Was Napoleon a effective leader?

Question

How does Napoleon reflect to the following leadership qualities
1. Good leaders know themselves
2. Good leaders are committed
3. Good leaders know they do not know everything
4. Good leaders are open to change
5. Good leaders go an extra mile

Answer 1

Clearly, Napoleon got too big for his breeches. When he crowned HIMSELF emperor he was demonstrating that he thought his authority was superior to everyone, even the bishop who officiated at the ceremony. There is a famous painting where he takes the crown away from the church official and puts it on his own head. Google it. It is really easy to find. I think he actually started out as a very good leader, but he had so much early success that he started to believe that he was invincible and that (and the Russian winter) is what destroyed him.

Answer 2

He was a very effective leader. Let's review your list and see if they apply to Napoleon. Good leaders are committed - Napoleon was one of the most committed men in history, always working as hard or harder than his troops. He developed hemorrhoids later in life, so he had trouble sleeping. Therefore, he stayed up long hours planning for battle. Good leaders know they don't know everything - Hmmmm. I didn't personally know the man, obviously, but Napoleon THOUGHT he knew everything. The thing is, when it came to war, he almost did. However, he was quick to defend his own personal knowledge and got pissed off if anyone questioned him. So I think Napoleon flunks this part. Good leaders are open to change - Not really. Napoleon wanted it his way or no way. Good leaders take advice from those around him - Napoleon thought he knew it all, so I would flunk him here, as well. Good leaders take risks - He took risks everyday. For him, getting up in the morning was a risk, considering how many people wanted him dead. So, Napoleon flunks alot of things on your list, but I would still say he was a great leader because his people loved him to the very end and followed him, most of them to their deaths.

Answer 3

Napoleon was a megalomaniac who got a little carried away and had mild delusions of grandeur.

He was a highly strategic military leader though and quite possibly one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known, especially in battle situations.

To directly comment on your statements:
1.Good leaders know themselves - Napoleon, once again, was a megalomanic who envisioned himself as the great leader that Julius Ceaser was. His overconfidence cost him final victory in the end.

2.Good leaders are committed - Absolutely. He committed his armies to invade and seize control of areas that no one thought could be taken. He was feared but even moreso respected by his men and his enemies. Many enemies surrendered because his reputation of being so committed and steadfast was enough to literally scare rulers of other areas to surrender instead of lose half their populations to a war.

3.Good leaders know they do not know everything - He had a problem with this one. He was well read and highly intelligent, but he was convinced taht he knew everything there was to know to become the emperor that he declared himself as. Admission to weakness or lack of knowledge was something he wasn't too keen on.

4.Good leaders are open to change - See answer above. He had a vision and did everything he could to bring his goals to fruition.

5.Good leaders go an extra mile - Agreed. Even knowing that the harsh environmental conditions could cost him a great n umber of his soldiers, he pushed the into near impossible odds to fulfill his goals. As a matter of fact, two of his soldiers discovered the Rosetta Stone in Egypt when he was on his expansion campaign.


Here's another little bit of trivia for you, Napoleon sold the Louisiana territories to the US government to help fund his campaign. If he hadn't have done that, the Lewis and Clark expedition wouldn't have been able to take place as early as it did. Effectively, Napoleon contributed in the formation on America as a nation!

Answer 4

Napoleon was probably somewhat skilled in all of these areas but a compairson to modern management skills is probably not the best way to look at him. In another age he was a great leader, visionary and military tactician. He did however let success go to his head and made the mistake of invading Russia and letting his army get drawn deeper and deeper into that harsh climate where he was beaten.

This mistake led to his downfall.

Answer 5

yes to all the above..except just so so # 4. @waterloo he was
resistant but not impervious to change his course.