A Few Good Men by Aaron Sorkin - Term Paper Example

A Few Good Men, an Analysis A Few Good Men (1992) is a movie adaptation of a courtroom play by Aaron Sorkin that revolves around a trial of two US marines over a murder of another fellow marine in their unit. This paper will analyze the importance of integrity, loyalty, and ethics in terms of leadership as exemplified by the characters in the movie—particularly paying close attention on Colonel Nathan Jessep, and how these traits work dynamically within the military. This paper would also try to explore how these core values affect leadership and leadership performance as reflected in the unity and efficacy of the group as a military unit. Synopsis Two marines—Private First Class Louden Downey and Lance Corporal Harold Dawson are court-martialed under the accusation of murdering Private First Class William Santiago, A fellow marine assigned in their unit at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Their defense lawyers are Lieutenant Junior Grade Daniel Kaffee, an inexperienced US Navy Lawyer who is notorious for arranging plea bargains rather than pursuing trials in courts regardless for the mere practicality of it; and Lieutenant Commander Joanne Galloway who believed that her clients are innocents and would known no bounds in pursuing her case and to prove her clients’ innocence (Reiner, 1992). In the course of their investigation, Galloway and Kaffee uncovered the real culture that is happening within the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base particularly the “code red”. It turned out, PFC Santiago was not able to keep up with the ‘culture’ that is being enforce by Col Jessep in his Base thus resulting to poor performance and poor relations with his other peers. He was struggling to keep up and wanted to be assigned somewhere else and went above his superior, disregarding the chain of command, for a bargain— a transfer for exposing the possibility that Dawson could have illegally fired on the Cuban side of the island. This have irked Jessep and prompted him to order Dawson and Downey to carry a code red against Santiago. In the end, Kaffee was able to pop out the truth from Jessep and proved the innocence of the two accused soldiers. However, they were still dishonorably discharged from the Marine Corps for causing Santiago’s death (Reiner, 1992). Effective Leadership Effective leadership is the art of influencing others. Influence is the “ability to persuade, convince, motivate, inspire, and judiciously use power to affect others…” it is the ability to influence in both the good and bad circumstances (Klann, 2003). From what Klann had emphasized, it is crucial to have influence, despite the leadership style, skill, or capacity that a leader might have. Furthermore, Chapman (2006) also identified that effective leadership could be measured through various indicators like if routine things are happening routinely and if requests are obeyed like orders, which in fact they are. A leader is also effective if he is approachable; listens more than he talks; and when he does talk, people do stop and pay attention because they respect his judgment; has strong convictions and makes them known; and is aware of everything, but not in charge of everything (Chapman, 2006). An exemplary example of effective leadership as demonstrated in the film was that of Col Nathan Jessep. Despite the fact Col Jessep demonstrated negative leadership; there was no question that he was an effective leader. He was able to effectively control his people, enforce his own laws, and create an entirely new culture within his unit. His leadership style is authoritarian wherein he gains respect by instilling fear but there is no question that it was fear that kept his men in check. He knows how to manipulate his people and use his rank and power to influence his subordinates. In a much lighter note, LTC Galloway also is commendable of effective leadership especially since hers was a demonstration of positive leadership traits. She showed Kaffee that cutting corners is not always the best way to go and that putting a little effort—okay, maybe a lot more effort on your work might be difficult but could also equate to a much more meaningful career, job satisfaction, and self-fulfillment. Leadership in Perspective I want to make an important point here; an effective leader could either be a positive or a negative one. A drug lord could be an effective leader in terms of ensuring that drugs are smuggled in and out of the country but that does not make him a good person, rather his was negative leadership. Likewise, a George Washington is an effective leader in his own right because he was able to effectively rally his own troops despite the overwhelming odds against him and fight for good cause; his was a demonstration of positive leadership. The same way, both Galloway and Jessep are effective leaders in their own rights but are a demonstration of both negative and positive leadership. Leadership and Integrity Another topic that was explored in the film was integrity and how vital it is in the military. The embodiment of an ideal officer, a gentleman, and a true military leader would be that of a man with integrity. Such a man is George Washington. His unflinching commitment transformed his disgruntled and mutinous corps towards soldiers of liberty for the new nation. He accomplished this nearly impossible feat through his reputation of integrity through actions. He would always speak of and appeal to the dignity, integrity, and commitment from his men (Cox, 2008). Lt Colonel Mathew Markinson was Jessep’s Executive Officer. And Markinson was nothing like George Washington. He knew everything that was happening in the Naval Base but kept a blind eye. He was the key in solving the case and he, as deputy commander was second in command yet he was voiceless. He lacks the respect of the men and