Patrick Neiswender

Chuck Powell

Leadership, War & Hollywood

12/6/19

Writing Prompt 12

I have had the distinct privilege of being put in leadership positions for most of my life. I grew up being taught by my dad that you do not need a title or rank to be a leader, but rather you lead by your choices and actions. I have always taken that approach with my leadership style, I never really had any technical leadership training or skills but making sure I could connect to individuals and do the right thing constantly I thought I knew what being a leader meant. Taking this course I have learned there are so many different ways of being a leader, and I have learned more about the leader that I want to be in the future.

I fully believe that being a leader transcends any title, while sometimes necessary and effective, in the long term the type of relationship a leader builds with their followers will be much stronger and more powerful with out the use of a formal title. Lt. Mike Murphy in the movie Lone Survivor is a leader that I feel embodies this idea, and someone I would have loved to have a conversation with, because of the type of human he was portrayed to be. He was demanding, firm, but most of all he was caring and respectful. If you knew nothing about ranks or anything you could not tell that he was technically higher up in rank then the other three soldiers. He treated each of his men with the respect they deserve and never asked them to do something he would not do himself. It was this loyalty and servitude to them that allowed Dietz, Axe, and Marcus to believe in him to lead but mainly want him to lead. Most people alive have that someone who they would “run through a brick wall” for. I believe that no leader who fits the category that Lt. Mike Murphy falls in has done so through flaunting and using their rank over a subordinate.

I believe I am very much a servant leader; I believe that Lt. Murphy is a great example of a servant leader. Another leadership style in the text that has had the most impact on me is the idea of situational leadership. When I was younger if someone did not hold the same viewpoint, I held it against them. If I thought we should use an umbrella powerplay, but my coach wanted to run an overload, I would get angry. As I got into high school and I actually began to become more of a formal leader for the school, in the dorm, or on the ice/field I learned that being able to lead in different ways at different times is crucial because otherwise you will drive yourself insane. No one can always be a heartless, do the job 110%, effort in your face type of leader every day, but they cannot also be all about making sure everyone is happy and be super supportive the whole time. The majority of the time there should be a mix of everything however being able to recognize and learn about using different situational approaches will make you and will make me a better leader I think, next up is continuing to work on when to use the different situations.

By far I feel the most learning I have done this year was in the classroom in our discussions. During this semester I have done a lot of self-reflection. For whatever reasons I started to look inward into who I am and who I wanted to be. One of the most impactful discussions was when we were asked to take those personality tests. We discussed how you are not going to be able to be an effective leader until you know yourself. That message resonated with me and one of the reasons I think I began to look inward. I have always been known for my strong morals and the guy with a set out plan. I have known what I wanted to do since I was about 13 years old. Most people considered that as amazing and being great for me. Honestly though, I said most of that stuff just to say it not because I actually meant it. I said I wanted to be a neurosurgeon because it sounds smart. Starting in the spring of last year and into this year I wanted to know if that is actually what I wanted to do, the answer is yes but not because it sounds smart. Being able to look inward and begin to learn more about yourself before you can lead others was one of the many discussions I will never forget about this course.

Leadership is beautiful, because no matter what you can always learn and continue to improve. Some of my most fulfilling experiences have been through leadership and taking this course has continued to emphasize the importance of personal growth both as a leader and a follower.

Patrick Neiswender

Leadership, War, and Hollywood

Chuck Powell

11/15/19

Writing Prompt 10

There is an undisputed fact that we as a society have been and continue to push towards a more diverse work place. Diversity though is quite the umbrella term, leaving room for interpretation and scrutiny. Racial and gender diversity continue to make the most strides in our society, with sexual orientation and gender identity beginning to make waves as of late. While some regard the increase in diversity a tangible gain in civil rights towards the minorities, there are many individuals in the population within the population find the increase in demanding diversity preposterous and unneeded. David Rock and Heidi Grant write that diversity is not just an attitude people want to have, but rather a doctrine that will lead to more success in the workplace. Rock and Grant suggest that a more inclusive work environment will focus the group more on facts than opinions, more care and thought when interpreting the facts, as well as being more innovative in the way the workers think.

