When considering what makes for an effective leader, let us contrast the approaches of two famous admirals.

On April 17, 1780, British Admiral George Rodney moved toward the French navy just off Martinique in the Caribbean. Rodney had the French fleet exactly where he wanted it, and—having signaled instructions for the attack to his fleet—his own ship Sandwich began the assault and tore through the French line. But then things quickly went wrong.

Rodney’s officers commanding the rest of his ships had not fully understood his intent or his signals. As they began to take what they believed were his desired maneuvers, one followed the other… yet this led to actions far removed from what Rodney had intended. In the end, Rodney found himself abandoned, with severe damage to Sandwich, realising a golden chance to inflict a crushing defeat had been wasted.

Rodney was furious. He thundered at "the dastardly behaviour of a fleet which called themselves British." Reading about the battle, I was struck by the parallels between Rodney’s frustration and that of managers and leaders I have witnessed in the corporate world who express and obviously feel contempt when instructions are not perfectly obeyed.

With the benefit of hindsight, though, in many ways, Rodney only had himself to blame. He may have been in possession of a brilliant plan, but he’d kept it too close to his chest, failed to communicate clearly, and neglected to prepare his officers to respond and act........

© Psychology Today