Aristotle's Rhetoric Leadership

The essays that comprise Traditional Classics on Leadership present varying notions of authority and of challenging authority. This is largely due to the fact that this manuscript is comprised of essays from 31 contributors, ranging from well-known political theorists to some of the more salient voices for individuality that the world has known. Still, there are some points of commonalities in these essays that present a synthesized viewpoint of the concept of challenging authority.

The objective of this study is to discuss why considerations of moral and ideal leadership, as they have been treated across much of Western history in the Wren text are important to understanding of leadership today, and more specifically, to one's own leadership practice. Toward this end this study will examine the work of J. Thomas Wren entitled "Traditional Classics on Leadership".

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

According to Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose shows that, sometimes justice needs someone to fight to be fair. To some people justices seems unfair because they never new how justices taste. We don’t have to let our selfless believe is or is not by the background of someone else lives because we don’t know if they have changed. Knowing that you have the life of somebody else and that you must judged whether is or is not guilty is not easy to decide. On the argument juror number 8 is the one the fight to see justice on the case without taking caring about the facts that they so far have.

Gorgias agrees with Socrates that persuasion is about teaching, and can be used in the courts which involve the concepts of justice and injustice. Socrates continues to ask many questions like the difference between knowledge and belief. There must be a type of persuasion that produces knowledge and belief, Gorgias agreed and said that oratory brings about belief. Socrates then tries to define an orator as a persuader for the belief, not between matters or right and wrong. Gorgias agreed

Leadership many times can be misinterpreted by many individuals. Leadership is an ability that not everyone is meant to have nor develop. In fact, many can be called, “leaders” but that does not imply that their leadership role plays a positive impact on others. At times, some people seek leadership in a form to only obtain power and abuse it for their own self-interest. While there are others that create great influences to following generations. For instance, there are those like Plato and Thomas Jefferson who have established philosophical thoughts that for past centuries, have revolutionized many people’s ideals. Through their principles many people have identified, what they consider can exemplify, true characteristics that make someone have successful leadership qualities. In their own way, they have influenced others, with the purpose to communicate a foundation of important ideals which have helped guide many. Whether it is one or a group of individuals. Many people should consider in practicing and adapting to those philosophical principles, manifested in Plato’s, “The Allegory of the Cave” and Thomas Jefferson's, “The Declaration of Independence” essay who illustrate certain ideals and aspects of leadership in their own unique way.

This research will explain how different leadership theories directly were applied to situations in the movie “Remember the Titans”. Although only a few of the theories were available at the time, the individuals exhibited sound leadership and follower ship identified by modern research on leadership. This paper will visit several leadership theories and methods from respected sources and compare and contras some situations to current situations experienced with modern theories.

According the five Methods for Influencing Other Group Members - use of reason, assertiveness, coalition building, higher values, and bargaining - when Juror Eight said: “we are talking about somebody life here, we can’t just decide within five minutes, suppose we are wrong”, he used the youth human-being life’s important and the danger of a false decision as good reasons to force other jurors in analyzing the facts carefully. He then talks about the boy’s backgrounds for appealing to logic and rational thinking of other jurors. Juror Three was overt prejudice, hostility, and used “assertiveness” to influence the other ten jurors of jury provided an antagonist for juror Eight. Juror eight used “coalition building” method to seek alignment with other group members. He never says that he believes the defendant is innocent but his mantra throughout the movie was “it’s possible!” referring to the reasonable doubt, which he convinced others’ thought. Juror Eight continued to appeal other eleven juror’s higher values by repeatedly reinforcing their moral and judicial obligation to convict only if there was no reasonable doubt. He challenged each juror to look at the facts more thoughtfully. “Bargaining” is offering an instrument exchange. Juror 8 used this method when he said: “I want to call for another vote… If there are 11 votes for guilty, I won’t stand alone… But if anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and talk it out.”

Juror number eight was a well thought out man. He was independent, not afraid to be different, and liked to look through things very carefully unlike other jurors. In the beginning of the play number eight stands alone. He isn’t sure if the young man is guilty or not. Instead of just jumping to conclusions and voting guilty he takes his time and votes not guilty unlike everyone else. “Five. You’re all alone. Nine. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone” (12 Angry Men) This quote is from when number eight went from being alone to number three

Mr. Davis is the character in this film the audience can learn the most from. He’s the only jury member to originally vote not guilty, and when the eleven other members find out a litter of resentful comments are hurled his way. The men complain that Davis is wasting their time, and that he is trying to let a guilty man go free. Mr. Davis acknowledges all the angry jabs without batting an eye, and calmly explains his reasoning. His arguments methodically poke holes in the pile of faulty evidence presented by the prosecution. He uses reasoning and open-mindedness to view the case while the other men allow prejudices and outside influences to alter their ideas. An article from the New York Times discussing the increasingly notable problem of closed minded jurors said this; “Such jurors tend to make up their minds far earlier than others, and by the time they enter the jury room for deliberation they cannot be budged.” Mr. Davis was dealing with multiple closed-minded jurors yet he managed to succeed. He showed the audience courage enough to stand and face a room full of men who disagreed with him, which is something most can’t do.

Juror #8 was much more successful with his critical thinking since the beginning of the movie. He was the only one of the jurors that voted not guilty. He expressed that “it’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first,” when he is being pressed by the others as to why he did not vote guilty. This is the first step he takes to get the others to talk and think about the case. He uses the idea that “supposing we’re wrong”, when talking about the

12 Angry Men are in a 1950’s courtroom, where 12 men from various backgrounds and different personalities, find themselves deciding the fate of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. The vote must be unanimous, with a guilty verdict resulting in the death of the young man facing trial. Juror #8, (Fonda), was not the assigned jury leader, but emerged as the primary leader within minutes of the group sequester, when juror #8 was the only no vote. Fonda’s situation allowed his leadership traits to apply with success. Fonda’s leadership was due to his ethical need for a jury decision. Fonda’s character combines his goal of having a fair deliberation concerning the young man accused of murder (task Behavior). Fonda was trying to help the eleven other jurors to feel more comfortable with thinking critically and to examine the facts closely (relationship behavior). Now that I have discussed the behavior traits of the two movies, we will discuss the Trait approach in leadership.

What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.

made each small point of his persuasion very easy to accept and as logical as possible so none of the rest could easily object to it

The essay classifies leadership into four key approaches: (1) trait approach, (2) behaviour approach, (3) the