General Theory of Leadership - Essay Example

Q5 Heroes and heroines have been part of the human society since time immemorial and acts of heroism have been prevalent in the history of mankind for many centuries. In his narrative, Johnson argues that a hero can be “anyone who has been widely and persistently over long periods been regarded as heroic by a reasonable person or even an unreasonable person” (Johnson 14). In order to get the essence of the concept of heroism, one begins by first establishing the criterion for judging heroism. For instance, ancient societies honored and revered their heroes and heroines, as men of superhuman strength, courage or ability. The gods also favored heroes and as such, they played an intermediate role between gods, men and immortals. Similarly, in contemporary societies, heroes are known for their extra-ordinary qualities that often strike as distinctively unique and unmatched; in this regard, many of the heroes in Johnson’s book are heroic because they have special qualities, which regular average people do not have. This paper will analyze this assertion in terms of the qualities of leadership in Machiavelli, Rousseau and Marx-Engels. A Machiavellian leadership style is based on five major qualities of leadership which include being feared or loved but not hated and having the people’s support; other Machiavellian leadership qualities are display of virtues, use of one’s own arms and having intelligence (“Characteristics of a Machiavellian Leader”). Therefore, a successful Machiavellian leader must have the above qualities to be considered a hero. Leaders can only gain people’s support if they are loved or feared as opposed to being hated because hatred may ultimately result into an assassination. People’s support for a leader’s decisions is very crucial because it promotes the successful execution of strategic action plans. For a Machiavellian leader to be loved and to be supported by people, they must constantly display virtues in public even though some situations may call for actions that undermine virtues. The use of own arms ensures success for the Machiavellian leader because citizens will be more willing to sacrifice themselves for the leader than auxiliary or mercenary units. Finally, an intelligent leader rules his territory authoritatively by making intelligent decisions that ensures his success. Rousseau on the other hand posits that the function of leadership is to “change human nature, to transform each individual (who by himself is a perfect and solitary whole), into a part of a large whole” (Geothals and Sorenson 132). Therefore, leadership is regarded as a tool for transforming society, from a state of political inequality to the state of political equality. Political equality can only be achieved through transformation of the individual, by replacing self-interest by a concern for the common good; in this respect, Rousseau’s quality of leadership emphasizes the collective interests rather than the private interests of each citizen. Marx-Engels qualities of leadership aim at restructuring society by eliminating all aspects of capitalism; under this leadership, all forms of capital such as infrastructure and production means in form of land, factories and machinery must be redistributed to the citizens equally by law. Ownership of capital results to controlling mechanisms of exploitation that can be abused by the wealthy individuals; however, equal distribution of riches leads to a classless society where all citizens are united towards collective interests. Johnson presents Moses as a hero for the Hebrews basing on his heroic acts, which include taking the Hebrews out of Egyptian slavery and leading them into independent nationhood (Johnson 2). During the exodus, Moses created and gave the Hebrews their first code of divine laws and led them through forty years of trials and tribulations to the edge of the Promised Land where he eventually died. Moses also explored the Hebrew language by setting down the first five books of the Hebrew national epic, the Pentateuch; this came to be the opening section of the Bible, as it is known today. Throughout the history recorded in these books, Moses has featured predominantly and his extraordinary doings have been covered as well. Moses is therefore a hero in his own right because he possessed special qualities, which regular average people do not have; as a result, he achieved extra-ordinary feats, which were revered by the Hebrews. Moses was not only feared, but also loved by the Hebrews and in addition to that, the people supported him by heeding to his voice throughout the exodus. Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were both historical heroes who largely shaped the world history in antiquity; they were brave, highly intelligent, nearly dreadfully self-assured and very ambitious (Johnson 27). These two heroes, even though they were inevitably selfish, cruel, unscrupulous and unlovable, were loved and admired probably more than any other individuals’ of their kind. They were considered heroic by their subjects because they were giant-like and almost super-natural in every aspect of their existence during their time; as such, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar achieved extra-ordinary feats that shook the history of mankind in antiquity because of their special qualities. Alexander the Great was the son of a tyrant named Philip; his father was a man of formidable achievements that are reflected in the Greek power and glory that span across nations for centuries in antiquity (Johnson 28). Apart from that, he was highly creative that he built up a formidable professional administration; this administration had the capacity to raise money in huge quantities and to extend its communications almost indefinitely. Philip established a permanent professional army that was unmatched in his time because it was so formidable that it could go anywhere and do anything under his command. On the other side, Alexander’s mother Olympia was passionate, ambitious, unscrupulous, violent and mystic; in this respect, Alexander’s parentage was a sinister one (Johnson 28). However, Alexander the Great received education under the instruction of Aristotle, a well-known philosopher in antiquity, who prepared him for his leadership roles. Alexander the Great is considered a hero because of his special qualities that enabled him to achieve power and glory and to remain powerful in his leadership. He enjoyed massive support from his citizens because they