In the article Rock and Grant do a great job of clearly expressing and providing examples and statistics regarding the economic benefit of having a diverse work force. Statistics such as if the company has ethnic and racial diversity in their management would financially average 35% higher returns than if the company did not have this diversity, along with 15% higher if the company had gender diversity. Rock and Grant provide clear and straightforward experiments, such as the experiment run in Texas and Singapore about asking groups of people to price stocks, to further enforce their perspective on the benefit of having a racially and gender diverse work force.

While focusing on the economic impact of a diverse work environment, while I recognize where the article was published, I find little acknowledgement to the social benefit of a diverse work environment. One of my favorite experiences from attending boarding school and now college is the fact that the communities are inherently diverse. At The Hill School, we were 32% international students and had representatives from 37 different states. With different individuals from different backgrounds, socioeconomic standings, and general differing life experiences I was able to connect, and learn outside the classroom. An example of this is fact I learned that Finnish people hardly ever snack or make small talk, along with that the most recognizable brand in Brazil is Havaianas, a flip-flop company. While these facts did not improve my grades, or give me any tangible evidence to being “better” than a non-diverse environment, they provided me with a greater understanding of the world that I live in, along with the opportunity to interact with individuals who are inherently different than I am. For these reasons I feel Rock and Grant miss out on the social benefit to a diverse work environment.

While Rock and Grant specifically refer to economic gains with respect to a corporation, there absolutely is direct application to the military. Two out of the three arguments Rock and Grant provide is the fact that members in a diverse work environment are with focusing more on facts and then being careful with those facts. In the military, where quite literally people’s lives are in question being able to be more rational and careful can only be a positive. Another reason diversity would benefit the military is the fact that the American military run through a hierarchy of checks and balances. Having more and differing opinions will benefit the military as a whole so that a situation that happened to Barnes in the movie Platoon, will never actually happen in real life. A more diverse military will just add another layer of checks and balances throughout all layers which will only benefit the military.

Being “diverse” in today’s society is essentially a given. Racial and gender diversities while most thought of and highlighted by Rock and Grant, there can still be room for improvement in diversity regarding sexual identification and gender identity. Rock and Grant do a fantastic job listing out the economic benefits to having a diverse work force. However, I feel that they leave the social impact of diversity out of their article as well as many of the other diversities. While Rock and Grant target mainstream corporations, there is absolutely lies a benefit to carrying over their argument to the hierarchy of the American military.

 

Patrick Neiswender

Leadership, War, and Hollywood

Chuck Powell

11/1/19

Writing Prompt 8

As most problems are there is never distinctly one problem, normally there is an accumulation of many different factors that will contribute to an unproductive situation or scenario. While being much easier to simply single out a singular issue that leads to problems, Northouse lays out a concept known as “The Toxic Triangle”. In this idea there are three attributes that lead to a bad work environment and a failure amongst the leaders and followers. The triangle highlights a destructive leader, susceptible followers, and finally conducive environments. While studying different films, A Few Good Men applies this idea of the toxic triangle perfectly with the destructive leader of Col. Jessep, the susceptible followers specifically Private Louden Downey, and finally a conducive environment of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Northouse describes a destructive leader as “having charisma and a need to use power and coercion for personal gains” (Northouse 345). One could argue that Col. Jessep values respect over all other traits, however Col. Jessep requires this respect from people because of his rank in the military. By being a Colonel, Jessep is able to ask and require more out of others then normal people would ask. An example is when Lt. Kaffee, Lt. Weinberg, and Lt. Cdr. Galloway went down to the investigate the incident of Private Santigago’s death. At the end of their lunch at the club before leaving Cuba Lt. Kaffee asks for the flight records after being told that Santiago was going to be transferred. Col. Jessep begins this long diatribe and gets around to saying that Lt. Kaffee could get the records just he would need to ask nicely. Col. Jessep does this to remind Lt. Kaffee who he is talking to as well as Col. Jessep loves the power that he has and the ability to make other people do what he likes. Each time that Jessep uses the power that comes with being a Colonel just pads his ego even more. Such is the case near the end of the movie when Lt. Kaffee is examining Col. Jessep in the courtroom, Col. Jessep tells the judge that Lt. Kaffee should refer to him as Colonel or Sir because he has earned that. This is just another example of Jessep using the power of his rank to change the behavior of others for his own personal gain of respect and power.

