Harry S. Truman's Decision To Drop The Atomic Bomb
Harry S. Truman Harry S. Truman was a simple man from Missouri who, in his own words, stated “if ever there was a man forced to be President, I am that man” (Ferrell, 1980). During the 1944 election, the Democratic Party nominated Truman for the Vice Presidency against his wishes. His loyalty to the Party ran deep, however, so he humbly accepted and became Franklin Roosevelt’s running mate. It was no surprise when Roosevelt won his fourth term, but many people had never heard of Harry Truman. This was about to change. In April 1945, only 82 days into Truman’s Vice Presidency, he received word that President Roosevelt died. He now found himself President of a nation in the midst of World War II. Although Truman never actively sought out to become the
…show more content…
President, he proved throughout his Presidency to be a visionary leader. He accomplished many great achievements, but the one that showcased his visionary leader traits was his work in desegregating the United States military. Truman saw a need to leverage diversity and create an inclusive environment within the military. This was an unpopular view at the time and was met with strong negative resistance from the public. However, Truman dealt with this resistance by continually displaying cognitive, emotional, and dispositional flexibility. Unfortunately, Truman isn’t remembered for his many great achievements; rather, he is remembered for just one event: dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. Truman was an unethical leader who made a decision by applying the decision analysis process, but fell victim to ethical traps and hindrances to critical thinking while doing so. He let bias, loyalty, worry over image, and drive for success make a decision that killed roughly 225,000 civilians (Pavlik, 1995). To me, Truman serves as a reminder that a leader can accomplish many great achievements but, if they are unethical, they will only be remembered for their unethical deeds. This was a reminder I had to put into play during a deployment in 2009 when I was about to make a simple decision that would have gone against our core value Integrity First. As a leader, I want to leave a legacy of accomplishing great things throughout my career. I do not want to be remembered as an unethical leader based on one bad decision.
Visionary Leader Truman was a visionary leader who believed in leveraging diversity within the military by creating inclusive environments. When faced with strong negative resistance to this change, he displayed cognitive, emotional, and dispositional flexibility to help understand this resistance and to ensure change. During World War II, the U.S. military was a diverse force. In fact, it was the largest employer of minorities during that time (MacGregor, 1981). However, it was not an inclusive environment. In other words, there were no steps taken to bring together the diverse individuals (Barnes Center for Enlisted Education, 2017a). The military was segregated and units were divided by race/color. These units did not communicate or coordinate with each other. It was almost as if the U.S. had two separate militaries. To help bring these units together, Truman signed Executive Order 9981. This executive order stated that “all service members will be treated equally and given the same opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, and national origin” (Truman Library, 2017). The signing of this Executive Order was met with strong negative resistance from the public and military. However, Truman didn’t seek to fight this resistance. Instead, he used cognitive flexibility to try and understand this resistance and to develop a plan that would ensure the success of his vision. In doing so, he developed an advisory committee that was tasked to examine the current rules, policies, and procedures, as well as inputs from supporters and critics. With this data, he was able to supply the required training and resources to the military. He also involved military leadership in assigning personnel to the units. Truman was also able to apply emotional flexibility. He was known as a man who would write angry letters to those he didn’t agree with. According to author Robert Ferrell, “the letters started out properly enough, but then a note of exasperation appeared, and soon no holds were barred and the President reached for the jugular” (Ferrell, 1980). However, Truman did not send out one angry letter to any critics of his desegregation plan. He knew change would come slowly and he had to be patient. He had to keep his emotions in check and become more collaborative. Finally, Truman was able to demonstrate dispositional flexibility. He was a very optimistic and positive person. In fact, when people told him he would lose his re-election if he stayed on his civil rights plan, he stated that if he lost, it would be a good cause (Ferrell, 1980). Due to Truman’s use of cognitive, emotional, and dispositional flexibility, the military was officially desegregated in 1954. However, this great accomplishment was overshadowed in the history books by his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.
Unethical Leader Truman was, in essence, an unethical leader. When faced with the ethical dilemma of dropping the atomic bomb, he allowed ethical traps and hindrances to critical thinking greatly skew his decision analysis process. This ended in the mass casualty of many civilian lives. Truman appropriately applied the decision analysis process when deciding how to face enemy forces in Japan.
