My Understanding of Leadership
My understanding of leadership has changed a lot over the course of my time in PL. Prior to my classes in PL, I had some leadership positions such as being president of the Jewish Student Union club at my high school. This formed my opinion about leadership to getting things done and stepping p for the greater good of whatever cause it is. While that is true, PL has taught me that there are many other things that go into being a good leader. For example, Professor Washburn taught me about how it is important to understand yourself as a leader so that you have an idea of what you are good at and what your natural tendencies are. I never thought about this, but I now realize it is equally as important to understand yourself as a person as it is to understand your subordinates so that you know what to improve upon to improve the overall quality of the workplace. In addition to that, Professor LTC Feehan has changed my perspective of leadership by teaching the importance of identifying toxic behavior and focusing on how my actions as a leader directly affect the work ethic and productivity of subordinates. Leadership to me has gone from a characteristic of one person and their ability to lead, to the ability to bring out characteristics in other people.
My Leadership Style
My leadership style is very much so authoritative. After beginning the scholars’ program, I have been selected for multiple leadership positions. I am the treasurer for my fraternity, which means I serve on the executive board. In addition to that, I am the treasurer for a grassroots campaign for someone running for the House of Delegates in Maryland, District 10. Between these two positions, I am constantly in a position of leadership, whether it is voting on decisions with six other people that affect the 90+ people in the fraternity, or making decisions regarding strategic campaign moves, I have found myself learning more about leadership every day. Authoritative vs authoritarian was a concept that stuck with me a lot because while it seems obvious to be authoritarian, it is not always something that people consciously think about. Many times, leaders will think they are good, but let their stress and frustration get the better of them, which can translate into them not thinking about the feelings of their subordinates. This can make an overall authoritative leader become an authoritarian leader just telling their subordinates what to do rather than actually listening to them as people. With my increase in responsibility, I have placed an emphasis on making sure that when in times of stress, I do not show that to my subordinates within my campaign because I do not want my personal stress to reflect on them, especially when they have nothing to do with the cause of the stress. In addition to that I try to place an emphasis on communication because that is often times the key to a well-functioning team. I have always been someone who asks a lot of questions and one of my largest philosophies is that no question is dumb or pointless, the only dumb thing would be to mess something up because you do not want to ask for help.
Artifacts that Exhibit my Change in Leadership
Why I chose this paper and how it facilitated change in my understanding of Leadership
I chose the Guns on Campus Case Analysis because it was genuinely a very proud moment in my life. Following the Oprah Winfrey’s School for Girls position paper, I was extremely discouraged. I thought it was a good paper at first but then after receiving it back, I scored a 70%, which was 13% below the mean and I knew this was not my full potential. From there, the PL team gave me great feedback and really focused on having us improve, which is not always shown from other professors. I took in all of the feedback and applied it to my guns on campus paper, coupled with a lot of hard work and I got a 95% on it with a plethora of positive feedback. This was the moment that I realized I could really gain a lot out of this class due to the level of care from the teaching team.
Guns on Campus Position Paper
The right to bear arms is one of the fundamental debates of today’s politics. Many people believe anyone who is legally permitted to carry a concealed gun, should also be allowed to on college campuses because it is their right to do so. Others disagree due to the potential dangers. Over the years, states have begun allowing concealed carry on campuses with varying regulations and processes. Today, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin have laws permitting it. University of Maryland students should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun on college campuses if licensed to do so because it will not result in many people actually having them, it can assist in safety and prevent public threats, and institutions can create guidelines to ensure safety for members of the community.
If college students at the University of Maryland are allowed to carry a concealed firearm on college campuses, it will still be the overwhelming minority of people having guns. In Texas to concealed carry, one must be 21-years-old (or active military), which already eliminates the vast majority of students. Although Maryland’s concealed-carry laws permit 18-year-olds to apply, in order to obtain, one must have “a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against danger” (Handgun Wear and Carry Permit). This means people can only be approved if something specific is causing them a need to seek extra protection. Also, people will need to go through the extensive process of a written examination, a shooting-proficiency test, classroom courses, lucrative fees, and months of waiting for approval (Morris). Statistics support the idea of college-aged students not actually following through. A gun activist on the University of Houston campus estimated that only a little over one percent of students are eligible to carry firearms (Martin). Furthermore, “Young adults only made up about 3 percent of all CHL-approved licensees in 2015” (Smith). This shows that even though there may be a fear of students running around with guns, statistics point at very few college-aged students actually possessing guns with concealed-carry licenses.