To go along with a destructive leader Northouse mentions that there will be susceptible followers as well.  These followers will also be broken down into two different types, conformers and colluders. While both will attribute to a bad leadership atmosphere, in A Few Good Men, PFC Louden Downey is an example of a conformer. From the introduction of the PFC Downey, the audience is able to establish that he is not the smartest Private in the Marines. Although not being smart is not necessarily his fault it does provide a negative association in his participation in the Code Red on Private Santiago. PFC Downey is not even able to realize that he and Lance Cpl. Dawson’s actions were wrong and illegal, until Lance Cpl. Dawson had to explain that they still assaulted a lesser human. So through not being intelligent, PFC. Downey will follow and obey any order without realization of right or wrong, which in this scenario was the following of destructive orders coming from Col. Jessep.

Filling in the last section of the toxic triangle is the conducive environment. There is no place that perfectly sums up the definition of a conducive environment quite like Guantanamo Bay, Cuba does. Two of Northouse characteristics of this environment are “instability and perceived threat” (Northouse Figure 13.2). While being stationed in the military can be described at this when deployed, non more so than in Cuba. During the movie the concept of a “mirror” is explained as someone from the “other side” locking in and engaging against you. This is definitely can be categorized as perceived threat of someone on the Cuban side locking in willing to shoot you and kill you. Being stationed in the Marines in Cuba is instable simply through the example of having Col. Jessep have 2^nd Lt. Kendrick order Lance CPL. Dawson to give the Code Red to Private Santiago immediately after 2^nd Lt. Kendrick orders the whole squad to not lay a hand on Private Santiago. This contradiction in orders leads to confusion and a great deal of instability amongst the troops. Through being threatened constantly that your mirror will engage and kill you along with contradicting orders, being stationed in the Marines at Guantanamo Bay leads to a very conducive environment.

Not all leadership can be beneficial to the group. Northouse gives three different scenarios that when all three are present this is classified as a destructive leader. All three of these factors can be displayed in the movie A Few Good Men. Col. Jessep shows the effect of a destructive leader. PFC Louden Downey expresses the catastrophe of a conforming follower. Finally, Guantanamo Bay is a very conducive environment.

Patrick Neiswender

Leadership War and Hollywood

Chuck Powell

10/18/19

FYSM Prompt 6

Leadership, along with many aspects of life come down to choices. There is an ignorant beauty when it comes to choices, because no one will ever know the outcome of a choice, until that choice gets made. In the military, following orders from your superior is a must, leaving little room to make your own choices. This both makes life simpler, however can compromise a person’s belief in the “right” choice. In Saving Private Ryan, Captain Miller is sent to go find Private Ryan and bring him home. Along the way he ends up releasing a German prisoner who ultimately ends up being the German to kill Captain Miller on the bridge. While controversial amongst his crew about whether to simply kill the German or let him go I disagree with the statement that letting the German soldier go was a bad leadership decision by Captain Miller.