His decision statement was to end the war in Japan and his decision criterion was to have Japan surrender unconditionally. Based on this statement and criterion, he then developed alternatives to end the war. These alternatives were to continue the conventional bombings, conduct a ground invasion, drop the atomic bomb, or conduct a demonstration of the atomic bomb to the Japanese (National Park Service, 2017). Once these alternatives were developed, the risks were analyzed. In the end, Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb. On the outside this may seem like a rational decision but the closer you look, the more you realize that this decision was skewed by bias, loyalty, worry over image, and drive for success. Just like most Americans during this time period, Truman was bias against the Japanese and loyal to America. The Japanese had bombed our service members at Pearl Harbor and they killed our POWs. America was seen as the good guy and Japan was the evil that needed to be defeated. This bias impeded his critical thinking skills and his patriotism helped him fall into the loyalty syndrome ethical
trap. His decision was also influenced by the worry over image ethical trap. Worry over image “entails making decisions based on how they’ll impact your reputation” (Barnes Center for Enlisted Education, 2017b). Truman wanted to project an image of a strong president and worried what the country would think if they knew he had a weapon that could end the war but chose not to use it. Finally, Truman’s decision was also impacted by his drive for success. He wanted to end the war of all wars as quickly as possible, at any cost. Due to his bias, loyalty, worry over image, and drive for success, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bomb on a civilian population. That became his legacy, and this legacy continues to teach later generations. For me, it taught me how leaders who act in an unethical way can quickly undo all their good intentions.
Personal Relevance Truman’s visionary leadership traits coupled with his unethical behavior is a great reminder that a leader can accomplish great things but will only be remembered by their unethical deeds. As a leader, you have to decide what type of legacy you want to leave. From the day I entered the military, I knew the legacy I wanted to leave was one of hard work and leading by example. This was a legacy I almost destroyed by a simple decision back in 2009. In 2009, on my way to a deployment in Iraq, I had a stopover in Al Udeid AB. I was a TSgt at the time and my co-worker, a SSgt, was with me. We were in the passenger terminal with about 40 other members. During our time waiting there, one member mentioned that there was a grab-and-go located just outside the terminal. Being very hungry, my co-worker and I ended up going there to get snacks with about 15 other members. After returning, passenger terminal personnel came in and demanded to know who left the terminal. They stated that we were not allowed to leave the terminal because we did not officially immigrate into Qatar. They wanted all individuals who left to report to the passenger terminal commander for paperwork. Since there was no way to know exactly who went outside the terminal, it was based on the honor system to come forward. I did not want to in-process at my deployed unit with paperwork, so I decided I wasn’t going to come forward. Since there was no way to tell if I left the terminal, the consequences seemed less severe to go that route. Then, I saw my SSgt looking at me for guidance. This is when I realized that this unethical decision would have more consequences than I initially thought. By making this unethical decision, I would be viewed in my co-workers eyes as an unethical leader. I would, in that one moment, teach my co-worker that the core values only applied when they were convenient and that a leader didn’t have to demonstrate honesty, trustworthiness, and respect. As a secondary consequence, my SSgt could begin leading his airmen in the same way, teaching the next generation through toxic leadership. In the end, I owned up to my mistake and took the paperwork. I realized that I was letting my worry over my image affect my decision-making skills. I was worried what my deployed unit would think of me if I showed up with paperwork. I was becoming victim to an ethical trap. Seeing my SSgt look to me for guidance made me realize that if I showed up to my deployed unit with paperwork, I had 6 months to prove myself. However, if I didn’t come forward and admitted my mistake, there wasn’t anything I could do to change that SSgt from viewing me as an unethical leader.
Summary
Harry S. Truman was dealt a rough hand when he unexpectedly became President, but he took the opportunity to prove he was an ethical leader. He saw the need to leverage diversity by creating an inclusive environment within the military. When he was met with resistance to this change, he displayed cognitive, emotional, and dispositional flexibility to understand this resistance and bring about change. Unfortunately, Truman also proved to be an unethical leader. He let ethical traps and hindrances to critical thinking cloud his decision-making skills. When faced with the decision to drop an atomic bomb on Japan, he let bias, loyalty, worry over image, and drive for success impact this decision. As a result, he dropped an atomic bomb on civilians and this is the event remembered by the history books. His unethical deed trumped all his good deeds. As a leader, it’s important to take Truman’s unethical decision as a reminder. Anyone can fall into ethical traps, like I did during a deployment in 2009, but you must remember that it will only lead to making an unethical decision. Once you make an unethical decision, that one decision could become your legacy.
