Interpersonal Communication In Virginia Satir's Paths Of Glory

Ethics Theory for the Military Professional by Chaplin (COL) Samuel D. Maloney illustrates the complex ethical decision making process. Army Leaders are responsible for professionally, and ethically develop subordinates. Developing unethical subordinates in a zero defect Army is a leadership challenge. Goal-Oriented Aspirations, Rule-Oriented Obligations, and Situation-Oriented Decisions provide leaders an understanding of the ethical decision making process. The first step to Professionally developing subordinates is identifying, and providing input on all subordinate goals. Leaders are obligated to enforce rules and regulations. Understanding subordinate character provides leaders with the information to evaluate a soldier’s integrity. However,

The movie “Twelve O’ Clock High” is a case study in the application of leadership theory during World War Two. Gregory Peck portrays Brigadier General Savage, a United States Army Air Force officer thrust into a situation that requires a maximum effort both on the ground and in the air as he attempts to re-invigorate an undisciplined, anxiety ridden, and ineffective combat unit. Throughout the movie we observe Peck’s character employing a variety of leadership methods, but ultimately discovering that true combat effectiveness and cohesion is accomplished through a

In the words of Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale, USN, “integrity consists of knowing one’s situation through education and thus understanding the limit of your responsibility.” Stockdale, a former Vietnam P.O.W., writes the importance of integrity in “The World of Epictetus.” In September of 1965, Commander Stockdale ejected from his plane only to be captured by the Vietcong during the Vietnam War. In eight years of captivity, the Northern Vietnamese tortured and isolated Stockdale; and in that time, he observed the actions of his men. He witnessed honorable, high-ranking officers cave into their oppressors, while common soldiers refuted any luxuries offered. Stockdale did not solely witness actions, but integrity; how a man acts when

Paul Baumer’s attitude towards authority figures varies depending on whether they serve on the front line or in the rear. While he resents trivial exercises of authority from front line officers, he can still feel respect for those officers. However, when it comes to officers serving in the rear, he only shows sufficient respect to avoid being punished.

The constant presence with his troops was the most significant act of building cohesive teams through mutual trust. In Fact, “how he found the time and energy to be constantly with his frontline troops and still direct the overall activities of the division was a mystery.” 1 Interacting with your subordinates shows that you care. A leader that trains with his subordinates also earns credibility. How Soldiers trust, weights leader’s sound judgment for leading troops and accomplishing missions, regardless complexity.

Once an Eagle by Anton Myrer is a very influential novel in the military. In fact, it is required reading material for all 1st Lieutenants in the Marine Corps as well as in the United States Military Academy at West Point. Many Army leaders have read the book and often discuss it among themselves in social situations. Although a fiction read, many leaders extrapolate the use of mission command as well as the leaderships attributes. In this analysis I will be comparing a single event in the novel to the Army’s leadership principles as well as Mission Command. I will then provide a personal reflection and conclude.

I think one of the most important reasons to be familiar with organizational communication as a leader is because of the care we must exercise when choosing to share information, and the media we select for such disclosures. As leaders in the military, we swore to uphold a standard of loyalty – to the government, to our country, to our fellow soldiers, and to our commanders. That means we do not publicly denounce them in a venue where the wrong people can take what we said and turn it into a public debacle. For example, I firmly believe one of the reasons General Stanley McChrystal suffered such a colossal downfall was because of an article in Rolling Stone in 2010. In the article, General McChrystal and members of his entourage were vociferously

Generals during World War II faced daily innumerable difficult and grave decisions. Critical decisions made during WWII did not have the depth and speed of today’s modern communications infrastructure. Eisenhower quoted, “Making decisions is of the essence in leadership.”1

There are very few things in the modern military of today or any military that has ever existed before our current military for that matter, that are more important than the rank structure and the the respect that is demanded of you by that rank structure. Those are two very important characteristics of every successful military unit. With added details here and there, in this essay I will mainly be discussing what respect actually is, how being respected is normally earned and in the military how it is demanded of you as a sub-ordinate to any ranks higher than you or in some cases any fellow military personnel who is more senior to you and why. On top of that I will be covering

The hierarchy in the Army is obvious through the saluting and names soldiers referred themselves to. While Jones used hierarchy as a benefit for her workers, the Army was shown abusing their right to have power over others. The hierarchy being shown in the movie is based on aggression and law. Adrian comes to be a radio host to entertain the soldiers. As the movie goes on, the higher ups in the Army cross out any important information regarding the war so Adrian cannot say them. We as Americans are freedom of speech. Every person has the right to say or share any information that is coming through. With keeping secrets from the people who are sacrificing their lives for our freedom is abusing the power of our freedom and abusing the status they achieved in the

Leadership, according to the Army doctrine, represents individuals’ ability to influence people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization (“Leadership” FM 6-22). However, the varying characteristics of individuals that the Army attracts may instill this doctrine in many different ways, leading to different representations of leadership. Some individuals choose to lead their subordinate in a stern matter, only displaying matured emotions and a “tough-loving” attitude to guide them in the right direction. Others

According to The Trials of Henry Kissinger, Kissinger’s fatal flaw was his preference to operate in absolute secrecy without public or government scrutiny and knowledge. This behavior of Kissinger can be observed as an attempt to control discourse and their associated conditions of deployment. When Foucault theorized his conception of power in Part Four of The History of Sexuality, Foucault states that “Discourses are tactical elements or blocks operating in the field of force relations…” (Foucault 102) Discourses are produced, and refer to both a rudimentary understanding, that is: “ways of talking,” and also practices, which do not exclusively denote things said, but actions done and things not said. Foucault states “It is in discourse that

The book Black Hearts opened my eyes to how leadership from a single Officer can have a grappling effect on such a wide range of soldiers from the lowest of ranks. One of the best takeaways from Black Hearts is to never do anything: illegal, unethical, or immoral. Although this is a easy statement to repeat, Black Hearts demonstrates the difficulties that lie behind these words. It has also painted a picture of how leadership can topple extremely quickly from a top down view. The Army is portrayed in a bad light throughout the book relentlessly. This is due to the concentration of poor leadership of the 1-502nd Regiment (Referred to as “First Strike”), a battalion of the 101st Airborne Division.

Independent of the Army and country you serve, leadership is always an important subject. There are many civilian books and military manuals talking about leadership. The United States Army divides the subject leadership in three levels. These levels are Direct Leadership, Organizational Leadership, and Strategic Leadership. In this paper, the focus will be only about the first two levels. According with you rank, you will work more in one of these levels. Because of that, most part of time there is not much interaction between higher-level leaders and lower level leaders. Despite the limited interaction between higher level leaders like Brigade commanders with the lower level leader like company commander it’s not affect a satisfactory mission accomplishment.

A leader unwilling to sacrifice individual goals for the good of the unit cannot convince other unit members to do so. The mission suffers with potentially devastating effects. While personal goals often coincide with Army goals, there is no room for personal agendas at the expense of the institution or the American people. It is a standard in the hierarchy of military customs and courtesies that the leader must display to his subordinates that he is willing to put in extra effort, sacrifice personal time, and show initiative and motivation in order to achieve the same from his Soldiers.