I just finished The Pursuit of Victory, a scholarly biography of Horatio Nelson, Admiral of the British Navy at the turn of the 18th century. By "scholarly" I mean that almost one-third of the book are footnotes and appendices, and just about every sentence is referenced (which I ignored while reading, since if you don't have the source at hand, why bother?).

Nelson won the four greatest sea-battles of his time, defeating the French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, Russians, and their assorted allies: the battles of St. Vincent, The Nile, Copenhagen, and Trafalgar, where he was killed by French musket fire. He died in 1805. He was adored by the people, loved and honored by his crews, and disliked (sometimes despised) by his peers and superiors, until they actually had a chance to work directly with him. 

He was self-promoting, vain, sickly (he contracted malaria as a young lieutenant which plagued him all his life), he lost his arm and an eye in two different defeats, and he was generally vilified for his long affair with Emma Hamilton, the wife of a long-time friend. King George III hated him, and took every opportunity to snub him, yet Nelson was primarily responsible for keeping Napoleon bottled up at sea, despite being outmanned and outgunned. 

I'm not suggesting that you read the book unless this sort of history interests you, but there are some important things I took away:

• Nelson was a successful leader because he treated his sailors and officers with respect and discipline. He was obsessive about training, and drilled his crews to fire two shots for the enemy's one, more than making up for the enemy's superior numbers
• He maximized the resources at his disposal.
• He planned his tactics in consultation with his officers, and once the plan was agreed upon, they practiced the plan.
• He delegated authority to his captains, but maintained control.
• His plans were gamechanging and surprised the enemy. Rather than wasting time in maneuvers, he took the battle directly to them, cutting through their line of battle and engaging yardarm to yardarm.
• His courage was legendary; he led by example, and his was often the first ship to engage and board an enemy.
• He rewarded where appropriate, and censured when necessary.

He also failed in many ways:

• During peacetimes (there were several), he was a fish out of water. He was a terrible politician, often alienating friends and allies. 
• He was easily swayed by flattery, pomp and circumstance, and adorned himself with medals, ribbons, and sometimes ridiculous jewelry, which he displayed as much to irritate his peers as to boost his ego.
• He was arrogant enough to believe that whatever he did was righteous, and often ignored external factors that directly caused defeat or embarassment for the Crown. When he lost, it was always someone else's fault, or out of his control.
  
• He was compulsive about money. He once declined a peerage because he could not support the requisite lifestyle. He was never rich, nor lucky with money. This dogged him like the malaria.
• He never felt that the ruling parties or the Crown gave him enough credit for his accomplishments, and he was right; much of this was due to his vanity, and his habit of jumping over the chain of command with his demands.

He was absolutely the right man for most of the job, and absolutely the wrong man for the other parts. At sea, he was indomitable, on land he was inadequate. Politics and managing alliances were part of his job description; these required diplomacy and discretion, not Nelson's strong suits. Yet when the chips were down, he was the one called upon to plan and execute success, and he did. Nevertheless, I wonder how his performance review would have read? 

What Nelson really needed was an experienced politician in his retinue who could pilot him through the civilian components of his work. He could have used a chief of staff with talents in communications, project management, building consensus, and managing resources not directly under his jurisdiction. Nelson needed someone to remind him when he was over his head, and when to keep his mouth shut.

So, as I look at opportunity in this market, I will want to ask the questions: what will be required of me from both my strengths and shortcomings; will I have to provide leadership in the embassy as well as from the quarterdeck? Will I have the flexibility and authority to build a strong team with complementary skills and competencies? Will I get the help I need to work through difficult, unfamiliar situations? Will I be given the resources and training to "never mind maneuvers, go right at 'em"? Finally, will I receive adequate rewards and recognition for my efforts?