President, he proved throughout his Presidency to be a visionary leader. He accomplished many great achievements, but the one that showcased his visionary leader traits was his work in desegregating the United States military. Truman saw a need to leverage diversity and create an inclusive environment within the military. This was an unpopular view at the time and was met with strong negative resistance from the public. However, Truman dealt with this resistance by continually displaying cognitive, emotional, and dispositional flexibility. Unfortunately, Truman isn’t remembered for his many great achievements; rather, he is remembered for just one event: dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. Truman was an unethical leader who made a decision by applying the decision analysis process, but fell victim to ethical traps and hindrances to critical thinking while doing so. He let bias, loyalty, worry over image, and drive for success make a decision that killed roughly 225,000 civilians (Pavlik, 1995). To me, Truman serves as a reminder that a leader can accomplish many great achievements but, if they are unethical, they will only be remembered for their unethical deeds. This was a reminder I had to put into play during a deployment in 2009 when I was about to make a simple decision that would have gone against our core value Integrity First. As a leader, I want to leave a legacy of accomplishing great things throughout my career. I do not want to be remembered as an unethical leader based on one bad decision.
Visionary Leader Truman was a visionary leader who believed in leveraging diversity within the military by creating inclusive environments. When faced with strong negative resistance to this change, he displayed cognitive, emotional, and dispositional flexibility to help understand this resistance and to ensure change. During World War II, the U.S. military was a diverse force. In fact, it was the largest employer of minorities during that time (MacGregor, 1981). However, it was not an inclusive environment. In other words, there were no steps taken to bring together the diverse individuals (Barnes Center for Enlisted Education, 2017a). The military was segregated and units were divided by race/color. These units did not communicate or coordinate with each other. It was almost as if the U.S. had two separate militaries. To help bring these units together, Truman signed Executive Order 9981. This executive order stated that “all service members will be treated equally and given the same opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, and national origin” (Truman Library, 2017). The signing of this Executive Order was met with strong negative resistance from the public and military. However, Truman didn’t seek to fight this resistance. Instead, he used cognitive flexibility to try and understand this resistance and to develop a plan that would ensure the success of his vision. In doing so, he developed an advisory committee that was tasked to examine the current rules, policies, and procedures, as well as inputs from supporters and critics. With this data, he was able to supply the required training and resources to the military. He also involved military leadership in assigning personnel to the units. Truman was also able to apply emotional flexibility. He was known as a man who would write angry letters to those he didn’t agree with. According to author Robert Ferrell, “the letters started out properly enough, but then a note of exasperation appeared, and soon no holds were barred and the President reached for the jugular” (Ferrell, 1980). However, Truman did not send out one angry letter to any critics of his desegregation plan. He knew change would come slowly and he had to be patient. He had to keep his emotions in check and become more collaborative. Finally, Truman was able to demonstrate dispositional flexibility. He was a very optimistic and positive person. In fact, when people told him he would lose his re-election if he stayed on his civil rights plan, he stated that if he lost, it would be a good cause (Ferrell, 1980). Due to Truman’s use of cognitive, emotional, and dispositional flexibility, the military was officially desegregated in 1954. However, this great accomplishment was overshadowed in the history books by his decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.
Unethical Leader Truman was, in essence, an unethical leader. When faced with the ethical dilemma of dropping the atomic bomb, he allowed ethical traps and hindrances to critical thinking greatly skew his decision analysis process. This ended in the mass casualty of many civilian lives. Truman appropriately applied the decision analysis process when deciding how to face enemy forces in Japan.
