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.
Your argument is interesting because as readers/scholars we can get lost in the meanings of different leadership traits such as charisma and humility– how do they differ? Ruscio’s argument is, in fact, a bit convoluted in the example of George Washington because he is painting a story of Washington’s charismatic traits of emotional expressiveness, drive, etc. rather than traits of humility.
I was thinking the same thing when reading this article, and I think this logic expands to the other American leaders that he highlighted in this article. For example, Lincoln took over the presidency when American was about to split down the middle, literally. Using the charismatic trait of responding to followers, he became the non-divisive, self-aware leader that his country needed. He also highlighted Trump as the antithesis of humility, but maybe Trump is portraying himself as the leader that his followers want; even if he does not appeal to you specifically, his attitude must appeal to some people because he won the election.
Your argument is very valid! I think, however, it’s important t to eliminate the idea of ‘either or’ because it is highly likely that Washington incorporated humiliation by way his charismatic ability be emotionally expressive with his audience. I feel like humiliating yourself ism’t enough within leadership so it should be implied that there is usually some other aspect coupled with humiliation that makes it valuable.