Winning Leadership Principles: Canada’s Success in WWI

By John Pellowe

The leadership principles that earned Canada worldwide respect in WW1 can lead Canadian business today to greatness.

War is always deplorable but there are times when it cannot be avoided. World War I was such a case and Canada’s role in it has significant leadership lessons that Canadian business leaders can still use today to great effect.

An Act of Parliament created the nation of Canada in 1867, but it was acts of leadership 50 years later that earned Canada a place among the nations of the world. The leadership principles first demonstrated in power at Vimy Ridge were used for the rest of the war, ending with “Canada’s 100 Days” of unparalleled success, to accomplish great and worthy goals. 

On Monday April 9th, 1917 the Canadian Corps advanced to successfully take Vimy Ridge. French and British forces had tried for two years to take the ridge suffering over 150,000 casualties. At a cost of 10,600 casualties, within two-and-a-half hours, the Canadians took all but one objective. The last objective was achieved by the end of the day and a new reputation was born. It seems strange to Canadians today, known for our peacekeeping forces, that we were once known and feared by the Germans as the shock troops of the Allied forces. Why were we so successful?

It comes down to the leadership styles of two men: the British Sir Julian Byng and the Canadian Sir Arthur Currie. Lieutenant-General Byng, commander of the Canadian Corps at Vimy Ridge and later a Governor-General of Canada, led by example. He had a history of personal heroism, was genuinely concerned about the troops’ welfare (even eating the same food they did). He was open to new ideas, very trusting of his staff and had an overwhelming desire to conserve lives. He didn’t treat the troops as “assets” or  “resources” but as people.

You can see his concern in a field guide he wrote which included these questions that all platoon leaders had to answer daily: “Do I know all the N.C.O.s and men in my platoon? Do I look after their health? Have I thought out what orders I would give in the following cases…? Have I practiced my platoon in getting out of their dugouts quickly to meet an attack and does each man know where to go? Am I doing as much as I can to inflict loss on the enemy?” In this guide, we see concern for the principle aspects of leadership – a focus on keeping the team in good shape, setting goals, giving direction, empowering individuals and monitoring results.

Currie took command from Byng shortly after Vimy Ridge and carried on with the same leadership principles. The best testament to the leadership of General Sir Arthur Currie is a scroll in the archives of the Canadian War Museum signed by all 146 officers under his command. It says in part, “Your keen military knowledge, unquestionable judgment and human feelings, coupled with the extraordinary skill, courage and tenacity which you evinced in battle, attracted the attention and admiration of the whole army, and of those in higher command…. We delight in taking this opportunity of assuring you of our profound confidence in your excellent leadership, and our great admiration for the manner in which you performed the arduous duties and the marked care displayed at all times for the comfort and well-being of your men.’

Byng and Currie were open to new ideas, always looking for a better way. They openly attracted creative people to their staffs. British scientists, rebuffed by their own army, joined Canadian scientists, mathematicians and engineers to develop new technology and tactics. They applied engineering principles to intelligence reports and aerial photography for the first time. Canadians developed a technique called sound ranging. Using microphones buried all over No Man’s Land, we listened to enemy shells as they whistled overhead and analyzed the sound using oscillographs and chronographs. Within three minutes, we knew the target, type of ammunition, size of gun and its location. We kept a “rap” sheet for every enemy gun and retaliated appropriately. Sound ranging was so effective in locating enemy guns that the opening barrage of the attack on Vimy Ridge destroyed 82% of all the enemy artillery. It was so quick and effective that many guns were destroyed unloaded and with their muzzle caps still on. 

We applied electron screens to our cannons so that as the shells passed through them we could measure muzzle velocity. That, combined with taking into account for the first time weather conditions when aiming, gave our artillery deadly accuracy. That accuracy allowed us to perfect the box barrage, where friendly artillery fire would surround a group of our own troops on all sides. No one could get close to us and we could move about the battlefield synchronized perfectly with the artillery who were perhaps a mile or more behind us. 

The creeping barrage was perfected by Canadians too. For the first time, each artillery piece would fire at a specific location at a specific rate for a specific amount of time. It produced a curtain of fire just in front of the troops. It meant we could stand up and walk rather than crouching and running. Every three minutes, the barrage would lift just as troops got close to it and the barrage crept forward another 100 yards. 

We challenged conventional wisdom that said the more you were losing the battle, the more men you should throw into it. Byng and Currie thought that was nonsense and developed a new tactic of reinforcing success, not failure. By putting more men into areas of success we capitalized on our victories, strengthened our position and encircled the areas of hard fighting.

