Under his leadership the Bill of Rights was ratified. First and foremost, George Washington knew that his presidency would set a precedent for future presidents, and he took the responsibility seriously.
His vision was for the future of the country, so he was determined to set an example by leading prudently, fairly, and with the utmost integrity. A visionary leader has clear goals and never wavers from those goals, even if they cannot be achieved in the short term and designs his organizational culture to realize his vision by making it a shared vision of all the members of the organization.
Examples of his vision start with the war — he was determined to win, no matter how long it took, and the reason for the war was liberty.
Then, in creating the new government, the goal was to create a country ruled by the people for the people. His bigger vision was that America would be a country that contributed not only to the well-being of the people of the country, but to the well-being of the world.
As a leader, the people that you are leading must believe in you. During the war, both soldiers and civilians persevered and followed his vision and goals because they trusted him.
When soldiers with short term enlistments were ready to leave the cause, he persuaded them to stay. They stayed because he led them to believe in the vision, and in him. Another example was during the Battle of Monmouth, when American troops were in retreat until Washington took control and stopped the retreat, leading to the retreat of the British troops to New York. The entire group, again, followed his vision because they trusted him.
Great politics. Great politics what they are supposed to be is the ability to understand and reconcile varying ideas, and Washington was a master at that. At the same time, Washington made clear that the development of foreign policy, including treaties, was the responsibility of the President.
Washington carefully observed the role and authority of Congress while he also protected the role and authority of the President. We again see that he was a very sophisticated and skillful politician as well as being a well informed constitutionals.
He was, states Morgan, a genius in his understanding and use of power, including when to give up power as demonstrated in his resignations as General and Commander in Chief and as President. As a visionary leader President Washington continued to be a charismatic leader who kept the loyalty and affection of the people.
He nourished this through his tours to all the states and through innumerable public appearances. However, when principle demanded that he act in such a way that would engender serious opposition, he stuck to his principles and in time the people, discovering that he had acted wisely, renewed their regard and affection.
The two major events causing such situations were his declaration of neutrality during the French Revolution and his signing of the Jay Treaty with Great Britain. As in his previous two important positions, Washington was not only a supreme visionary leader, he was equally supreme while President in keeping the details of his administration, the big and little necessary current decisions, subservient to the larger issues and ideas at stake.
The Jay Treaty and the Neutrality Act again illustrate this. While no one can fully explain the factors that combined to produce a Washington, Lincoln, Plato, Luther, Edison, Einstein or any other monumentally transformational person, we do know some of the streams that formed, as it were, the mighty Washington river.
The first, of course, are the givens of life, that with which he was born. Most obvious were his physical characteristics — height, strength, energy and physical coordination. His brain or intelligence is also a given.
Generally unmentioned as a given is temperament. Ray Choiniere and David Keirsey, using a somewhat different typology, Guardian Monitor, describe how Washington fits this pattern in their book, Presidential Temperaments.
His driving ambition, love of detail, patience, determination, sense of responsibility and other conspicuous traits that made him the person that he was are related to the temperament with which he was born. Another contributory stream was that made up of family and friends — his parents, his brother Lawrence and the Fairfax family. His father was apparently a strong, humane and entrepreneurial person. His mother was obviously a very determined, acquisitive, demanding mother. His brother was educated, cultured and militarily oriented.
The Fairfaxes were courtly and very affluent. Something from all of these and other people can be seen in Washington. Boller, Jr. His serious participation in Freemasonry may also have contributed to his character. Henry T. Of them all, he had the best long and short range ideas and how to maintain coherency between them.
Just as he did not have to waste energy and thought in dealing with moral issues so he did not have to waste them either in deciding how to treat others; he treated everyone in a courteous and respectful manner.
Another stream entering this river was that Washington always sought to learn more in order to improve himself. Who knows from whence these traits came? He was a great listener, he was a keen observer of people and events and he read far more widely and deeply than has been generally assumed.
