Wednesday, January 28, 2009
"Good" Leadership
Oh my goodness -- it's been far too long since we've used this blog! :) Great discussion about "good" leadership in class today. Please post your responses below -- and remember to make sure they are in your journals as "Entry #2" as well. You may write about whatever really struck you or interested you -- and feel free to respond to your class-mates ideas as well. These are the requirements: your response must be a solid paragraph -- 7-10 sentences, a topic sentence, a concluding sentence, 2-3 good points with evidence to back them up. Remember the question: what makes a "good" leader? What are the differences between EFFECTIVE leadership and ETHICAL leadership? What are characteristics used to describe each, and who serve as good examples of each of the two categories? Be willing to take risks and be open-minded! I would love to hear more ideas regarding "What is morality?" in "ethical" leadership. Go to it, Thinkers!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
What makes good leadership? I think that a good leader is a person who is convincing and someone that makes the majority of the popualtion comfortable with the leader. However, sometimes, convincing most of the population that something is "good" is not necessarily a pleasant thing. For example, Hitler convinced all those people that Jews were bad and that he was right. Hitler definatly was an effective leader but made a large impact on everyone by having massive amounts of people killed because they weren't 'right'. On the other side of all this, a leader who had an effective impact on the population was Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK). His leadership led to the desegregation of white and African-Americans. Although it took time to be effective, he made a large impact once his message was spread. He could also be considered an ethical leader due to the fact that MLK really believed in something and went after it. So while being and effective leader, he was also very ethical. Hitler and MLK were both very effective leaders, but had totally different impacts on the population.
I agree with Trenton's view on good leadership, though I also have some different thoughts. I believe that to be a "good" leader you have to be both effective and ethical. How can you do this? I'm not sure that there has been a someone like this yet. Because there hasn't been anyone like this before, I am sure it is very hard. Actually, I'm starting to doubt that a perfected leader is possible because no one is truly neutral and everyone gets distracted. Then again, perfect is not what we're aiming for here. We're talking about a "good" leader. I think that a good leader would learn from other leaders' triumphs and mistakes. It will depend on the situation, (like if you are a religious leader, the President of the United States, or the Supreme Ruler of the World), but then you can try to emulate (!) some of the better leaders in history and try to stray from the actions of the infamous. I'm sure if a human being could do this it would be quite a feat, because I have heard that, when we are put in a place of great power, it is quite easy to leave your intentions and become power-hungry. So, I conclude that, to be a truly great leader you need to be effective AND ethical.
P.S. Sorry about using the word 'emulate,' I just keep finding ways to use it! It's probably one of my new favorite words next to 'melancholy/melancholia'. I mean, who doesn't like a word made up of two different foods? Kind of like 'watermelon,' but better!
My response is what is right, what is wrong? Is it a matter of opinion? I think it is because when I am arguing with my mom, I practically always think that I am right, no matter what. Also, who do you think that Barack Obama is an "effective leader" or an "ethical leader"?
The definition of morality in the dictionary is "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct." as well as "moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
Moral is defined as "morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct." I think that morality means doing what is right, but that leads us to defining what is right, what is wrong!!!
In response to Delaney, I think that it is possible to have an effective and an ethical leader. Look at MLK; he was very effective, and now, when we discuss him, we do not say anything bad about him. However, is that because the human society of America has realized that after he was killed and made his input and thoughts? Lots of questions, people! Please answer them!
Personally I feel like talking more about what made a certain leader into what we take as bad.
Over the course of the past few years I have heard some controversial disscussions about Adolph Hitler; I would like to share my point of view. As many people believe that Hitler was a man born mad I believe that that is not entirely true. First a little history. When WWI ended in 1918 Germany was forced to sign a treaty called the Treaty of Versallis. The treaty stated that Germany could not have any form of national defense or produce the tools of war....
I think that this is the fuse that lit the fire that would become Nazi Germany. Even though Germany caused much damage during the war it is not fair to limit them of any millitary activity at all.
....It also stated that Germany had to pay for all the damage that was done during the course of the war....
Also another unfair thing that was laid down. The war debts that Germany ended up paying in turn put almost the whole country in the poor house.
....During their economical crisis a new leader emerged who promised to get Germany out of this crisis and increase the general welfare. his name was Adolph Hitler. Hitler kept most of his promises but also as trent said, making his Germany by eliminating those people who "wern't right" and, establishing an army.....