While recognizing the unfortunate and most likely over-dramatization of that single German soldier being the cause of Captain Miller’s death, he made the proper leadership decision in that moment. I believe the bad leadership decision was attacking the German’s in the first place since it was irrelevant for their specific mission. Hitting the German’s on Captain Miller’s whim ended with the American’s losing their medic, as well as forcing Captain Miller to make the tough choice of execute the German or to let him free. All of which could have been avoided if Captain Miller continued to follow orders. Because they end up killing and beating the German’s in this little scuffle, Captain Miller and the remaining group of soldiers needed to get back to their actual mission and having a German POW would slow them down. Neither Captain Miller nor any other soldier would know what would have happened if they simply executed the German soldier, however Captain Miller ultimately appealed to the moral decision of letting the soldier go so they could get back to the mission. This ended up being a good leadership decision, because while although making a few soldiers quite upset, those disgruntled soldiers continued to fight for him as well as that decision causes the translator to want to fight for him now, when he was uneasy about fighting in the first place. By making the moral decision to not execute a German soldier in cold blood, Captain Miller made a good leadership decision through getting back to the mission at hand as well as implicitly motivating another soldier to fight for him more.

The movie Platoon has a similar scene when the Americans get attacked by the Vietnamese and then they raid a village shortly after and Sargent Barnes ends up executing a woman, and holds a girl, who is claimed to be her daughter, by gunpoint while interrogating the father. Sargent Elias comes over and he and Sargent Barnes begin to fight after Sargent Elias claims that Sargent Barnes is not an executioner. After watching this film, my opinion on Captain Miller’s decision remains the same. I remain fixed on my decision for the similar reason to what Sargent Elias says to Sargent Barnes, Captain Miller in that moment is no longer fighting that German Soldier there for he has no moral justification for executing that man post-surrender. Any unwarranted killing is inhumane and animalistic. I recognize the significance of violence in war, however once the fighting has stopped, I believe all un-justified executions are immoral and a bad decision.

After watching the movie Platoon my decision on if Captain Miller made the right decision remained the same. Sargent Elias point of not being a firing squad once the fighting has stopped relay’s directly to Captain Miller. Every choice that a human will make will alter the course of their life, so once the fighting is over, everyone is human and deserves the ability to act as one and not be executed in cold blood. Because of this, the choice to let the German soldier free remains the right decision by Captain Miller, while the bad decision was the fact they decided to attack the German troops in the first place.

 

Patrick Neiswender

Leadership War and Hollywood

Chuck Powell

9/11/19

Leader Member Exchange Theory

Leader Member Exchange Theory is based on the importance of relationships between leader and follower. Moreover it emphasizes that there are two types of groups there is the “in group” and the “out group” this idea of being a part of the in group is highlighted in A Bridge Too Far between the relationship that Sargent Dohun has for Captain Glass. From fairly early on in the movie Sargent Dohun expresses his care for Captain Glass expressing he is in Sargent Dohun’s “in group”.

We first meet these two characters in a tent where Captain Glass is drinking alcohol laying on his bed and Sargent Dohun is sitting at the table, smoking a cigarette. Captain Glass expresses his worry about dying. Initially not phased, Sargent Dohun says that drinking so much is not going to help his problem, but the conversation gets more serious Captain Glass asks Sargent Dohun to promise that he will not die. Sargent Dohun expresses that nothing can promise that but after some persistence he responds quite seriously to the captain that he promises that he will not die. This is a great example of the dyadic relationship that a leader has with an “in-group” follower, because their conversation begins as laid back and speaking to each other as equals, but then as the intensity of the conversation grows Sargent Dohun agrees and promises something to his subordinate that he would never normally promise someone in the same position but however because it was Captain Glass, Sargent Dohun made this promise with him.