Carrying guns can also allow people to defend themselves, and even help to prevent public threats. According to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Americans use firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually” (Smith). This number is estimated around one million cases, which drastically out ways the cases of negative gun violence. “Every month this year, we’ve reported on Americans who were forced to rely on their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves or their fellow” (Swearer). Specifically to the first week of May, a 59 year old woman in Detroit defended herself from three male intruders, a woman in Memphis defended herself from an intruder in her home, and a man in North Carolina was confronted in a parking garage by two men, who were armed, and was able to defend himself. These three cases are specific to one week this year in order to show that incidents such as those are more common than people think. Having a gun as a means of defense can be the matter of life or death, especially if the attacker has a weapon.
Legalizing concealed-carry of firearms does not mean that guns are allowed everywhere, without change or guidelines. Georgia’s campus-carry law bans firearms from dormitories, fraternities and sorority houses, buildings for athletic events, childcare centers, or anywhere where high schoolers have classes (Downey). Allowing University of Maryland students to legally carry would still prevent guns from being in many places. In addition to that, institutions can take their own measures to handle the change. For example, University of South Georgia “provided additional training for campus police officers and reached out to various campus communities at forums and workshops and through online communications” (Krisberg). Moreover, states can form the laws to provide additional guidelines such as Arkansas requiring concealed-carry permit holders to get an additional eight hours of training before they can legally bring their concealed guns on campus (Krisberg).
Many people would claim that students should not be allowed to carry a concealed firearm due to the dangers of having students possess weapons. A study in 2015 from the Behavioral Sciences and the Law found that “a large number of individuals in the United States self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and also possess firearms at home (8.9%) or carry guns outside the home (1.5%)” (Maximino). These statistics do not sound promising for the pro-concealed-carry case, but in a legal state, Utah, 85% of firearm deaths are suicides (Neumann). To not allow a weapon for the sole purpose of people being able to commit suicide with it, is inconceivable. A firearm is a tool that people can choose the manner in which they use. Legally not allowing a tool, will not prevent people from reaching their goals even if that means suicide. Firearm bans are not the solution to the heinous things people choose to do with them.
Another thing people would claim is that free speech is inhibited due to people having guns. “If faculty and students cannot discuss contentious issues in the open without ‘fear of inciting angry students to draw their guns,’ Debrander reasons, then democracy itself could be undermined” (Bogost). This argument claims that guns will intimidate students within the classroom, when in reality no one should even know who is carrying a firearm and who is not. “That’s the beauty of concealed carry… No matter where you go, it’s concealed. No-one’s going to know,” says Quinn Cox, a concealed carry advocate at the University of Texas, Austin (Martin).
The debate over carrying laws for firearms has been going on for hundreds of years and will not end. Both sides want to create the safest environment possible on campuses, but drastically disagree on how to do so. University of Maryland students should be allowed to concealed carry on campus because it allows them self-defend and can help public safety.
If college students at the University of Maryland are allowed to carry a concealed firearm on college campuses, it will still be the overwhelming minority of people having guns. In Texas to concealed carry, one must be 21-years-old (or active military), which already eliminates the vast majority of students. Although Maryland’s concealed-carry laws permit 18-year-olds to apply, in order to obtain, one must have “a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against danger” (Handgun Wear and Carry Permit). This means people can only be approved if something specific is causing them a need to seek extra protection. Also, people will need to go through the extensive process of a written examination, a shooting-proficiency test, classroom courses, lucrative fees, and months of waiting for approval (Morris). Statistics support the idea of college-aged students not actually following through. A gun activist on the University of Houston campus estimated that only a little over one percent of students are eligible to carry firearms (Martin). Furthermore, “Young adults only made up about 3 percent of all CHL-approved licensees in 2015” (Smith). This shows that even though there may be a fear of students running around with guns, statistics point at very few college-aged students actually possessing guns with concealed-carry licenses.
Carrying guns can also allow people to defend themselves, and even help to prevent public threats. According to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Americans use firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually” (Smith). This number is estimated around one million cases, which drastically out ways the cases of negative gun violence. “Every month this year, we’ve reported on Americans who were forced to rely on their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves or their fellow” (Swearer). Specifically to the first week of May, a 59 year old woman in Detroit defended herself from three male intruders, a woman in Memphis defended herself from an intruder in her home, and a man in North Carolina was confronted in a parking garage by two men, who were armed, and was able to defend himself. These three cases are specific to one week this year in order to show that incidents such as those are more common than people think. Having a gun as a means of defense can be the matter of life or death, especially if the attacker has a weapon.
Legalizing concealed-carry of firearms does not mean that guns are allowed everywhere, without change or guidelines. Georgia’s campus-carry law bans firearms from dormitories, fraternities and sorority houses, buildings for athletic events, childcare centers, or anywhere where high schoolers have classes (Downey). Allowing University of Maryland students to legally carry would still prevent guns from being in many places. In addition to that, institutions can take their own measures to handle the change. For example, University of South Georgia “provided additional training for campus police officers and reached out to various campus communities at forums and workshops and through online communications” (Krisberg). Moreover, states can form the laws to provide additional guidelines such as Arkansas requiring concealed-carry permit holders to get an additional eight hours of training before they can legally bring their concealed guns on campus (Krisberg).
