Over on another thread, M.F. said this: >>In the business world, "The Boss" stereotypically tends to be portrayed as a driven jerk who lacks compassion. His success depends on how ruthless he can be. In this documentary, they said that while the bosses who fit the "psychopath" profile all got high marks for being charismatic and driven, they got low marks on their actual job performance. This was not well explained, but the suggestion was that they are driven to dominate, but not to actually build anything. I ought to go re-watch this segment myself because they kind of left it dangling.<<
As that thread was getting sprawling, and this wasn't directly related, but I thought it deserved attention, I thought I'd bring it over here.
Personaly, in my life, though it's something of a cliche to portray the boss as a jerk, I've found that there are a *WHOLE* lot of leadership styles used by a whole lot of people, all of which work better or worse in varying situations. My late father, for instance, was constitutionally incapable of being a jerk. He had a 40 year career in business, never made an enemy, and everyone who ever worked for him adored him. His former boss was kind of a jerk, but also very successful, and despite his occasional jerkishness, he had a strong sense of loyalty and, yes, even honor. He might have had all the stereotypical bad qualities one sees in bosses, but in the areas where it mattered, and when it mattered, he was on the side of the angels. Then there's this other boss I had that was just terrible, and walked around all day trying to advance his career by trashing other people's.
And some people simply aren't cut out for leadership positions. And some people are. My brother keeps getting put in charge of things - don't matter what - social, work, church, ordering for total strangers at restraunts - he's just that kind of larger-than-life guy who people defer to, whether he wants it or not (Generally he doesn't). And then there's people like me, who aren't leaders, but are useful for facilitating stuff. I'm the guy at the party who keeps the discussion going, and steers it away from dead-end topics like 'sports' and 'wow, isn't this great? This is so great!' My job is to be just interesting enough to make everyone else feel effortlessly interesting, which keeps them talky and engaged and feeling social and confident and good about themselves, which makes for a better party. And, on a larger scale, for a better community. Again: i don't seek it out, it's just a role I fall into again and again, like my brother.
We see a lot of different leadership styles in SF. The Doctor (Who generally just assumes command); Captain Kirk, who somehow makes everyone love him; Captain Sheridan, who honest-to-God *COMMANDS* and people do what he says 'cuz he clearly knows what he's doing; Colonel O'Neil, who's insubordinate, but gets away with it because he's *really* good at his job; Mal Reynolds, who's a broken man who no longer has a soul of his own, so he's built a functioning replacement by surrounding himself with people who have the individual qualities he, himself, lost in the war, and so on. Then there's the TNG type, where the command staff is one big happy family, which is about as exciting as working in a dentist's office, and somewhat less likely. That became a cliche, and it turned up a lot in the 90s (SeaQuest: I'm looking at you). Then there's Jack Sheppard, the very reluctant leader, who only really owns up to it in the last episode. The inspiring Moses figure, like Adama (Original) or the bearded dude from Terra Nova. Or the Emerging Hero who doesn't realize his greatness, like David Sheppard from Kings, or Hurley from Lost. Then there's the completely-out-of-his-depth leader, like Colonel Young from SGU, or Roslin from BSG, who makes a lot of mistakes getting stuck with a job nobody could have forseen, but who gradually rises to the challenge. Then there's the kindly old grandpa type, Potter from M*A*S*H or General Landry (And to a lesser extent, Hammond) from Stargate. The Burocrat has become popular in the last decade as well: Weir from SGA, that bearded dude from "outcasts," and Wray from SGU. In general, I think these examples haven't played out the way they were intended, and (With the only provisional exception of Weir) I think they turn out negative. Oh, I take that back: Woolsey in the final season of SGA. Never *quite* settled into the role, but actually a good burrrocrat leader.
So what type do you like best, and why do you like 'em? And what kind are you? And who's the best exemplar of each, do you think?
The two most obvious are Kirk and Sheridan. As we guardedly agreed in a different thread, Sheridan is probably the better commander, in that he's got the capacity for growth that Kirk lacked. Kirk's a great guy, but as he himself admits, he's only good at one thing, and any attempt to take it from him brings pain. Sheridan *starts out* as a Kirk type, and moves steadily uphill from there, getting better, stronger, deeper, more complex, and, yes, more tragic.
>>>>>A good "real life" leader would have been Robert E. Lee. And an even better example would have been George Washington.<<
There is a difference between a field commander and a commander in chief. Lee was a great field commander but a lousy CIC because he did not see the overall picture of the war which is one of the many reasons the south lost. Washington saw the so called big picture and understood that winning or losing battles was not the important thing in the revolution.<<<
In fact, Lee was beyond question a far, far, far better military commander than Washington. There's no real debate about that. He regularly defeated far superior forces, he went out of his way to avoid unnecessary bloodshed on the side of the enemy, there's that famous incident in the Mexican war when he saved that kid's life, and his men just fanatically adored him. He basically carried the whole war on his shoulders for the last year or 18 months. The man was a genius, and there's a reason he was Lincoln's first choice to lead the good guys. His battle strategies are still studied today in places like Russia and China and elsewhere.
Washington was not a particularly inspiring officer. He basically started the French and Indian War by refusing to obey orders, he sent all the black folk home when he took charge of the Continental Army, which reduced their fighting strength by about 1/3rd at a VERY bad junction. He didn't talk much. He was a bit on the foppish side by our standards. He was occasionally prone to openly sobbing in public. And he lost battles. A lot. I mean, a whole lot. One of my buddies from VMI once described Washington's strategy as "Losing the enemy into defeat." Up until Yorktown - which was frackin' brilliant - Washington's front was loss, loss, loss, loss, loss.
What made up for this, as Neo said, is that Washington recognized that his job wasn't to defeat the British, but to keep the war alive, to keep the fight going, to keep an army in the field, to keep them chasing him. If this meant that he had to keep getting mugged, he did it. If he wasn't as good at it as Nathaniel Greene, well, still, he was pretty good at it. He kept the revolution alive because he had the long view. And he was a great president. And a thoroughly corrupt surveyor.
Lee was utterly apolitical, and simply didn't want to end up fighting his own sons. He didn't believe in slavery, he didn't believe in secession. He attempted to get out of fighting, simply act as an advisor, but it got out of hand. His mission had the disadvantage of being defined by the enemy: The enemy wanted to invade. Lee's job was to change their minds. Unfortunately, that meant endlessly stopping leaks, rather than going after a major target across the line. Look at Korea or Vietnam to see how well that works. He was basically fighting a delaying action so the politicians could hammer out some kind of solution, but I think both he and President Davis knew that was doomed from the outset.
Interestingly, Lee was related to Washington. His wife was Washington's adopted granddaughter. And his daddy was a revolutionary war hero, *and* a former president under the Articles of the Confederation. Which makes Lee about as close to nobility as you can get in Virginia.
The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0