Month: September 2019

From the two readings, it seemed like the biggest difference between the traditional leader and the servant leader is the motivational force driving the leader into a leadership position. For the servant-leader it is the “natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” (Greenleaf 83). The desire of the servant-leader is to serve the community they are representing it, rather than the traditional leader, who may be more focused on their image/vision of leading the community.  This idea also ties into tyranny related to how focused a leader is with themselves vs. the followers. 

I think the idea of the servant-leader and humble leadership tie closely together. In Spears, ten characteristics were attributed to servant-leadership: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Spears 25). These characteristics align closely with the idea of humble leaders, because healing, awareness, listening, and commitment to the growth of people all require a leader to carefully consider and shift values to align with those of the followers.  

What interested me the most after reading the two articles was about where these servant-leaders would be coming from. It seemed like Greenleaf was essentially calling for the population to find these servant leaders, because it is the “seekers, then who make prophets” (Greenleaf 80). However, as a democracy, we elect our leaders, so theoretically, we are already seeking our leaders. Despite that, I do not believe Trump falls close to the categorization of a servant-leader. How do we shift the focus/process of our elections so that we can raise leaders to office who are closer to servant-leaders, and not as narcissistically driven? 

6 Comments

On Tuesday (September 24th) I attended the first event in the Sharp Viewpoint Series. The speaker of the evening was Sarah McBride. She is the press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign which is the largest LGBTQ advocacy and lobbying group in the United States. She is a graduate of American University, running for Delaware state senate and she is also a transwoman.

Sarah began her speech with telling her own story of how she came out to her family and her university. She came out to her school in an op-ed in the school newspaper and shared that the support was overwhelmingly positive which she also recognized was not the norm for many LGBTQ people, especially people who are trans. I never though about it this way but Sarah said that people in general are less accepting of trans people than gay people because most people know how it feels to love someone or love someone they are not supposed to, but most people do not full understand the identity crisis trans people go through. Her story was very moving and she spoke with such eloquence and passion it was easy to follow her emotions both in the moments she was retelling and during the speech.

One quote from the event that really stuck with me was when Sarah said people claim being anti-LGBTQ under the guise of religious freedom but religious freedom should not be a “sword to harm already marginalized people”. This is an example of intersectionality we talked about in class. Transpeople, especially trans women are subject to transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, sexism and more.

Sarah left the audience with two very powerful pieces of advice. One: there is no wrong way to be you. And two: you are powerful. Everyone has insecurities but if you accept and replace those insecurities with pride, bullies will see that power and become jealous.

Sarah is a great example of a leader. She has not only taken on local leadership but has taken her personal experiences and beliefs to the national level through her work with the Human Rights Campaign and her campaign for Delaware senate. She is an example of a charismatic leader who recognized her circumstances and rose to be the voice of people like her and people who support her.

Leave a Comment

I believe humility is an important characteristic for all people to have or at least understand. After reading Ruscio’s piece on humility, I now see how humility is one of the most important characteristics to good democratic leaders. Kennedy, Washington and Lincoln are some of the most recognized democratic leaders and they for sure embodied humility at some point during their terms.

I think that humility is a forgotten virtue in civilian life in general bus especially in the political sphere. Today we want political leaders to have new ideas, be firm, decisive, strong and powerful. Strong-willed people can still be humble however it is becoming less and less common to have both. In a world where people must fight and be their own advocates, humility is more often replaced with confidence and pride, sometimes in excess.

We have talked at length about perception in this class. In relation to the perception of confidence with charismatic leaders, what matters more: how we see leaders or how they see themselves? With confidence and charisma, it matters that we perceive the leaders to be confident even if they see themselves as self-conscious. However Ruscio claims that with humility, it matters only that leaders see themselves as imperfect. I disagree with this statement because a leader’s personal belief of humility can and probably is different than what the public perceives as humility. If Trump thinks he is humble, does that mean it does not matter what the rest of the country thinks? Perception plays an important roll in all leadership characteristics but I think it is more important in the case of humility than charisma.

6 Comments

In this reading, the concept of Humility is explored. This concept is focused on here and it is used to show how this trait or ability to harness humility is quite powerful. When people talk about soft power and charisma, I feel that Ruscio puts this trait up there in being important. Humans inherently arent perfect so those who make the most of their imperfections and try their best to make up for imperfections make their followers understand and bond with their leader which is oftentimes very important. This reminds me a lot of the fear vs Love concept because humility allows more interpersonal communication with followers which can lead to a sort of love whereas those who do not embrace humility enjoy standing out in a godlike persona who wants to be feared. This reading really explores the idea of not exerting power and rejecting power. Ruscio points out “Historians frequently point to this episode as indicative of Washington’s innate ability to establish a bond, a trait that ultimately led him, in more significant historical moments, to acquire authority and legitimacy, not by exerting power over those he led, but by rejecting formal power.” This clearly was more effective than being tyrannical with power and had a better overall effect it seems.