Another great example was when Sargent Dohun went looking for Captain Glass after he was shot in the head. Sargent Dohun endangers himself by hopping in a jeep and driving through a group of Germans to bring Captain Glass back to the medical tent. However, he is refused by the doctor to treat Capt. Glass and told to throw him in the pile of dead soldiers. Sarget Dohun will not take no for an answer and places the injured Captain Glass on the table, then pulls a gun on the doctor to properly motivate him to fix Captain Glass. In doing so Sargent Dohun is directly risking his place in the army and would get arrested. Having a leader stand up and take care of you at their own expense shows this dyadic relationship of being a part of this special “in group” not only will they get more information and influence along with a whole slew of other perks, the most important is more care. Sargent Dohun never would have done this for any old soldier but the fact the soldier in question was a member of his “in group” emphasis the impact that Leader Member exchange leadership theory has in the army particularly portrayed by these two characters.

Everyone wants to be a part of the “in group” their will be many perks that go along with being a member, none more so than caring. In A Bridge Too Far Sargent Dohun displays this care towards Captain Dohun that he never would show for any other soldier because of their dyadic relationship they built over time that explains the reason Sargent Dohun makes promises that he can never promise, such as Captain Glass’s life in war, as well as when he is injured putting his own neck and career on the line just to save Captain Glass’s life.

Patrick Neiswender (Writing Buddy- Scott McGraw)

Chuck Powell

Leadership, War & Hollywood

9/27/19

Leader. Natural or Taught?

What makes a leader? Ask one-hundred random people and you may get one-hundred different answers. If you ask me, I do not know if I necessarily have a set answer except for the fact that I believe every person alive is a leader and a follower. I do however believe that leadership is a skill which can be taught and developed over time. Franklin D. Roosevelt started his career as a unappreciated kid from Groton School, who was able to develop leadership skills through becoming a senator then ultimately the President to bring the United States of America out of the Great Depression.

One of the most underrated leadership quality that Roosevelt was able to develop was his interaction with the media. In today’s society media is seen as an antagonist to individuals who hold position of influence, where the media’s purpose is only to break stories to paint these influential individuals in a negative manner. However, Roosevelt was able to work with the media to exude confidence and hope to the American citizens. Roosevelt is known for his New Deal and bringing the United States of America out of the Great Depression, however he is also known for having the disease polio. While never gaining full feeling in his legs, Roosevelt, with help from the media, was able to seemingly “walk” to the podiums and be shown standing while giving speeches. He worked with the media because image is important. Roosevelt wanted to make sure that the citizens of America and the rest of the world saw their leader exuding power and not someone with a crippling disease. Although classified as a disability, Roosevelt along with all great leaders are able to learn and overcome obstacles to transcend their leadership to the next level. Through help with the media Roosevelt remained influential through providing this image of strength and hope to the people of America and to the rest of the world.

Having leadership be a skill, all leaders have their own unique way of leading. We as citizens and students can try and name certain overarching aspects of leadership, but every leader is original and can never be truly emulated. An approach that I feel describes Roosevelt’s leadership style especially during the Great Depression, is the coaching approach. The coaching approach is a blend of both high-directive and high-supportive, meaning that Roosevelt will be very goal oriented, while maintaining a level of support for his followers needs. Being both highly directive and highly supportive is what made Roosevelt perfect to bring the United States out of the Great Depression. One of Roosevelt’s highly directive acts is known as the Bank Holiday, where he temporarily shut down all the banks to make sure that banks still had capital, while proposing the Emergency Banking act to make banks a more secure place to hold Americans money. Although maybe not initially seen as very directive, he suspended the operation of banks so Americans were not able to remove their money, which would have crippled all and the economy even more than they already were. Most notably the New Deal is the perfect blend of being both very directive and supportive. By enacting all different types of work programs, Roosevelt is directly influencing marketplace interactions which speeds up the economy, while supporting Americans through giving them opportunities to have jobs. Another supportive act that Roosevelt preformed while in office were his Fireside chats. Roosevelt wanted a direct line of contact between him and the citizens of America. Roosevelt wanted to make sure that they knew that he cared about them, and that they were going to get out of the Great Depression together. And the ability to give little speeches over the radio that reached directly to American homes allows him to show his support towards the average American citizen.

