I think when we say "we would follow them anywhere", we are actually quite close to the answer. The most inspirational leaders are those who "lead from the front". In many cases, eg "Dutch" Cota @ Omaha, men can be "shamed" into action if you will. "Jumping Jim" Gavin was widely regarded as the most effective divisional commander in the ETO, by British officers also. Otways men followed him because whatever they thought of him personally, he was there & leading them, & whatever they were going through he was too. I realise in retrospect that this may not be an ideal example, as the men he was leading were themselves highly motivated, being all volunteers. I have just finished reading "The Guns of War", which follows the experiences of a Canadian gunner officer through the NWE campaign. Some of the observations he made about the officers commanding the Canadian infantry regiments he was supporting are very telling. They were able to command the loyalty of their men because they were sharing the awful conditions with them. In addition, while some of their men could at least sleep, they were frequently summoned to "O" groups @ 2 o'clock in the morning. However as against this, one always has to consider the motivation of the led as well as the leader. The NWE campaign was, to coin a phrase "a good war", if that was possible. There was an easily identified enemy who had overrun & enslaved most of Western Europe. In fact, Eisenhowers memoirs of the campaign were called "Crusade in Europe". There is the world of difference between motivating trained professionals, & disaffected conscripts.
As a failed RCB entrant, I know that whatever the traits are, I don't have them! However some of my fellow students showed them in spades. It's nothing to do with technical knowledge (or even competance, after all we have to consider some generals have been able to somehow lead their men to disaster), although that can make a good leader better. It is something far more nebulous.

Steve what is an RCB entrant?
DJ

All BS aside the single most important trait (officer or Enlisted ) is -
You must care MORE about the welfare of your men than you do YOURSELF I base this on 10 years as a non-commisioned officer - The reason Officers are so maligned is because so many of them (John Kerry) use the service as a way to enhance thier post service career. The Navy had a problem with elitist "ringknockers" that attended the academy- once we had a CNO that had been enlisted(Admiral Jeremy Boorda ) a lot of that went away - now so many enlisted have been to college the gap between the ranks

Let me attempt to wedge myself into your discussion point. I was an Combat ArmsOfficer in the Army on active duty for thirty years. The bulk of comments in this topic area have been about Officer leadership. I'd like to balance the perspective. Certainly there is room for an individual to improve once he assumes the mantle of an Officer, however, litle discussion has focused on the vital role the NCO Corps plays in maturing an Offficer. The guy who improved my map reading was 1SG Featherson when I commanded a mechanized infantry company in 1972. He also helped me develop a leadership style that set the pace for the remainder of my career. When I was S-3 Operations Officer in a Cavalry Squadron it was my Operations NCO who assisted me in appreciating my responsibilities. As a Tank Battalion Commander I was blessed with a great Sergeant Major for the first 18 months of command along with outstanding maintenance and food service guys. I cannot say enough about what each of these men taught me about being a Soldier and an Officer. Along the way, I encountered God only knows how many dud muffins. Regardless of rank or longevity in service, I came across NCOs who could not read a map, maintain their equipment, supervise their subordinates or interface with their leadership. I could offer all the positive leadership I desired, but if I had a clown between me and the individuals carrying out the task, we were in for trouble. When one is tasked with completing a mission be it administrative or tactical, you are going to step on toes. You can bust your butt , accomplish the task and face a storm of criticsm over how you performed. It's tough,but one listen to and learns not to be a slave to criticism. Sometimes, you just shut out the critics and drive on. You learn that in Ranger Schhool. Regardless, it takes time and effort to mature into a seasoned Officer or NCO. I found the best units to be those that had leaders who rid us of deadbeats, explained their actions and accomplished the given mission. For the most part (and, I can think of few exceptions, they demonstrated their concern by their actions not speeches) Look at the commentary on Ordway and the taking of the Merville fortifications. Based on my readings, Ordway led from the front, accepted the impossible task and accomplished it. The welfare of the individual was assured by his taking charge and doing what they landed in Normandy to accomplish. I'll bet you all the tea in China along the way he stepped on toes and busted a few guys. And, I would also venture a few probably thought he did not care about their welfare. Sometimes, you cannot be all things to all men.
DJ

The company grade leader has to have different traits than the field grade. Most of the company grade (including NCO) traits are things like integrity, responsibility team spirit, technical proficiency, courage, and the ability to make decisins when faced with difficult choices

As a field grade you need to add to everything above, tactical profieciency, innovativeness, accepting even higher resonsibily, delegation (can't do it all yourself).

At VMI we had it drummed into our heads that first thing you do when you walkin is to learn that you don't know everything and that you never will. Take your council from those above and below, make your decisions and stand by them. If they suceed give credit where it is due, if it fails then accept the responsibility and don't blame others

Steve-- agree. Damn fine school to learn. Always be proud of what you accomplished.
DJ

I thnk the term "follow him anywhere" has become trite and overused. What it would mean to me is that I trust the leader because he has proven himself to be thoughtful when considering a mission. Thoughtful in that he will accomplish it with as little loss of life as possible to accomplish the mission. If I have to give my life, I want to make sure it is not in vain . Take a look at my hopeless battles thread in the History forum. Men like Leonidas of the Spartans. He led these 300 all knowing they would die yet they went wth him anyway. or the Alamo group. Now those are leaders that could be called follow him anywhere type.

There is an interesting item on MSN tonight. A author, Robert Greene is coming out with a book, The 33 Strategies of War, that gives strategies used by many people, from U.S. Presidents to movie directors, in everyday life. Here are some examples.

"Everything which the enemy least expects will succeed the best." --Frederick the Great, 1712–1786

"Induce people to have the same aim as the leadership, so that they will share death and share life without fear of danger." --Sun-tzu, 4th century B.C.

"If the enemy relies upon their awesomeness, be emptily respectful, but substantially plan while awaiting their laxness." --Ming Dynasty text, 17th century

"Not numbers or strength brings victory in war, but whichever army goes into battle stronger in soul." --Xenophon, 5th century B.C

"Never interfere with an enemy that is in the process of committing suicide." --Napoléon Bonaparte, 1769–1821

I thought this might dovetail well with this discussion.