6 Comments

This writing on humility once again explored the relationship between leaders and their followers. Ruscio makes the claim that the most effective leaders have a strong sense of humility. He writes about the misconceptions of the word humility by saying “Humility is not arrogance, which may be obvious. But neither is it timidity or reticence, which may be less obvious.” In other words, he is saying that a leader must obviously not be arrogant, but also that humility is not the opposite; humility is the middle ground between the two. Humility is the ability of the leader to run the show but also be a part of the army.

The example of Washington really stood out to me in the reading. Ruscio tells the story of President Washington and his relationship with his army. He writes, “He was not the general whose authority had been questioned; he was one of them, a fellow soldier, whose integrity had been questioned.” Washington had given an apology to his followers and admitted to his faults. In his farewell address, he even talked about how he had served them. He begged his people for forgiveness. He was such a powerful leader, yet maintained an astonishing sense of humility which helped him become such an influential leader

 

7 Comments

The author’s argument that Washington was showing humility during the letter incident is not accurate.  Rather, it appears that Washington was using his charisma to win over the opinion of his troops. While humility isn’t just limited to an individual’s willingness to be open to new ideas, the story used by Ruscio makes it seem that Washington is trying to establish a better connection with his troops rather than listen to their needs.  Ruscio even goes into greater detail about Washington’s charismatic traits when he writes how, “Historians frequently point to this episode as indicative of Washington’s innate ability to establish a bond, a trait that ultimately led him, in more significant historical moments, to acquire authority and legitimacy, not by exerting power over those he led, but by rejecting formal power.” Ruscio, unknowingly to himself, creates examples throughout this story about how Washington is expressing charisma rather than humility.

Throughout the story, Washington tries to get the angry soldiers to sympathize with him or gain their respect.  For example, Washington, “…was not the general whose authority had been questioned; he was one of them, a fellow soldier, whose integrity had been questioned.”  This may be considered humility in Ruscio’s definition because Washington is being considerate of the troops’ perspective, but I disagree. The example strikes me more of a desperate appeal by Washington to prevent the soldiers from overthrowing him as the leader.  Ruscio even wrote how, “The troops were restless, even angry, and headed down the road of insubordination and mutiny.” Washington’s passionate speech to his troops was in some sense to understand their point of view, but it was more than anything a way to save himself from a potential mutiny.  Ruscio’s definition of humility does not support his claim that Washington expressed humility in the story, but rather the traits of a charismatic leader.

3 Comments

I found this article very interesting as I find the humility to be one of the most admirable traits an individual can possess, let alone a leader. In class we have been discussing leaders who have a much more dramatic approach to leadership, charismatic leaders, royal families,etc. It was interesting to read about leaders that are so well known, like Lincoln and Washington, that most learned about them in our earliest years of education.

Something from this piece I found really important to note is the positive ripples humble leaders can produce. In the discussion of Keneddy as a leader, Ruscio mentions how Kennedy owning up to his own lack of experience and accepting help and guidance of others changed the course of history:” Kennedy introduced new formal steps within the senior staff for deliberating when reaching decisions… That change in approach was largely credited with later saving the nation from a nuclear exchange during the Cuban Missile Crisis”

Early in the piece, Ruscio says, “Humility is not arrogance, which may be obvious. But neither is it timidity or reticence, which may be less obvious.”  I thought this misperception of humility was intriguing and it got me to thinking that it would be interesting to see how this plays into gender roles. In our class, my Leadership 102 class, my sociology class, and my psychology class we discussed the dividing role gender play in how a leader is viewed and therefore how effective they are. In all of my classes, we discussed along the lines of how social constructs of certain genders (male and female) are associated with different impressions of that leader. An example of this is how an assertive male leader is perceived as being “on top of it” while a female leader is considered “bossy”. In terms of humility, I wonder how gender plays a role in how followers interact with and perceive the leader. Would humble female leaders be respected and liked due to the stereotypical ideal female being a quiet, well-behaved woman? Or would they be disrespectful and take advantage of this nonintimidating boss? The same question arises for males, would a humble male leader be misperceived as a slacker or shy? It seems to be a double-edged sword.

