The funny thing about Kersh is nothing much in his film directing career up to Empire suggested he'd be ideal for that kind of movie. Certainly not "The Eyes of Laura Mars" (from John Carpenter screenplay), or The Flim-Flam Man in the 1960s. The TV movie Raid on Entebbe w/ Charles Bronson was maybe his closest previous experience as far as action stuff goes.
Later in his career after Empire, he seemed to get stereotyped as an "action director," but the scripts didn't seem quite up to his abilities, like the uber-violent Robocop 2 that lacked Robocop's over the top humor; or Sean Connery's last "unofficial" turn as James Bond in Never Say Never Again.
That's one reason I find it funny when fans rage about this or that directing choice for sci-fi, comic book or big action films. You really can't judge most directors on their previous work, except maybe in terms of their care in portraying characters and general storytelling. The best person to direct a sci-fi film might be someone who never directed one before, the ideal person to direct a war film might be someone who never did one before, etc. So I can carp as an old fogey about Lucas picking Richard Marquand for ROTJ as many do, but Kershner made no more sense on paper in terms of his prior track record.
I mentioned it another thread a while back but imho the saddest thing bout Return of the Jedi is that Kershner really wanted to direct the third film, according to interviews with him. He wanted to finish the stories and character arcs they started in Empire, and he wanted to work with the cast again.
I have no doubt he probably would have disagreed with Lucas over the cutesiness of the Ewoks, he might've found a way to give Han Solo a little more to do again (though he probably would've agreed with Lucas that killing him off as Harrison Ford suggested wouldn't be doable), he might've reduced the whole preponderance of Muppets and rampant cutesiness and sappy sentimentality (though when I saw it at age 18 in 1983, I was just happy to see my favorite characters on screen again). Who's to say if the result would've been a better movie or made more money at the box office, it at least would've been different and it stands to reason the director who did so well with the 2nd film could probably do it again.