See pages in Paul K. More than a contributory stream and more like a small river made up of a number of its own streams was the river bringing the models Washington chose for himself. These he deliberately, systematically and creatively melded together to form the George Washington whom he then portrayed. He saw life as a theater in which we all play our parts and he certainly had in his mind the character that he wanted to play and did play.
This does not imply any lack of personal integrity or a multi-polar personality. It does mean that George Washington, in a real sense, invented himself by creating an original model from several that he had in mind and then lived by that model. There were, at least, four such models that he used. Washington saw the play many times, memorized parts of it and had it acted at Valley Forge. A fourth model for Washington was that of the Father. In addition to these four major models, Washington experienced many other major figures who influenced him.
There were the royal governors of Virginia, the landed gentry and their leaders with whom he lived and worked while in the Virginia House of Burgesses for fifteen years and British generals Braddock and Forbes.
Washington keenly observed them and learned from them all. The best answer, I believe, is that the Washington whom we know is Washington, the Father of the Country, whom George Washington invented and portrayed.
He was a genius in this creation as one part of his being a genius in leadership. I believe that the answer points again to the fact that he was eminently successful as the Father of the Country, a title bestowed on him but one which he also appropriated and lived.
A truly successful and effective father is one who never claims credit for his achievements in being the father and who inculcates his ideas and values in his offspring so well that they, in fact, do not realize themselves from whence these came; they, therefore, tend just to take them for granted or to credit themselves for them. We all know the story of the college sophomore who was amazed at how seemingly uninformed, even stupid, was his father, only to discover later how informed, bright and wise his father had become.
The ideas that Washington had and lived became so imbued in American institutions and culture, because of his skill as a visionary leader, that we have failed to realize from whence they came, namely, from our national Father, George Washington. In the tradition of George Washington, perhaps, my personal interest in the study of famous people who have made major positive contributions to life has always been what can I learn from them that will make me a better person and citizen.
I believe that we can learn a great deal from studying the life of George Washington that would lead to personal and public renewal if we were to apply what we learn. I shall mention just a few items. Washington was able to control so much externally because he first learned to control himself from within. Two, the importance of constant learning by observing, listening, reading and reflecting; Washington spent much time reflecting or pondering.
Six, the inextricable relationship in a democracy between public and personal virtue; the absence of one will always cause a diminution in the other and vice versa. Seven, the need in a democracy for all citizens to be good citizens and for the government to be administered in such a manner as to merit the trust of the citizens. This is enough to show, I believe, that today we urgently need a rebirth of the ideas which he had which made our nation great and a renewal of Washington as our prime national hero and role model.
Baldridge, Letitia, ed. Boller, Paul F. Garrity, Patrick J. Hannaford, Peter, ed. During the 's a lot of events occurred that changed and developed the world. It wasn 't always for the best, but it was. Leadership Examined There have been many great leaders down through history. Leaders that have influenced change throughout many aspects of society. Great leaders have great influence. The effectiveness of a leader is determined by his leadership style.
With so many styles to choose from, and the fact that not one style fits all situations, becoming an effective leader is a challenging task. One reflective note is that it is important to cultivate good leadership skills. One must evaluate personal. Introduction This paper will discuss various aspects of a public leader. First, it will develop a brief overview of two leaders and their leadership styles as a public administrator.
Next, this paper will compare and contrast the leadership styles of these two leaders. Also, it will determine three leadership strengths and weaknesses of each of these leaders, as well as speculate on the effectiveness of each public leader in terms of each of their successes.
Finally, this paper will suggest one. Synthesis Paper: Leadership RES April 22, Leadership Paper This paper will create a dialogue concerning the following articles and synthesis them to generate a discussion of the common themes that run throughout them, as well as understanding the conclusion of all three articles when taken as one entity. Article 1: Fearless Dominance and the U. Lilienfeld, I.
0コメント