Many people would claim that students should not be allowed to carry a concealed firearm due to the dangers of having students possess weapons. A study in 2015 from the Behavioral Sciences and the Law found that “a large number of individuals in the United States self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and also possess firearms at home (8.9%) or carry guns outside the home (1.5%)” (Maximino). These statistics do not sound promising for the pro-concealed-carry case, but in a legal state, Utah, 85% of firearm deaths are suicides (Neumann). To not allow a weapon for the sole purpose of people being able to commit suicide with it, is inconceivable. A firearm is a tool that people can choose the manner in which they use. Legally not allowing a tool, will not prevent people from reaching their goals even if that means suicide. Firearm bans are not the solution to the heinous things people choose to do with them.
Another thing people would claim is that free speech is inhibited due to people having guns. “If faculty and students cannot discuss contentious issues in the open without ‘fear of inciting angry students to draw their guns,’ Debrander reasons, then democracy itself could be undermined” (Bogost). This argument claims that guns will intimidate students within the classroom, when in reality no one should even know who is carrying a firearm and who is not. “That’s the beauty of concealed carry… No matter where you go, it’s concealed. No-one’s going to know,” says Quinn Cox, a concealed carry advocate at the University of Texas, Austin (Martin).
The debate over carrying laws for firearms has been going on for hundreds of years and will not end. Both sides want to create the safest environment possible on campuses, but drastically disagree on how to do so. University of Maryland students should be allowed to concealed carry on campus because it allows them self-defend and can help public safety.
Why I chose this paper and how it facilitated change in my understanding of Leadership
The leadership philosophy paper has facilitated change in my understanding of leadership because I discussed an unusual leader to highlight the importance of the individual rather than stereotypes. I did research into the Rams head coach, Sean McVay because he is someone who does not fit the average head coach in the NFL. He is not particularly large or loud and does not have the typical football background. However, he earned his respect in his own way, and is now highly regarded as one of the best coaches in the league. This helped shape my understanding of leadership because he was definitely overwhelmed and doubted himself at first, but then he stuck with it and found his openings, leading to his success. He did not intimidate people like coaches usually do, he just capitalized on his strengths (football knowledge) and held true to himself. This is a truly inspiring story and is one that should resonate with everyone.
My Leadership Philosophy Paper
Leadership is a very flexible topic and skill. Many people are excellent leaders in many different ways, and even some unbelievably good leaders may not be effective when using other great leader’s strategies. To me, the most important qualities of a leader are being well put-together which leads you to be a respectable person, you are good enough at what you do to actually have authority over your subordinates, and you lead your subordinates in a way that makes them want to perform well. However, my overall main philosophy about leadership is that people need to find what they are good at and lead within their own confines of their abilities. From there, they must learn how to adequately gain the respect of their subordinates and then perform to maintain the same level of respect. A great example of this is how many people think that an NFL coach should have a dominating presence and demand respect. While many of them are like that and are very intimidating people to their players, that is not the only way to successfully lead a football team. Sean McVay, the coach of the LA Rams, is a young guy that is not particularly large or intimidating, but yet he has proven to be one of the best coaches in the league and will have another thirty or more years to continue to prove that. “He began his head coaching career by taking the Rams from a 4-12 record with a league-low average of 14 points a game in 2016 to 11-5 with a league-leading average of 29.9 points in 2017” (Hoffman). So, the question is, how did an average guy that did not play professional football get the necessary respect and authority to not only obtain this position, but successfully run it at such a young age?
Well, Sean McVay is just one example of an unconventional leader, and it goes to show you that if you are capable of success, it does not really matter if you are a conventional leader or how you got there. Ultimately the way to succeed as a leader is by gaining the respect of your subordinates, which comes from their opinion about you being capable of giving them orders. To explain what I mean by that, I will provide an example. Joe Judge is the current head coach of the New York Giants and he is known to be a large, intimidating person. This would be typical for the players to see when they are meeting their new coach, and I am sure that many of them are probably intimidated immediately by his presence even though he has done nothing to earn that respect. McVay on the other hand would never give off that first impression. However, after working with Jared Goff and making an elite team out of the Rams, everyone on his team will listen to him and respect anything he has to say. At the same time, if Judge continues to lose, as he has, he will slowly continue to lose the respect of his players and then eventually it will not matter how dominating of a presence he has in the locker room, because they will not view him as a good, capable leader.
