On the one hand, I feel like this book should be a textbook at Annapolis (and West Point, and the AFA and...). On the other hand, it was a fairly easy read. I am much more familiar with the European front than the Pacific when it comes to WW2 and so I found myself needing to resort to maps a bit more than I would like. I was reading an advance reader's copy and there were a good number of times I saw the US Naval Institute symbol where I am assuming there were things like those maps I was missing. So hopefully, you won't have the same problem when reading the official copy.

While there were plenty of great leadership lessons throughout this book, Sun Tzu this is not. Many of those lessons are not universally applicable. This book focuses on How Nimitz's leadership strategy was such an essential aspect. It doesn't bother much about how his leadership might be applicable in our own business or teaching situations. So I would recommend this book more for history buffs and those wanting to build on their love for WW2 history but would not necessarily recommend it for those who might want to see how this great leader might enhance their own leadership. While such lessons can be learned, it is not what this book is for.

Trent Hone is an excellent author and researcher with a vast knowledge of all things Navy. When I started reading this book, I was a bit put off by the way it was styled, as if it was a psychological and business-type profile of Admiral Nimitz. I stuck with it and was pleased to discover Hone's intention was to delve solidly into what made Nimitz such a great leader, still vastly underrated to this day. Due to the fact that the admiral did not write an autobiography after the war, did not bad mouth his colleagues or superiors, and left little to history regarding his own views on leadership and the war actually speaks volumes about his own leadership. Nimitz decided that he was there to do a job. He did not put himself above others, especially those who were doing the fighting and dying, and epitomized what leadership and managerial duties were all about. Put in charge of the Pacific Fleet just after Pearl Harbor, the admiral held some very real doubts about how he was going to accomplish the goals of winning the war. But first, he had to make due with what he had, as most of the Pacific Fleet lay in shambles at Oahu. Going to work right away, Nimitz excelled in putting the right people in the right places to do their jobs, and promptly got out of their way, letting them do the tasks assigned and only interfering on a few occasions when necessary. Hone proves that Nimitz was the right man, in the right place and at the right time to get the job done. A very impressive book and highly recommended.

Trent Hone is an amazing researcher.
His account of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz's Pacific naval victory is incredibly detailed.
It's as if he was a fly on the wall where Nimitz was.
How was Hone able to accumulate so much detail?
I suppose Nimitz had a diary and the US Navy released much documentation.

Regardless, I can't imagine sifting through all that info to write a book.
Hone must have read 100x words for every word he printed.

As impressive as this detailed research is, it is also the book's shortcoming.
This will be great if you love books about WWII, the Navy, or wars.

However, the mark of a 5-star book is that it makes someone who is lukewarm about a subject interested in it.
It turns a skeptical reader into a fan.

Most people who are only somewhat interested in WWII's Pacific battles would find the level of detail in this book to be overwhelming.
"Where's the editor?" they may wonder.

It would have been great if the book focused on stories like the one where Nimitz's plane crashed into the SF Bay, and he refused blankets or help until all the people on the plane were saved. It showed outstanding leadership.

VERDICT: Perfect for war-book readers.

The splendidly written academic study of Chester W. Nimitz's leadership qualities.

In 'Mastering the Art of Command: Admiral Chester W. Nimitz and Victory in the Pacific,' Trent Hone describes the admiral's character from psychological and sociopsychological angles.

Told through an academic, detailed narrative, the book shows how Chester W. Nimitz created an atmosphere of openness and psychological safety and then exploited each of his staff to the maximum. His primary method of organization was a decentralized, flexible hierarchy, but at the same time, he combined several focal posts for quicker decision-making. Nimitz quickly recognized that the aggressive advance was preferable to waiting for the enemy to strike. He used calculated risk, a frequently misinterpreted concept, that allowed him to seize the initiative and, in the end, win the war.

The book is not the complete, from birth to death, biography of Chester W. Nimitz or WW2 in general. Focused mainly on decision-making, staff reorganizations, and strategic goals, the book implies prior knowledge of the subject. Naturally, the author included the main battles of the Pacific. Still, they are analyzed as the testing ground for the admiral's leadership capabilities: preparations, psychological portraits of the participants, and logistical barriers. Hence, the book is unsuitable for those who have just started to study WW2.

I received an advance review copy through NetGalley, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.

An interesting study of Nimitz in command, which couches much of its analysis in terms of modern business theory. Surprisingly, this works well. Some of the history is glossed over, so a good background on the Pacific war will enhance a reader’s experience. I found Hone’s examination of Nimitz’s ability to run Pacific Fleet and Pacific Ocean Area effective, as was his analysis of Nimitz’s collaborative style. Two stylistic elements that put me off was Hone’s willingness to say, without evidence, the Nimitz “almost certainly” behaved in some fashion in unrecorded meetings, and the frequent use of the phrase “sensemaking” , which I found to be jarring jargon. The best element for me was the contrast to MacArthur, which I would have liked to have seen explored even more deeply. Perhaps an article contrasting the two in the future?