategy prevailed.

The primary person that he failed to listen to was the head of the Royal Navy, first lord of the sea, 74-year-old Admiral John Fisher. Fisher told Churchill his plan was doomed to failure and moreover fraught with possibilities of disaster utterly incommensurate with any advantage that could be obtained from the plan. Not only did Churchill spurn Fisher’s counsel, he took steps to ensure that Fisher’s perspective would never be considered by the War Cabinet. Fisher decided to resign in protest, telling Churchill, “You are bent on forcing the Dardanelles and nothing will turn you from itnothing. I know you so well!”

The prime minister, Lord Asquith, was under the impression that Churchill was consulting with all the relevant parties, making the best use of his advisers, and bringing their recommendations to the War Council. He also believed, based on what Churchill had told him, that the war would be over by Christmas. It continued for another three years.

Churchill’s lack of leadership during this period had serious consequences in that thousands of young men from Britain, Australia and New Zealand died needlessly. I acknowledge that I am biased in this matter, as my grandfather fought as an Australian at Gallipoli and was lucky to survive. Australia, being just a young country at the time, lost a significant portion of its male population, and those who returned were deeply scarred, emotionally and physically. Each year on April 25 the Australian people are reminded of this tragedy as they remember the heroism of their soldiers. Very few realize the nature and extent of Winston Churchill’s role in the mismanagement of the affair.

Churchill failed from the beginning to understand how to operate as a civilian minister with his military advisers. He allowed his own opinions on the problem to be given greater weight and credibility than the professionals whose job it was to provide the knowledge and expertise to attend directly to the specifics of the challenge.

Politicians make errors all the time. Nevertheless, in times of great danger a particular kind of leadership is required that is more sensible, responsible and inclusive than what one might provide during a time of peace or relative calm. In a time of crisis, too much is at stake for one individual to unilaterally determine the best course of action. Certainly, someone needs to take charge, but as we learn from Churchill’s experienceand from that of George Bush and his team as pertains to Iraq and Afghanistangiven cognitive, ideological and cultural biases, it is easy to make serious errors of judgment that can have dire consequences in terms of loss of resources, loss of life and even loss of wars. No doubt Churchill learned something from his errors, for he later redeemed himself as prime minister during World War II, providing leadership that was nothing short of outstanding.