2 Comments

A line that really resonates with me in Ruscio’s piece was “They were not perfect. The point, though, is not how we see them. What matters is that they saw themselves as imperfect.” (Page 10). After outlining a few concrete examples including Abraham Lincoln, JFK and George Washington, it is very moving to see how Ruscio explains the imperfections of these great leaders who we consider such heroes. Just because these leaders had flaws has no bearing on how we consider these leaders to be some of the most iconic leaders in  history. This line also reminded me of the significance of a leader’s ‘relatibility.’ If a leader is too perfect and pristine and flawless, his or her followers could easily be intimidated by him or her and not feel a strong connection which draws the followers to follow. A leader who is humble and shows flaws is automatically more relatable to an audience and will likely have more sway over the audience’s opinions.

For example, when Ruscio mentions the Trump presidency, my first thought was that there seems to be a disconnect in this ideology when discussing Trump as a leader. He is not at all humble; he was born at the top and stayed at the top and is very aware and open about this fact, yet his supporters seem to perceive him as a man who represents the common American. Despite his disturbingly wealthy background and frequent outwardly narcissistic and ego-centric comments, poor working-class citizens are more likely to support him and his ideas than those who are wealthy and educated like he is. He technically should not be a relatable leader, but somehow is. My best guess is that though Trump does not view himself as imperfect and views those who are poorer than him as inferior to him, his supports perceive him as imperfect and relatable. It is certainly interesting to think about how Trump utilizes humility and relatibility to gather support, even if it is an act.

3 Comments

I thought that the perspective of viewing leaders as humble or not was very interesting because it is not a trait that we have discussed too much in class. Citizens do not realize how big of an impact a leader with humility can make due to their respect of ordinary people, their institutions, and traditions in the country. Ruscio discusses Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy who were all generally well liked. His point about how they took responsibility for their mistakes and did not get defensive was significant towards me. No one likes people who don’t admit when they are wrong, and the president should certainly be able to do it.

Ruscio’s statements about Trump were fascinating to me because I have never heard anyone hate on Trump for his lack of humility. While I do not pay a huge amount of attention to politics, it seems as if people focus more on how they don’t like what he is saying. It is possible that people do not realize how he doesn’t respect laws and political norms and has a resistance towards other authorities. To me it is very important for a leader to be confident, but have a high level of respect for others, be open to help, and admit when they are wrong. Trump definitely does a lot of bad things, but this is certainly an aspect of his leadership that makes people like him less.

3 Comments

I think that it is very important that Ruscio proposed the question “can our democracy survive a leader without humility?” He made some very valid points in which he discussed that humility is a necessity in being a good leader. He suggests that humility is not defined well enough and goes into depth of what humility means.

While reading this, I think humility is being overlooked by people. Ruscio also says how leaders are supposed to be firm and strong and humble doesn’t always make the list. He also says how humility is not a sign of weakness but people can sometimes view it that way. He argues that a good leader must have some level of humility in them. I agree with this because I think having some level of humility can make one a more effective leader. I don’t think it should be a sign of weakness but I do agree that it is being overlooked by most people.

2 Comments

I want to start out by saying the last line of this paper was really intense (“We are testing whether our democracy can survive a leader without humility.”)  This reading was almost dramatic (NOT saying it was overdramatic), and I believe that was intentional because it really is trying to bring attention to the fact that we are in unchartered waters right now. It’s a little exciting.

So, humility. Honestly, I was a little thrown off by Ruscio’s definition of humility. It didn’t seem solid and he kept using “a bent in one’s disposition” which is too archaic to keep repeating without follow-up, I think. I also didn’t really buy reticence as being the opposite of arrogance, but whatever. Weird, obsolete definition aside, I was incredibly interested in how Ruscio framed humility as not only a key trait in successful democratic leaders, but as a necessity. Ruscio does this by breaking down American democracy into its base values of equality, liberty, and tolerance. And when viewed like this, it only makes sense of a leader to have a sense of humility or at least have an inclination to be humble.

Ruscio’s first example of humility is, of course, George Washington. He claims that our first founding father was “the extraordinary man who made it possible for ordinary people to govern.” While that line in itself probably deserves a whole blog post, I honestly don’t know enough about Washington to do it. Sorry. But from what I do know in addition to what is here, that rings very true. Washington is also a prime example of Pruning Theory that was mentioned. I’d never heard of Pruning Theory, but it’s exactly what we discussed in class. American values seem to groom its citizens to really like reluctant leaders. Sometimes “power grows by cutting it back.” Sometimes, however, it doesn’t. The reading mentions that we have these preconceived notions of what values we thought everyone felt the same about. Pruning Theory is one of those notions. This last election really changed how American citizens view their country and themselves.

