Gage A. Rush FIP

Gage A. Rush                                     Aug. 18, 2015

                      Final Integrative Paper

My expectations for the subject was to learn leadership theories. While we did learn them, I've discovered that reality often in hinted at in theories, but in practice it, much like life, is a complicated affair.

We had discussed what defines and makes a leader, and whether that was a result of birth or of environment. I've seen evidence that it is a little of both.

One thing the class discussed extensively were the individual elements of leadership. The traits that are necessary for leadership to arise. I can see that those traits as well are largely dependent on the situation, and not every situation has the same trait requirements.

I have seen times when boldness and self-assuredness were key to succeeding, and at other times it was a humble and open-minded attitude that worked so well.

One other thing I pondered about was how leadership theories relate to "The hero has a thousand faces". I personally do not agree that the monomyth is the sole arbiter of how we view our heroes, as it is too simplistic. Sometime in the distant past that may have been how we wished to view our heroes until the story's elements spread across many cultures. But nowadays we all have our view on what makes a great hero, and thus a great role model. Some may find it in simplicity, some may find it in excellency. As we change as a species, so too does our views on what it means to be a leader.

We also showed a side of ourselves that normally hadn't been seen before. Many are driven by a personal goal, some are just driven to excel, and others do it for the sake of those that they care about. Finding what motivates a leader is a great way to determine what drives them to certain decisions and methods.

All of these factors play out in particular ways that determine the qualities of a leader under certain situations. What applies in one situation may not apply in another. It is under this assumption that leadership criteria should be established for certain situations.

An example that springs to mind is George Washington. The man was charismatic, a lover of the art of war, and fearless in the face of danger. However, what most people don't seem to realize was that when he attempted to fight the British on their own terms, he lost terribly in the majority of battles that he fought. It was only when he realized that the fight had to occur on his terms did he begin making headway. Perhaps the biggest determinant of whether America would win was Benjamin Franklin. He accomplished with words and diplomacy what Washington could not with Firearms. Does this mean Benjamin Franklin was a leader and George Washington was not?

Not necessarily. George Washington was far from a poor general, despite the mistakes he made. What determined the outcome of the revolutionary war had little to do with who could win the battlefield and more on who could muster the most support.

France's support was crucial to winning the war. The funds and economic support from the European powers still hurting from their war with Britain prior to the American revolution was what served as the final nail in the coffin of Britain's determination to hold on to its colony.

Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the greatest generals who ever lived, and yet he was undone by that one factor that he had so been reliant upon: The rapid speed with which his army could travel because of his superior logistics system. Only when he decided to invade Russia quickly by outrunning his supply train did he finally realize his folly and met with defeat.

So as we can see, leadership has much to do with WHO the leader is, and WHAT situation he has found himself in. A leader is not simply a leader just because. He is a leader because of the traits and characteristics within him, and he is a leader because the environment he is in at a given time is in need of such qualities.

But what about a multitude of leaders? How does that play out? The funny thing is that most people might assume that many people of leadership quality putting their heads together will obviously fare better than those without such qualities. This is an erroneous way of thinking.

The games we played during our outing showed that not everyone could cooperate well. Some just didn't feel the need to go all out, some got independent minded, and some others wanted to pitch their own conflicting ideas. Another thing is that some obviously had differences in skills and thus others' expectations of what their teammates were capable of were a bit off the mark. I was surprised that the hula hoop pass wasn't as difficult for me as I thought it would be. My large bulk and stiff body should have been a poor combination for such a contest. As it turned out, having a quicker mind to anticipate the movement of the hula hoop was more important. Sometimes discovering the necessary characteristics for a task arise in the course of attempting such things even seemingly beyond your capabilities. Thus, we know that to determine what kind of a leader we need, we need to all try our hands at something first rather than making assumptions.

What I've garnered from this subject is that leaders are both born and made, and have strengths and weaknesses for any given situation. Born, Made, and Situational. All three assumptions about what constitutes leadership qualities are valid when you look at the big picture.

So everything from the Enneagram, Genogram, and comparing one's traits are all a part of the process of identifying the necessary characteristics to select a leader for a given situation.

However, one thing to remember is that, much like what Sun Tzu said: Whatever wins the battle, wins the battle. Trying to predict who will succeed as a great leader and who will not is as futile as predicting the weather.

Only through careful observation of a person's traits, the situation at hand, and how society's goals change can we determine who would work best in charge.

Leaders embody the best in our society, and as such the traits that define them change and adapt to new ways much like society does. As society continues to grow and develop, so too does our expectations of what makes a great and enduring leader.

Conclusion

Above all else, the subject has shown to me that the most important traits for a leader are:

1.   Motivation

2.   Discipline

3.   Adaptability

I thank you sir for giving us the opportunity to learn by sharing what we know with others, and to learn from what we had garnered. Though the subject may have been at times bumpy, I thank you for providing an environment to discuss and weigh the facts with which we could come to a conclusion.  2.5