Human life consists of multiple decisions being made to improve conditions, find new resources, solve problems, or achieve success in certain activities. Not all people can decide quickly and up to a point; thus, they consider the importance of good leadership, applicable theories, and necessary traits. During this course, I learned several critical lessons that contributed to my understanding of leadership. First, I cleared up that contingency leadership theories introduced by House or Fiedler could work best within the military. It is hard to predict all events in interpersonal relationships, and focusing on a particular situation and its factors allows making a sound decision, which is the main idea of the contingency model of leadership. Therefore, it is correct to remember the commitment to institutional values and courage (Ulmer, 2011). Despite obtained knowledge and experience, military leaders continue offering various approaches and techniques because they face different situations and people.
Regarding the chosen leadership theory, my second lesson includes the choice of qualities and style in military activities. According to General Schwarzkopf, leaders never tell their people how to do their job but demonstrate competence and character, take charge (rule 13), and do what is right (rule 14) (Leadership, 2015). Although these recommendations sound objective and broad-minded, they perfectly describe how to create a strong leader. In the US Navy, people have to establish goals, follow high standards, and improve what is wrong at the moment. Each trait needs time and resources to be developed and implemented following a situation. I plan to use these skills in the future because they are not framed by deadlines or obligations. The video and readings help me learn that leadership is not about power but people who should work together to achieve specific results.
Leadership. (2015). General Schwarzkopf a lesson in leadership [Video]. YouTube. Web.
Ulmer, W. F., Jr. (2011). Military leadership in the 21st century: Another “bridge too far?”. Parameters, 40(4), 135-155.