From being a homeschooled, isolated child to going on to fly under the radar in high school to finally being able to unite a nation to bring them out of one of the largest economic crashes in history, Franklin D. Roosevelt was never a born leader but rather he was able to work and build on a few critical skills, such as overcoming a crippling disease to keep the image of power needed as a leader, as well as being a blend of goal oriented and supportive that turned him into one of the most powerful leaders in American history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources:

 

https://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/life-before-the-presidency

https://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/impact-and-legacy

 

 

Patrick Neiswender

Chuck Powell

Leadership, War, & Hollywood

9/20/19

 

Patton & Bradley

Did Great-Grandpa Hoover ever know either General Patton or General Bradley Grandma? I know that he was stationed in the Pacific Islands for a little bit of World War II but was just wondering if he ever had the chance to serve under either of those two. No? Ok I was just wondering, General Patton and General Bradley had very different styles anyway I do not know which one he would have preferred. You cannot argue against General Patton’s effectiveness, he was definitely who wanted to kick some German butt as much as possible but the ways he did that is not something I fully agree with. General Bradley however is much more of a “common man General” and respected his troops and was always polite which is something you taught me to do to everyone I meet.

General Patton is obsessed with the history of great military battles and heroes. This obsession to have his name talked in the history books transformed him to becoming so achievement oriented. Achievement orientation is the focusing on a goal and the mission and stooping at nothing to accomplish that goal. For General Patton, he wants to fight, constantly. No matter where, no matter how, he is always ready to battle like when he rushes to Palermo even though he was ordered to protect the flank for General Montgomery. He thought his plan would be best to get to Messina, so he did it, no thought to any of the other Generals. Instead of being impulsive and direct like General Patton, General Bradley was more technical is how he approaches battles, and other corps of soldiers. General Patton very directive, where he told his troops what will be done and when he wants them done. Being directive is a type of situational leadership quality which makes him very effective in battle. However, being able to shut off this switch of directive and assertive is an important part of being a good leader. General Patton however was directive and assertive at all times, causing himself to get in trouble with his troops. Such that when one of his soldiers was down about the war and did not think he could take it, General Patton hit him and told him and everyone around in the infirmary that he was getting sent right back to the front line. This lack of empathy is something that stems from his leadership quality of being to direct and brash towards his men. This attitude while effective in war is detrimental beyond the battlefield and that is something you taught me Grandma is to be able to determine how to act in different situations.

On the other hand, from what you told me Grandma, you think Great Grandpa is more like General Bradley? I would want to be more like General Bradley, while effective and necessary at times, General Patton is just a little too extreme outside of the battle field to be a truly effective leader in my opinion. The little I remember of Great Grandpa was that he was always fair and respectful to everyone. General Bradley, was very much quieter than General Patton was polite, respectful, and was a supportive leader being portrayed in the movie as “the common man General”. By being a supportive leader, he sees everyone as equals and showed respect to his superiors as well as his followers which is a trait he and General Patton do not have in common.  I believe that a leader should always respect your followers as equals because they will want to do more for you that way then using the “because I said so” which your daughter has used on me one to many times. I believe in this also because no person is better than any other person no matter their title or position of power. By being a supportive leader, your followers will always know that you have their back so that will give them the confidence to continue to have yours.

Grandma do you know which one Great-Grandpa would be like? You have always told me that we are similar, in which case I would like to think that I am more of a leader like General Bradley. I do however think that the idea of situational leadership is true, and that General Patton’s assertive and direct nature is very productive especially in battle.  But, be being respectful, and supportive to all while remaining calculated on the mission is a skill that General Bradley does well and a skill I want to continue to learn.