loved him and subjected to his authority. Boudica is another striking heroine figure of antiquity, and in Britain’s history in particular; she was tall with red hair that touched her waist, she was intelligent, commanding and fluent at oratory (Johnson 49). These notable qualities enabled her to assert herself in assemblies of men and to achieve extra-ordinary feats that shook world history; for instance, she led a surprisingly successful revolt against Roman rule. As a heroine, her heroism solidly rests in her special qualities that distinguish her from regular average people in her time. Being a woman of royal descent, Boutica was fiercely graceful and assertive that she once drove around all the tribes of Britain in a chariot with her daughters and spoke to them a war speech with noticeable feminist overtones (Johnson 51). Her body fatally bruised and her daughters outraged at having been raped, Boutica concluded her speech by calling on the tribes to either win the battle or perish because that is what she had planned to do as a woman. She was not willing to live in slavery if the men were willing to do so and as such, she was prepared to fight back for their sovereignty at whatever cost. In this regard, Boutica’s fiery spirit, courage and intelligence were great traits that defined her heroic deeds in antiquity; she was able to command respect and attention through her feminist overtones and commanding eloquence. The medieval heroes came from the ranks of kings, and a notable example of a medieval hero has been presented in the character of King Henry V who once ruled over England in antiquity (Johnson 58). He was the greatest of all English Monarchs and he was a hero in his own right; his comparison in the French Medieval Pantheon is Joan of Arc, La Pucelle. In the pagan classical world, heroes were those individuals who were able to wield force unlike Christian heroism, which was predominantly defined by innocent suffering (Johnson 56). In this respect, most Christian heroes were martyrs such as Stephen who was stoned to death, St Peters who was crucified upside down, and St Paul who was beheaded. Throughout the middle ages up to the Renaissance, Christian heroism continued to manifest itself through depictions of the martyrs in their sacred death agonies. The Christian crusades against the Muslim threat bore a new kind of Christian hero, the Knight in shining armor (Johnson 57). This hero was defined by notable such as courage, skill at arms and a commanding presence at the battleground, and sought to display the metaphysical qualities as well. The metaphysical qualities included religious faith and devotion and chivalry acts; the knights used spoils of the battles to establish churches and to spread the gospel of Christ further. The knights also had the qualities of martyrs, which included being gentle as well as bold, delicate and thoughtful towards others; nevertheless, the knights remained resolute in righteous conflict (Johnson 58). Christian Kings became ex-officio heads of the knightly profession and molded themselves on former prototypes such as King Arthur of England, Otto the Great of Germany and Charlemagne of France. In the age of the axe, Sir Thomas More, a former Lord Chancellor stands out as a hero in antiquity; he was executed by the axe for refusing to recognize Henry VIII as church leader as had been decreed by a Parliamentary statute (Johnson 78). Sir Thomas More was a real, living, rounded personality as depicted in many records of historical documentation that started in the early 16th century. His face was formidable in both intellect and resolve, but fragile in its capacity for feeling and suffering; he was also a hero with a gift of words and as such, he had a lot to teach the 21st century. Sir Thomas More was a moralist who articulated his world with splendid aptness that can only be rivaled with George Orwell’s; as such, Sir Thomas More resembles the hero in a contemporary morality play. Sir Thomas More qualities distinguish him from the average regular person and define his heroic nature; his execution can be considered a heroic act in fight for justice. He was a great crusader of morality especially through his insistence on virtues and he continually strived to transform leadership through transformation of the individuals. Washington, Nelson and Wellington were men of war towards the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries; these men’s heroic acts led to the momentous process that ended the ancient regimes and established the modern world. These men are heroes in their own right and their many similarities and differences provide helpful lessons up to date. They too had their unique qualities that set them apart as heroes, and this was manifested through their extraordinary successes in wars and battles. They were intelligent, courageous and unstoppable and as a result, they enjoyed massive support from their subjects and gained enormous power during their lifetime. These men of war are credited as war heroes who led their armies against forces of the enemies with great intelligence and gaining victories that liberated their subjects. Ultimately, heroes in Jonathan’s book have been portrayed as having special qualities that regular ordinary people do not have; these qualities define their heroic nature. Heroes are nearly superhuman because they have been famed for having achieved extra-ordinary feats that have shaken the world history. Many heroes have been portrayed as intelligent, loved and supported by people and dedicated to virtues as conceptualized by Machiavelli, Rousseau and Marx-Engels. Anyone can be a hero as long as they possess such stunning qualities that ordinary people may not have, especially if they are able to achieve next to supernatural feats. Heroes and heroines have contributed immensely to the world history, as we know it today because heroic acts have predominantly featured in human societies. Heroism is concerned with the collective wellbeing rather than the individual wellbeing, and as such, many heroes are virtuous individuals who focus on the collective interests rather than the private interests of each individual. Works Cited Johnson, Paul. “Heroes: From Alexander the Great to and Julius Caesar to Churchill and De Gaule”.Harpercollins.com. 2007. Web. 18 March 2013. Goethals, George R. and Sorenson, G. L. J. The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007. Print. “Characteristics of a Machiavellian Leader”. Shooner.hubpages.com. 2010. Web. 18 March 2013. Read More