After another series of complicated events,(in which I will not bother to explain) the second world war was started. Hitler got what he wanted because he was a dictator, meaning what he said went. If you disagreed with him you would probably be charged with treason and most likely killed. Just like Ms.Bryant said today a sole led government will always fail. Fortanuntly one thing Hitler didn't get was the total world domination that he wanted. This indicates that he was insane.) So just try to think of a way to always be an effective and ethical leader; i.e. Dictationship is not recomended under this category.
I think to be a "good" leader, you have to be understanding of other people. You need to recognize their opinions and not say, "I think MY way is best," even if you think it is. I think that lots of leaders that people assume are "good" like Hitler try to manipulate people by saying that their way is right. That would be an example of an effective leadership. An effective leadership is when you can take responsibility to do what's right, even if that something is dangerous. Like when Rosa Parks wouldn't give up her seat to a white passenger, that was probably really scary for her. Another form of that would be bravery. Who would want a leader that cowers under his desk every time there's a robbery or something? An effective leader should be willing (if they're president or something) to risk their lives for their country.
Who is a perfect leader? I believe that we have seen none in the history of our country, and of the world. I believe that we will never see one. No one is perfect. So I believe that it is truly impossible to say that a leader can have 100% effectiveness and 100% ethicalness. Of course, since everyone has an opinion of their own, no matter how neutral they say they are, they will have different ideas on who is ethical and effective. Different countries have different perspectives on the world around them, and that greatly influences your own opinion. I think that while MLK was a amazing leader, and ethical, his effectiveness was not always the most it could be. I think while also to be effective, you have to have people trust you. Once you have trust, people will believe you. I think that an effective leader was Sadaam Hussein who got people to follow him by fear. When you threaten people, with their lives or their children's lives they will have fear installed into them. People get very scared when the people closest to them are going to be taken away from them. I believe fear can make people do the most extreme things.
I think that a good leader is someone who does what the majority of people would think is right. It isn't always good if someone does what the majority thinks is right. For example if the majority of the people wanted motorcycles to be the only motor vehicles then the people who didn't want to drive a motorcycle would not think that person is a very good leader. So for a leader to go with majority doesn't neccesarily make that leader "good" in everyone's view. Effective leaders can act however they want as long as they have people thinking that what they are going to do is right for everyone. An effective leader is not usually very ethical. One leader that was a little bit ethical and effective was Martin Luther King JR. MLK JR had a lot of people that believed he was right and he also made a great impact in American history. Hitler however made a huge impact on history but had killed a lot of people just to try to make people believe that his race was "superior." Both of them had completely different views on how the world should be but nethier of them were completely right in everyone's eyes.
I don't think that you can really point out a good leader and have everyone agree. MLK is considered a good leader to us now, but there were many people that did not agree with him. In fact there still are people in this world that are still racist and don' agree with him, even though they are no longer the majority. Hitler was of course had a very bad impact on the population, but he was thought of as a "good leader" a long time ago. Because everyone is going to have different beliefs, I don't think it is possible to choose someone who was a good leader, because no matter however many people think the same thing it is still a personal belief. What is right really depends on what you believe. A don't think that you can call a good leader someone who agrees and acts with the majority of their people. As we said in class, the people are often wrong. But then again, wrong is still a personal belief. I think you chose what is right and wrong yourself. That's why it is a good idea to vote because it joins all of our beliefs together. There is no way that one leader could make decisions that will make everyone happy. Then there are leaders like MLK who also got their opinions out there and tried to change what others think and believe.
Leaders are people put in charge of others, they can be effective or ethical or both. What determines an effective leader is whether he/she siezes the current circumstances and finds a way to solve the people's problems neglecting to let them realize what the rest of the world sees there efforts as. Often a leader who sees a way to cope with his own country's problems positively and effectively while also keeping the rest of the worlds views on his/her's actions positive is seen in history as a leader who is both effective and ethical. Hitler would be an example of someone whose leadership is seen by his own people as positive and good for their own well being while taking on the shape of negativity in the eyes of the rest of the world's leaders, in other words he was an effective leader. MLK was seen as both positive and negative in his time often depending on the area in which you were raised or the people you were raised by, in other words he was seen as evil to white supremicists and the KKK and other racist groups while a majority of the people in his time considered him a hero and today the number of people who see his efforts as bed are dropping rapidly. if you want proof just look at our current president. An entirely ethical leader is someone who meats the morality of the world but doesn't slove all of his country's problems in his time as leader. Most of the U.S. presidents are seen as ethical or effective and ethical by a majority of the people in this country and that os the exact reason they are elected as peresident.