His decision statement was to end the war in Japan and his decision criterion was to have Japan surrender unconditionally. Based on this statement and criterion, he then developed alternatives to end the war. These alternatives were to continue the conventional bombings, conduct a ground invasion, drop the atomic bomb, or conduct a demonstration of the atomic bomb to the Japanese (National Park Service, 2017). Once these alternatives were developed, the risks were analyzed. In the end, Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb. On the outside this may seem like a rational decision but the closer you look, the more you realize that this decision was skewed by bias, loyalty, worry over image, and drive for success. Just like most Americans during this time period, Truman was bias against the Japanese and loyal to America. The Japanese had bombed our service members at Pearl Harbor and they killed our POWs. America was seen as the good guy and Japan was the evil that needed to be defeated. This bias impeded his critical thinking skills and his patriotism helped him fall into the loyalty syndrome ethical
trap. His decision was also influenced by the worry over image ethical trap. Worry over image “entails making decisions based on how they’ll impact your reputation” (Barnes Center for Enlisted Education, 2017b). Truman wanted to project an image of a strong president and worried what the country would think if they knew he had a weapon that could end the war but chose not to use it. Finally, Truman’s decision was also impacted by his drive for success. He wanted to end the war of all wars as quickly as possible, at any cost. Due to his bias, loyalty, worry over image, and drive for success, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bomb on a civilian population. That became his legacy, and this legacy continues to teach later generations. For me, it taught me how leaders who act in an unethical way can quickly undo all their good intentions.
Personal Relevance Truman’s visionary leadership traits coupled with his unethical behavior is a great reminder that a leader can accomplish great things but will only be remembered by their unethical deeds. As a leader, you have to decide what type of legacy you want to leave. From the day I entered the military, I knew the legacy I wanted to leave was one of hard work and leading by example. This was a legacy I almost destroyed by a simple decision back in 2009. In 2009, on my way to a deployment in Iraq, I had a stopover in Al Udeid AB. I was a TSgt at the time and my co-worker, a SSgt, was with me. We were in the passenger terminal with about 40 other members. During our time waiting there, one member mentioned that there was a grab-and-go located just outside the terminal. Being very hungry, my co-worker and I ended up going there to get snacks with about 15 other members. After returning, passenger terminal personnel came in and demanded to know who left the terminal. They stated that we were not allowed to leave the terminal because we did not officially immigrate into Qatar. They wanted all individuals who left to report to the passenger terminal commander for paperwork. Since there was no way to know exactly who went outside the terminal, it was based on the honor system to come forward. I did not want to in-process at my deployed unit with paperwork, so I decided I wasn’t going to come forward. Since there was no way to tell if I left the terminal, the consequences seemed less severe to go that route. Then, I saw my SSgt looking at me for guidance. This is when I realized that this unethical decision would have more consequences than I initially thought. By making this unethical decision, I would be viewed in my co-workers eyes as an unethical leader. I would, in that one moment, teach my co-worker that the core values only applied when they were convenient and that a leader didn’t have to demonstrate honesty, trustworthiness, and respect. As a secondary consequence, my SSgt could begin leading his airmen in the same way, teaching the next generation through toxic leadership. In the end, I owned up to my mistake and took the paperwork. I realized that I was letting my worry over my image affect my decision-making skills. I was worried what my deployed unit would think of me if I showed up with paperwork. I was becoming victim to an ethical trap. Seeing my SSgt look to me for guidance made me realize that if I showed up to my deployed unit with paperwork, I had 6 months to prove myself. However, if I didn’t come forward and admitted my mistake, there wasn’t anything I could do to change that SSgt from viewing me as an unethical leader.
Summary
Harry S. Truman was dealt a rough hand when he unexpectedly became President, but he took the opportunity to prove he was an ethical leader. He saw the need to leverage diversity by creating an inclusive environment within the military. When he was met with resistance to this change, he displayed cognitive, emotional, and dispositional flexibility to understand this resistance and bring about change. Unfortunately, Truman also proved to be an unethical leader. He let ethical traps and hindrances to critical thinking cloud his decision-making skills. When faced with the decision to drop an atomic bomb on Japan, he let bias, loyalty, worry over image, and drive for success impact this decision. As a result, he dropped an atomic bomb on civilians and this is the event remembered by the history books. His unethical deed trumped all his good deeds. As a leader, it’s important to take Truman’s unethical decision as a reminder. Anyone can fall into ethical traps, like I did during a deployment in 2009, but you must remember that it will only lead to making an unethical decision. Once you make an unethical decision, that one decision could become your legacy.