2 Comments

In class we’ve discussed how different types of leaders are necessary for different roles, which Ruscio also noted. He emphasized the importance of not humble leaders in general, but the importance of humble leaders in American democracy because of the “humility of the system” (13). In other words, we have constructed a system in our country that places its success on having a humble leader. In this “fallibilist democracy” as Ruscio calls it (13), we have put a system in place that recognizes that both our leaders and our citizens are fallible and can make mistakes, and because of that put protections in so that we can change course later if need be. Because of this system, Ruscio is arguing that we need humble leaders. I think it’s interesting that he did not try to make the case that all leaders need to be humble.

While Ruscio does not extend the argument for humble leaders to all leaders, I think he could. We typically think of military figures as authoritative, strong, commanding, and countless more adjectives, yet humble would probably never make that list. By discussing Washington, Ruscio indirectly makes the argument that even military leaders can benefit from being humble in addition to those other assertive qualities. If even military leaders could benefit from humility, is there a kind of leader that wouldn’t?

3 Comments

Ruscio’s article on humility argues that in order to rule democratically the leader needs to have some level of humility. Although I completely agree with Ruscio’s argument it leaves me to question how we are able to maintain somewhat of a successful country without a humble leader. As Ruscio’s last paragraph states, “We are testing whether our democracy can survive a leader without humility.” This statement implies that our country is 1) still a democracy and 2) our current president does not have the same level of humility as past leaders. If having humility was a necessary component of being a leader, that is respected by their followers, how it is that President Trump is still in power, making laws that endanger lives and allowed to run for re-election.

In addition to this tension that arose, Ruscio made a few other interesting points in the article one which was that leaders were expected to make mistakes in order to show that they were human and on the same level as their followers. Using the example of the Constitution, Ruscio argued that it was not the knowledge of leaders that set them apart but their limitations and what they could not do. By being open and honest about their weaknesses, mistakes, and places where they were unsure Ruscio showed that these leaders were given, more support, more well-liked and praised even after they were leaders anymore. By this, without making mistakes a leader was not a leader but instead seen as some form of a hero. Part of why this humbleness and humility was so effective was its way of showing the leader cared about things other than themselves and their own successfulness. In the example of Washington, Ruscio noted that he “understood the office is bigger than the person. The timeless duties of an office are distinct from the fleeting preferences of those who hold it”. Washington understood that the bigger picture was caring for the community and being an impactful leader. His characteristics of being humble facilitated this and made it easier for his followers to understand that was his mission. He was not engulfed in the idea that he was president or in some way had more power than those beneath him but instead, he was working for the people.

2 Comments

Ruscio talks about the importance of humility in leaders, particularly in a democracy where their power is constrained. I really like the example that he gave about JFK and the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy understood that he had made a mistake and was able to address the nation immediately and directly. He presented the facts and explained where he went wrong without trying to make excuses for his mistakes. He also recognized that he needed help, so he asked Eisenhower for advice, and he used this advice to change his decision-making strategies.

The beginning of the article talks about how even though humility is so important, it goes against the way that we think about leadership today. We expect leaders to be “firm, decisive, authoritative, strong, assertive, steadfast, visionary, and powerful. Humble usually doesn’t make the list.” While these traits are good for leaders to have, I think that neglecting to consider a leader’s humility is a big mistake, particularly in a government like ours where we have such a long tradition of democratic institutions. Ruscio later talks about the contrast between Trump and JFK/Washington/Lincoln. He seems less concerned about Trump being arrogant and more concerned about his disrespect for the institutions that are the foundation of our democracy.

This article also made me think about how our politics have become so polarized. If leaders don’t have humility, then it will be very hard for them to debate and make decisions with people who don’t agree with them. In order to come to decisions, there needs to be compromise, which will not happen if no one is willing to admit that they are wrong.

2 Comments

Humility is an interesting characteristic when talking about leaders. Ruscio points out that in todays society humility is often forgotten as leaders should be confident and bold. Showing humility as a leader can be the most effective approach to convey your ideas. Humility helps connect the leader with the followers and vice versa. One of MLK’s most essential attributes was that he was humble. The words and imagery that come to mind when I think about him are quite humble. The first image that comes to mind is him writing his Letter from Birmingham Jail.