I realize that some of the words in my entry are speelled incorrectly because I was trying to type to fast.
spelled is speelled in that previous entry. also sorry
Personally, I think the whole thing is biased. Effective leaders to one person could be considered an ethical leader to another. In class we were speaking like we KNEW this or that was right or wrong. But it's all based on opinion. For example, say Martha thought Adolf Hitler was honest and faithful and right in what he stood for. To her, he would be an ethical leader. But say Trenton thought what Hitler did was wrong, and the only way he got away with it was with dishonesty. So to him, Hitler would be effective, but unethical. In conclusion, I'm saying opinions play a big role in the subject.
I wrote my comments before I got a chance to read everyone else's. It's cool to see a couple people have the same/related perspectives as I do. Haha, we really are an honors FAMILY. :D
So for my last and final comment, (maybe. I keep coming up with new things to say.) I think that we need to use a more specific word than "good". Like many of my classmates, it fails to describe so many of the different personalities of all our past "leaders". I don't think anyone can be just "good". There are many other words to describe how they think and what they stand for.
The problem with defining if something is "good" or not, is that it is completely a point of view. If you are a soldier in a war, you will believe your actions are good but the very soldiers you are fighting against will believe what you stand for is bad and unethical. An effective leader changes the moral point of view through their charismatic leadership. Jim Jones manipulated his followers so far that they killed themselves for his cause. The majority of his followers thought killing themselves was a good thing to do, but if the class definition of ethical was correct, than Jim Jones was an ethical leader.Unless a universal consensus on what leaders are ethical and unethical is met, "good" stays as a word of opinion not fact.
"Good" is subjective. Hitler was a good leader in some respects. Leading thousands of people to kill Jews and blonds is no small feat. I doubt that anyone else could do that. However, it wasn't right to do that. Subdividing the phrase good might be an um...good idea (sorry to use good there). As we went over in class, ethical and effective are good divisions. (again, sorry for the use of good) Hitler was a good leader in some respects, but not in others. Probably, down in the Confederate South, a long time ago, some priest that believed that whites/blacks should be equal tried to make things better. Perhaps he even believed that whites should even be forgiven for their mistakes. However, if he had followers such as the town drunk, town fool and barman, then he is ethical, but not entirely effective.
Good is also on a magnitude scale. Say that priest managed to convert his Dinkytown to an Eden of racial acceptance. Then Atlanta didn't like that, and stormed Dinkytown. Sad for Dinkytown. But he was effective that he managed to convert Dinkytown to Eden.
Now say the priest converted Atlanta and Georgia too. Now he is an effective/ethical leader of a state, and Dinkytown. Then an organized crime sydicate kills him. Sad. That does seem to happen. Hitler, MLK, Malcom X, Dinkytown Priest.
I think that the term "good" is really in the eye of the beholder. Hitler's followers thought he was doing thew right thing, and was a savior to Germany. He was considered a good leader to the Nazis, but we all know how wrong Hitler was. On the other hand, there can be laders that are caring and passionate, but is like a diamond in the rough. Abe Lincoon was trying to end slavery, but there was half of America against him in the Civil War. Even some of his followers questioned the actions it took to end slavery in America. It is also a fact that some of America's leaders are considered evil in other nations. Do we think that (besides Bush), absoluteley not. I think leaders should realize that might does not make right, and an Eye for an Eye makes the whole world blind. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights do make a left ;-). So the way I see it, the term "good" is something that only history and time can grant.
I personally think that it would be almost impossible for one person/group to be completely ethical to every person in the world and to the future people. This is because you cannot make everyone happy, no matter how hard/long you try. This would also be very hard because views on topics are different in the future as people thought that it is o.k. to own African-Americans, but we know now that this is completely unacceptable. I think if you go far enough into the future, even those in history now who we consider ethical, will become non-ethical like Hitler has in our history books, even though many people in his time thought he was ethical. I think that this is why there are no real cement guidelines for what is "following your morals". If you go onto Wikipedia and type in
'Ethical leadership" to whole article says, "An ethical leader is someone who follows ethical practices", without telling us what the ethical practices are. That is why I also think (as well as most of the class) why the word "good" as so non-descriptive and I know that I will consider what other words I want to use in my writing besides good.
I think to be a good/ethical leader, one must be able to view the world from multipul perspectives. Someone who only understands the rich, my not care about helping those who are much less fortunate. And those who can understand the pain of those starving my be more set on helping them. I also think that those leaders who are more like Christ seem to make stronger, better discisions.
Post a Comment