Patrick Neiswender

Chuck Powell

Leadership, War & Hollywood

9/12/19

FYSM Writing Prompt 2

Being a leader is hard. Having to communicate to people who respond and react to every situation differently provides a challenge for leaders to be able to herd all these people to react towards a common goal. Major General Schofield highlights two different tactics a leader may use, inspiration or fear. Major General Schofield emphasizes the importance of inspiration because it gives the soldiers, “a desire to obey” while fear will only tear down their unit through disrespect and hate towards their leader and other members. The idea of leading through inspiration is beautifully portrayed in the movie Gettysburg, when Col. Joshua Chamberlin addresses the confederate prisoners about why he fights the war. Another great example of leadership with what Major General Schofield believes is when Col. Shaw volunteers their division to lead the charge against the attack of Fort Wagner. To me leadership is not always about barking orders, that is certainly an aspect but most importantly it is about belief. Belief in yourself, belief in your followers in this case your troops, and to believe in what you are doing. These two scenes illustrate the belief in what they are doing is right with Col. Chamberlin, and believing in your troops with Col. Shaw; where both inspire and unite groups of people under the leader as Major General Schofield says in his address to the Corps of Cadets.

Col. Chamberlin had only recently taken control of the 20^thMaine division when he is notified of one-hundred and twenty confederate soldiers were captured and brought to him to be dealt with by any means necessary.After providing the men with some food,  Col. Chamberlin addresses the prisoners with their options. They could either join the 20^thMaine division and fight for the Union or they could choose to remain a prisoner. Watching this scene unfurl, we are able to see how Col. Chamberlin opens himself and shares with the prisoners how the 20^thMaine came about, bust most importantly why they are fighting. Always being able to explain the why is a big aspect of leadership in my opinion, and Col. Chamberlin’s answer of fighting “for each other” shows the prisoners the belief Col. Chamberlin towards his cause which is different than most. Col. Chamberlin’s belief in why he and the rest of the 20^thMaine are fighting is what brings together the Confederate and Union soldiers together. For the Confederate prisoners being able to see Col. Chamberlin’s belief in something bigger than himself draws them to him, rather then simply being told to fight by the confederates. Col. Chamberlin is able to unite this group of confederates to now join the union not because of the Union mission, but also not against the Confederate mission, rather the soldiers join because of Col. Chamberlin and how he was able to inspire them to believe in his cause.

Being a good leader however is not all about the big “run through a wall” type speeches. While sometimes necessary, the majority of leadership comes from your actions. In the movie Glory, Col. Shaw is given command of the first all colored division in the Union. During the war, they are never given much opportunity to actually fight, which is the reason many of the soldiers enlisted in the first place. During the beginning of the movie there is some cultural disconnect between Col. Shaw and the soldiers. Later on, however Col. Shaw begins to close this gap through his actions of demanding shoes and uniforms, this starts to make the soldiers believe in him more. One scene that sticks out to me was when Col. Shaw volunteered to be the leading division while attacking Fort Wagner. I believe this follows with what Major General Schofield believes by being able to recognize what your followers want, which is to fight in the first place, and give them the opportunity to do the job they signed up for. Did Col. Shaw most likely know that the majority of them would die? Yes, however volunteering themselves to go first shows the faith that Col. Shaw had for the soldiers who then continue to return their respect and admiration back to him.

What Major General Schofield told the Corps of Cadets was that there are two examples of leadership. One where you are able to give orders that will inspire and unite your troops, or the other were you instill fear which will ultimately provide lack of respect towards everyone in your unit. While I personally agree with Major General Schofield, I also believe that he is missing the aspect of belief. Being able to believe in your cause whole heartedly and address that belief like Col. Chamberlin did, you will get similar results as what Major General Schofield describes. Or another is to believe in your troops like Col. Shaw. By believing in your troops through your actions they will begin to unite around you as the leader just as they did when Col. Shaw volunteered them to be the first unit as they attacked Fort Wagner. Although I agree with Major Schofield this is a proper lead I believe the addition of believing in yourself, your mission, and your people is a major aspect of leadership.

 

Welcome to Trinity College Commons | Websites & Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!