Scott McGraw
Professor Powell
FYSM 120 – Leadership, War, and Hollywood
September 12th, 2019
Discipline Essay
Schofield’s definition of discipline explains his opinion on what makes a leader great, or in his words, inspiring. He describes that a leader who is too harsh or treats their followers poorly will not make a good leader. Rather than forcing one’s followers to do what they want Schofield explains that a leader will have followers that want to follow them. If one is forced to follow, or at least feels forced to follow, then they are not under a good leader. Schofield says that “It is possible to impart instruction and to give commands in such a manner and such a tone of voice to inspire in the soldier no feeling but an intense desire to obey” implying that all direction and all discipline should cause a desire to obey rather than a “strong resentment.” While I agree that Schofield’s definition makes sense, I don’t believe that it is completely possible. In a perfect world, all forms of commands and directions from a leader should be willingly followed and agreed with. That is not the case. Discipline is necessary to motivate one towards their goal, but it is also necessary to force one to move towards their goal when they are not motivated. A good leader will try to inspire their following to reach a common goal, but they should also drive their following towards the common goal when needed.
A good leader inspires. A good leader motivates. This is something that is common knowledge. Why would anyone follow a leader if they do not want to? A great example of this type of motivation from a leader is shown at the beginning of Gettysburg. When Colonel Chamberlain was given the 120 men from Maine who did not want to fight, he took a different approach. He was told that they were now under his command and that if they did not want to follow his order’s he was given consent to shoot them at his will. He did not want to take that option and knew he wouldn’t from the beginning. So, rather than asserting dominance with the group of men and given them orders from the start he allowed them to eat and talked to their announced “leader” about the situation. Colonel Chamberlain was told that these men did not want to fight because they felt that they were done with their duty. After the men ate, Colonel Chamberlain gave a speech to these men that weren’t expected. He told them that they had to go with them but told them that they did not have to fight if they didn’t want to. He also states that he wouldn’t shoot them. His speech basically stated that in his opinion losing this battle would mean losing the war. He said that men shouldn’t be judged by their suits but by their character. Fighting in this war would mean a lot, and he would personally thank them and owe them for the rest of his life. Instead of taking the forceful route and telling these men they had to fight or else they would all be shot, he inspired them. By telling the truth and explaining how important these men were and how much of a difference they could make, Colonel Chamberlain managed to get 114 of the men to join him in battle. This type of leadership follows Schofield’s definition of discipline because instead of damaging these men and inspiring fear he gave these men an “intense desire to obey.”
A good leader is forced to make tough decisions. Sometimes these decisions aren’t what their followers want but are necessary. In my opinion, these decisions are what make or break a leader. An example that illustrates this is a scene in the middle of Glory. There is a point in the movie where one of the black soldiers, Private Sharts, shows off that he has a good shot. Major Forbes compliments him but the main character of the movie, Colonel Shaw, has to enforce some harsher discipline. He forces the shooter to shoot faster as he scares him by shooting a gun behind him. None of the soldiers are a big fan of this. They saw him then as just another power-hungry white leader. This, in my opinion, was completely necessary and actually helped prepare the soldiers later on in the movie. Although he was harsh, he better prepared them for a real war scenario. In this process, he may have lost some of their interest from the soldiers and the Major that was teaching them in the first place, but in the end, they clearly had more skill and were more accepting of his leadership. If a leader never makes these tough choices, then it gives their followers too much free will and not enough direction. A leader is not only supposed to motivate and inspire their followers but also lead them in the right direction. If keeping your people on track depends on a tough decision or the need for harsher discipline, then that decision must be made to make a good leader.
Schofield’s definition of discipline to me is the perfect scenario for every good leader. Every decision you make, good or bad, should ideally inspire one’s followers to willingly obey. That’s what every leader wants in a perfect world. They want their followers to be completely on board with them all the time and feel motivated by them. Even in a situation where a leader is harsher and inflicts violence on his or her followers, they would still want their followers to willingly obey their every command. To me, that just isn’t always the case, and it shouldn’t be. Sometimes harsh discipline is necessary to make a point or to set a boundary. Sometimes fear must be implemented so that they can better understand a situation, or even to be directed to finishing the group’s common goal. Discipline should inspire and motivate followers to obey, but sometimes harsher discipline is necessary.