Leadership valued individuals. To preserve lives, our new strategy of attack was based upon individual platoons advancing in scattered groups using the Fire and Movement doctrine. No more advancing in a straight line. Part of the platoon would fire at the enemy and provide cover while the rest moved to new positions. 

Currie talked with British and French commanding officers to find out what they learned from their battles, but he also talked with frontline troops, the ones closest to the action. This was unprecedented. He discovered the top brass and frontline soldiers had entirely different views on what had happened. He assumed that frontline soldiers were intelligent and their feedback was valuable. 

For the first time, the frontline soldier was not expected to bear the full brunt of the attack. Byng established regular intervals at which support troops would leapfrog over frontline troops so that fresh men were always at the front fighting at peak efficiency. 

They built a solid team that was self-sufficient, balanced for the task at hand and was under good leadership. For the first time, Canadians were not blended into the British Army. Platoon members were not shuffled around as in other armies. By working together over a long period of time, men gained a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their teammates and adjusted and compensated accordingly. Platoons and battalions generally stayed next to each other so we knew who was supporting us on either side as well. 

Byng and Currie promoted people based on competence, not social class. Promotions were seen as fair and there was much greater acceptance of the leadership team. Byng put all officers through a leadership course and the first question on the self-evaluation was how well the officer knew the men under his command. 

The platoon was transformed from foot soldiers only to a balanced combat entity like no other at the time. It became a self-sufficient tactical unit capable of taking and holding ground with its own resources. Specialists were incorporated right into the ranks so there was no elitism. At the platoon level all roles were interchangeable, including that of the leaders. If a lieutenant fell, anyone could step into his place and carry on. The commanders knew that in the end, it would be the ability of people to work together and trust each other that would lead to victory. 

Byng and Currie trained, cross-trained, equipped and empowered the teams. Everyone knew the battle plans. The only thing not known was the date. Everyone received a map of the battlefield and an understanding of the overall battle plans. At Vimy, a scale plasticene model of the battlefield was built right down to minute detail. Everyone was allowed to analyze it, commit it to memory, talk about it and visualize their part in the attack. Byng built a full-scale replica of the battlefield and troops spent month training on it. Exact enemy lines, obstacles and identifying features were laid out in detail with tape on the ground. Everyone practiced walking forward at exactly 100 yards every three minutes carrying the exact same equipment they would in battle. That pace was critical because that was the rate at which the creeping barrage would move forward. 

Byng and Currie provided the Corps with the proper equipment. Everyone else had 24 machine guns per division but we had 64. Others would have used about 400 artillery pieces for the attack on Vimy; we used almost 1,000. A rifle that seized up under battlefield conditions was replaced with the Lee Enfield. 

Instead of the usual general objectives for the divisions, every platoon was given its own goals and times to reach them. Instead of just one objective to achieve, we had a series of intermediate goals along with a strict deadline for each. We were encouraged to think and show initiative on the field; to take advantage of every opportunity we saw. 

Decision-making was pushed from the headquarters at the rear to the frontline troops. Every soldier was told what to do and why. All soldiers knew what was at stake if they didn’t do their part. Every job was important! Such open communication had great benefits. Each soldier understood how critical their individual part was to the whole and why they were doing what they were doing. In battle they made better decisions based on the overall objectives and most importantly they convinced themselves of the feasibility of the attack. 

Vimy Ridge and the remainder of the war was a practical demonstration of great leadership in action. Leadership that looked for new ideas, recognized the value of the individual, built a strong team and then trained, equipped and empowered them to achieve specific goals. These are timeless principles that every leader would be wise to adopt.

World War I gave Canadians recognition, confidence and a national identity as rewards of leadership. What might great leadership do for you? Lead well and enjoy your own outstanding victory!

Read Only © 2000 John Pellowe Used by permission

Author, speaker and facilitator, Waterloo, Ontario-based John Pellowe helps corporations achieve their goals through organizational and people development. John delivers an expanded presentation on this topic in WW1 uniform as General Arthur Currie.  For a free catalogue of resources, or to book John to speak at your next meeting, email: info@canlead.com 

Article courtesy of Bob ‘Idea Man’ Hooey & Ideas At Work! Visit our webiste: http://www.ideaman.net/ for more downloadable Business Enhancement Success Thinking series of articles by some of North America’s top speakers and experts. If you’ve enjoyed this article, please let the author know, and tell them you read it on http://www.ideaman.net/ Bookmark this site as we add new articles as they are received.