The example of George Washington addressing his soldiers is a great example to portray what humility can accomplish for a leader. First, it is very effective because Washington was a pioneer in the founding of America. He used the stage that he was on to establish a very important relationship with people he never even personally met through his humility. Second, it is very effective simply due to the fact that humility is one of the hardest attributes to have while being a militaristic leader. However, his humility made him that much more of an effective leader in the war.

2 Comments

The article begins by asking the reader what qualities make for a good leader. It discusses a set of values but list the value of humility as one of the most important as well as forgotten characteristics needed in order to obtain strong democratic leadership. The qualities usually associated with leadership are those of firmness, decisiveness, assertiveness, strength, power, etc. Unfortunately the value of humility/humbleness does not quite make the list. This is ironic because leaders are far more likely to succeed in a democratic society if they have this attribute. Humility as described in the article is “A space where a leader can have the courage of his or her convictions, while still being open to learn from others and one’s own mistakes. Humility is not arrogance.” Being able to have confidence in their beliefs/decisions but at the same time accepting that those beliefs and decisions may be wrong. If this is the case allowing themselves to understand the mistakes made and learn from them. 

 

The article goes into depth discussing three political figures George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and JFK as leaders who possess great humility. For Washington through his humility he was able to establish a bond between himself and his soldiers thus allowing him to gain true authority and legitimacy. He also discusses the concept how authority is less in the person and more so in the office (oval office) where members past and present will and have been with that power. For Lincoln, he discusses how those in the past sacrificed so those in the future could benefit and how it is the job of the present population to do the same for future generations. He very much so respected American values and wanted these values to be fulfilled while he was in power. On top of that Lincoln had a strong sense of intellectual humility. After the Civil War when he was trying to mend the US back together in all of his speeches he addressed everyone as we. Showing the elements which make up humility (mercy, judgement, confession, penitence, reconciliation, and retrust) thus allowing for the US to properly mend back together. For Kennedy it was his ability to apologize and understand the mistakes he made with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Through his ability to learn from his mistakes he made all of the proper decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

1 Comment

This novel by Kenneth P. Ruscio discusses what traits are needed to be a good leadership, and what virtues will make someone a strong leader. Ruscio argues that the most important trait to have is humility, as it not only makes the leader seem relatable to the audience, but will also allow the leadership to make better decisions regarding liberty, tolerance, and law if they are looking at issues with a humble perspective. In addition, this article claims that many traits are emphasized within social media, but humility is not one of them. 

The example of Washington and his troops is given, and how his “rejection of formal power” led to an “innate ability to establish a bond, a trait that ultimately led him, in more significant historical moments, to acquire authority and legitimacy.” The troops were moved by his speech, and felt connected to him because he explained he was one of them. I think that this analogy is completely accurate, and something leaders hold the most power by “cutting it back” so they seem more relatable to an audience. I also think it helps the leader, as it gives them an emotional connection and an inside look into their audience, and may make them more passionate about something.

3 Comments

I really enjoyed reading some of the arguments that Ruscio presented. He talks about humility and the act of being humble as a part of personal character that can be effective, not necessarily calling it an important aspect of leadership. He describes humilty as something that has to “come from within”. I could not agree with him more. Similar to what we talked about last class, from what I’ve gathered in this reading, it appears the best way to appear humble is to actually be humble. Humility is something that has to be built in character, not something that can be taught in a leadership seminar.

I found his story about George Washington particularly fascinating. Being that Washington is someone that we’ve said had been turned into a legend over the accumulation of time, I’ve never seen Washington in this sort of light. The story that Ruscio presents is something you definitly would not find in your common APUSH textbook because it doesn’t really fit Washington’s persona as this savior and winner of the American Revolution. Washington in a way humbles himself by asking his men to forgive him, and given that the men apparently were sobbing afterwards, it was clearly quite effective. This is a strategy that was also used by the current Pope Francis in his first address as Pope, when he asked to the people to pray for him.

I love one of the other examples Ruscio shares about JFK and his failure with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Not only did JFK the next day acknowledge and accept responsibilty for his faults, but he also humbled himself by asking former President Eisenhower for advice. The fact that he realized that he needed the help of a military leader such as Eisenhower demonstarted that JFK was human just like the rest of us. The changes he made due to Eisenhower’s advice and the acknowledgement of his own mistakes said a lot about him as a man that the American People really appreciated, and also helped him bring an end to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was very important to say the least.

1 Comment