he lacks leadership skills. But his weakness in character was made worse by his lack of integrity. This resulted from him committing suicide because he cannot take it upon himself to find the courage to testify for Santiago and in the process dishonoring himself and the Marine Corps. He was even so full of himself that on his ‘ceremonial’ suicide, he wore his full dress, complete with all his awards and distinctions to at least create a sense of vindication that somehow he had contributed something to the betterment of the Marine Corps. According to the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina, integrity is a “fundamental law of heroic leadership in and out of the military.” Thus, if you lose your integrity, you lose your career (Cohen, 2010). Well, in the case of Jessep, he did lost his career, for Markinson however, he lost more than his career; he lost his will to live! Leadership and Loyalty Another integral part of leadership is loyalty. In the military, loyalty is obedience to authority, observance of the chain of commands, and compliance with the orders to the best of one’s ability as all orders must be obeyed. Obedience is expected among subordinates even if the legitimacy of the goal is questionable. If the soldier is well-indoctrinated, he will still continue to comply without question regardless. Military obedience is often times blind and is not concerned in the legitimacy of the mission and is thus often times caught unaware from the conflicts that might emerged from it (Bass, 1998). Jessep’s effectiveness as a leader could be measured on how efficiently he was able to keep his men in check. Everyone was in line. Everyone except for Santiago, and he ended up dead. Obedience to the chain of command was adhered to and because Santiago has no regard for the chain of command, he merited the ‘code red.’ Downey and Dawson was reluctant about following the order, but they complied—loyalty, proof of Jessep’s effective leadership. In a way, the whole Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was so effectively overseer in fact that it lost focus on its higher commitment: that the purpose of the soldier there is first and foremost for security reasons, for protecting the country. They have become so enculturated to the military customs in their military camp that they have forgotten that their unit is just but a part of a bigger picture, of a larger chain of command, that they are accountable not just to their commanding officer but to the US Marine Corps. They realize it too late when they were facing scrutiny for their actions. When Both Dawson and Downey were court-martial for the death of Santiago. Leaderships and Ethics Lastly, ethics is vital to leadership because it is what differentiates a morally-upright leader to that of a corrupt leader. According to Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a retired US Navy, people are already tired of power-hungry leaders. Men seek leaders who are committed wholeheartedly into helping their subordinates; True leadership must be based on goodwill and that great leader’s gain authority by leading through example (Stockdale, 1982). As a commanding officer and leader, Col Jessep was the role model of his soldiers. His actions was their ethical standards, his actions speaks louder than his words. His behavior is thus reflective of the behavior of his soldiers and consequently of his whole unit. He have created and put his soldiers into the position wherein they have to make compromising ethical decisions: on one hand they have to follow his order despite their conscience otherwise they could be confronted with their own insubordination charges and deal with their own demise. In the end, Dawson and Downey felt that their backs were face against the wall. They have to give the code red or face insubordination and be in the same shoes as that of Santiago. In their mind they tried to convince themselves that they were doing nothing wrong because they were just following orders. Besides, Dawson was a perfect cover because he had a misdemeanor offense charged against him. If Jessep was the kind of leader with ethical standards, he would avoid creating ethical dilemmas for his soldiers. Conclusion If there is one famous line or scene that made this movie famous, it was that of Col Jessep outburst in the court room when he was at his breaking point when Kaffee took the opportune moment of taking the risk and being bold enough to accuse him point blank if he did gave the ‘code red.’ It was also the climax of the movie—the moment of conviction, and it was then that he shouted: “You want to know the truth?” “You can’t handle the truth!” Leaders, I do believe, should have the character to handle the truth. References Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Chapman, J. (2006). Muddy Boots Leadershp: Real-Life Stories and Personal Examples of Good, Bad, and Unexpected Results. Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books. Cohen, W. A. (2010). Heroic Leadership: Leading with Integrity and Honor. California: Jossey-Bass. Cox, C. (2008). Integrity and Leadership: George Washington. In H. S. Laver, & J. J. Matthews, The Art of Command: Military Leadership From George Washington to Colin Powell (pp. 11-32). Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. Klann, G. (2003). Crisis Leadership: Using Military Lessons, Organizational Experiences, and the Power of Influence to Lessen the Impact of Chaos on the People You Lead. Washington DC: Center For Creative Leadership Press. Reiner, R. (Director). (1992). A Few Good Men [Motion Picture]. Stockdale, J. (1982). Machiavelli, Management, and Moral Leadership. In M. M. Wakin, Military Ethics: Reflections on Principles-The Profession of Arms, Military Leadership, Ethical Practices, War and Morality, educating the Citizen-Soldier. (pp. 33-44). Washington DC: National Defense University Press. Read More