Author: Lucas Unger

Although I was taught that women were granted the right to vote much later than men, I did not realize how big of a fight it took to reach that point. The videos definitely gave me a good look into the effort and years of fighting it took for these women to earn a right that all people should have. This then makes me think of how different things might be if women had been leading this entire time. In the article “Would Women Lead Differently?,”Schein writes about the different approach that women have to leadership that men generally do not possess. She mentions that the world would be a much more inclusive and peaceful place which I can definitely imagine to be true.

I also thought it was intriguing that women described themselves as transformational leaders and genuinely had the best interest of their followers in mind. This really makes me wonder how different our society would be with more women leaders, especially in the past. In general, the readings and videos really opened my eyes to the struggles that women faced in the early 1900’s.

 

7 Comments

I really enjoyed this article because it explored a concept that I had not thought about before: how to be an effective follower. This is important because for a leader to be effective and held accountable, his/her followers must contribute to the company or cause and hold them accountable. In order to be an effective follower, one must be active and driven to help the leader succeed and independent in order to hold them accountable.

On the other hand, if followers are passive and unmotivated, the leader can easily become overconfident, manipulative and will overall become unsuccessful. These ineffective followers could easily disband or cause a company or organization to fail. In general, a leader is fully reliant on effective followers in order to support them and allow them to gain recognition.

3 Comments

In Irving Janis’ article, she analyzes the concept of groupthink and its negative repercussions. She explains that groupthink is caused by social in-group pressures while making a decision. After reading this article, I immediately thought about my days in elementary and middle school when we would vote on something. Often while voting we would put our heads down and raise our hands in order to indicate our vote. I never knew why we would do this, but it was most definitely to prevent groupthink and get a true consensus.

Groupthink was very much involved in the movie Thirteen Days, in which JFK and his cabinet were under the pressures of making a decision regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Because this was a very scary and strenuous time, making a decision was difficult and groupthink was absolutely present. JFK, being a fairly new president, put a lot of trust in his cabinet and was influenced by the group while making a decision, although he was highly aware of groupthink due to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. After the failed invasion, cabinet members outwardly referred to groupthink, as they regretted not saying anything before executing the dangerous covert invasion. It seems very surprising that even brilliant people who are in charge of massive decisions regarding national protection still give into groupthink. Overall, thirteen days along with Janis’ article express the dangers of groupthink and explain how powerful it actually is.

2 Comments

After reading both burns’ and bass’ articles, I realized that both transactional and transformational leadership are effective methods of leading in modern-day. They are polar opposites in the sense that transactional leadership uses an incentive for motivation while transformative leadership is more personal, working for the progress of the community as a whole. When I think of transactional leadership I think of a business person who is negotiating for their personal gain. Although the follower would be gaining something in the process of this transaction, I do not think that this is a very effective way of leading.

Transformational leadership, I think most would agree, is a more effective way of leading. As the leader grows, they bring the people up with them. Instead of exchanging goods for mutual gain, transformational leadership focuses on the progress of society as a whole. As a follower, I believe that looking up to a leader that has your personal well being in mind is much more desirable than looking up to someone that benefits you, but for their own personal gain. Obviously, there are scenarios where each leadership tactic is more effective, but it seems to me that in general, people would prefer their leaders to be transformational rather than transactional.

8 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

Previously we had examined the leader along with their personality traits and varying ways of influencing the people that they lead. In the video and readings for today, we examined more of the follower and the relationship between them and their leaders. We begin to see the ways that the followers influence their leaders just as the leaders influence their followers.

We see in the allegory of the cave video that reality in only a perception, a point of view, merely the way we look at society. The people in the cave know nothing but the shadows and the noise they here, with they perceive are coming from these shadows on the wall. When they are finally released, their eyes are hurt by the fire and everything that they think they know is completely undermined. Would it be better for them to live with the shadows being their only reality and be content or be hurt with the realization of reality? This is the question we must ask which brings us back to the relationship between the leader and the follower. It is an interesting concept to me where the leader chooses to share and have a relationship with their followers and where they choose to lead and keep things to themselves in order to attempt to better society.

 

5 Comments

Based on the two readings, I do believe that the execution of King Charles I was justified. Not solely based on his opposition to the parliament but do to his fundamentally flawed character. He did indeed say that he had the best intentions of his people in mind and strove for peace within his idea of a monarchy, but his flawed idea of divine rule was questionable in my opinion. Also, although I do respect his commitment to his conscience and honor, I believe that his actions were derived from uncharted territory in convincing his citizens based off his commitment to God.

Furthermore, although I do believe that Charles I should have been executed, I do not believe that the court proceedings were carried out in good faith. It clearly states in yesterday’s article, “Barely half of the men nominated to the High Court of Justice to try the king actually attended its proceedings.” It also refers to man man as having commited suicide later out of guilt. Both points attribute to my conception that the trial was corrupt. However, as I previously stated, I do believe that Charles I should have been executed, but only by due process as opposed to previous falsehoods and purges committed to the men sitting in parliament that day.

4 Comments

Tyrannicide is an interesting topic that I have not thought about too much, solely because we have never seen this in our country’s recent history. The thought of killing an oppressive leader initially strikes me positively but there is one problem: how do we determine who is and who is not a tyrant? Andrade stated in his article, “the moral defense of tyrannicide has the difficulty of specifying who is a tyrant.” However I would think about tyrannicide in a utilitarian way; if the tyrant is nationally disliked I would not see a problem with their assassination.

Andrade later says, “If somehow the tyrant could be removed from power without the shedding of blood, then that option is preferable.” I clearly agree with this statement from a moral stance, but like I said before, the concept of tyrannicide is a slippery slope. The assassination of a tyrant is always questionable, but furthermore, even if a tyrant is killed, there is still no guarantee that a nation will benefit. Overall, I believe that if there is no other way to force an oppressive leader, tyrannicide is justified morally.

 

4 Comments

Before reading the article, I thought of charisma as an adjective to describe someone who is naturally outgoing and confident, causing people to gravitate towards them. After reading the article, my prior thoughts were supported in that the multiple theories and examples from history showed leaders who have possessed these qualities, allowing them to be more effective and powerful leaders. Although many people in the reading were great leaders, one can be charismatic solely by possessing Riggio’s six characteristics which are emotionally expressive, enthusiastic, driven, eloquent, visionary, self-confident, and responsive to others. However, if one does possess these qualities they will naturally draw people’s attention and influence people to think and act like them, making charismatic people naturally very good at leading others.

One charismatic leader that stands out to me is Adolf Hitler. Hitler’s magnetic personality and ability to captivate the public with his speeches allowed him to influence so many people to do such horrible things. The fact that he convinced almost all of German citizens to participate in his mass genocide proves his charismatic leverage on society at the time. If it wasn’t for his charismatic personality, he may have never risen to power and been able to do everything that he did during WWII.

Someone who I learned to be very charismatic that I would not have thought of otherwise is Martin Luther King. His extraordinarily calm demeanor caused me not to think of his as charismatic, but after reading Riggio’s article I learned that charisma does not have to be out-going. Similar to Hitler, MLK used his self-confidence, enthusiasm, and eloquence  in order to influence and lead people.

 

2 Comments

Hero:

Leader:

Role Model:

Leave a Comment