Sports are different than many other things because everyone shares the same goal. Everyone wants to win games, go far in the playoffs, and then win a championship of some sort. This is why less plays into this example than others because being a good leader as a coach in the NFL is leading your team to literal victory and not much more than that. However, there is a lot more that plays into being a good leader in other parts of society. For instance, that immediate first impression described on Joe Judge may be a corporate boss that a subordinate is meeting for the first time. If they are dressed very sharp in business-formal attire and acting very professional with their language and well put-together, it would most likely have the same effect on the people they are leading. I view the first impression to be somewhat important to leaders because it sets the tone and decides whether you have to play from behind or play from ahead. Think about it like this: if I am meeting someone for the first time and they look very well put together and look like they fit the role of whatever I am meeting them for, I would almost expect them to be good in that role. However, if I was meeting someone and they were not well put together or looked as if they do not fit that role, they could still be good, but they are almost playing from behind in my eyes.
So, in the Sean McVay example, he was almost playing from behind when he walks in as a 5’10” normal guy meeting his NFL players that he will be leading for however many years. However, that clearly does not matter as he won the Superbowl in his second year and has been a top coach in the league basically since he started. He does not try and adopt the role of an intimidating guy, but rather he earns his respect and authority through his knowledge and ability to perform. The point of all this is to show whether you are a large, dominating NFL coach, or a sharp, business-formal corporate boss, if you do not lead with success and enthusiasm to make your subordinates perform well, none of that matters.
In the end, the only way someone is a successful, long-lasting leader is if they can perform well and have their subordinates perform well. Depending on what they are leading this can be significantly different but overall people must lead in what they are good at so that they have the authority to demand the necessary respect to make the system work. Anyone can be a leader in certain things within life, they just have to find the things that best suit them as people. So, I think that leading is a lot less about the typical traits of “being a good speaker” or “being able to say no to people” and more about leading in the areas that we are all uniquely built for.
To apply this to my life, I am a leader within my fraternity that handles the financial matters. I was elected to be the treasurer of the chapter and this also reflects on the main point of my leadership philosophy. Every role on the executive board has a different specific job. While some people are capable of multiple positions, I for instance would not be very good at other jobs, which would in-turn make me lose the respect of the rest of the brotherhood if I were to not do my job adequately. That is why I ran for only treasurer because I knew that I possess the necessary traits and abilities to do this job particularly well, which will make me successful on the executive board as a leader. Also, in the future I will continue to progress and learn new random skills that I can apply to specific leadership roles, and hopefully continue to lead in areas that I will perform well. I will also use the Sean McVay concept and never let appearance or anything else deter me if I truly believe I could do a great job in the leadership position I am going for.
Well, Sean McVay is just one example of an unconventional leader, and it goes to show you that if you are capable of success, it does not really matter if you are a conventional leader or how you got there. Ultimately the way to succeed as a leader is by gaining the respect of your subordinates, which comes from their opinion about you being capable of giving them orders. To explain what I mean by that, I will provide an example. Joe Judge is the current head coach of the New York Giants and he is known to be a large, intimidating person. This would be typical for the players to see when they are meeting their new coach, and I am sure that many of them are probably intimidated immediately by his presence even though he has done nothing to earn that respect. McVay on the other hand would never give off that first impression. However, after working with Jared Goff and making an elite team out of the Rams, everyone on his team will listen to him and respect anything he has to say. At the same time, if Judge continues to lose, as he has, he will slowly continue to lose the respect of his players and then eventually it will not matter how dominating of a presence he has in the locker room, because they will not view him as a good, capable leader.
Sports are different than many other things because everyone shares the same goal. Everyone wants to win games, go far in the playoffs, and then win a championship of some sort. This is why less plays into this example than others because being a good leader as a coach in the NFL is leading your team to literal victory and not much more than that. However, there is a lot more that plays into being a good leader in other parts of society. For instance, that immediate first impression described on Joe Judge may be a corporate boss that a subordinate is meeting for the first time. If they are dressed very sharp in business-formal attire and acting very professional with their language and well put-together, it would most likely have the same effect on the people they are leading. I view the first impression to be somewhat important to leaders because it sets the tone and decides whether you have to play from behind or play from ahead. Think about it like this: if I am meeting someone for the first time and they look very well put together and look like they fit the role of whatever I am meeting them for, I would almost expect them to be good in that role. However, if I was meeting someone and they were not well put together or looked as if they do not fit that role, they could still be good, but they are almost playing from behind in my eyes.
So, in the Sean McVay example, he was almost playing from behind when he walks in as a 5’10” normal guy meeting his NFL players that he will be leading for however many years. However, that clearly does not matter as he won the Superbowl in his second year and has been a top coach in the league basically since he started. He does not try and adopt the role of an intimidating guy, but rather he earns his respect and authority through his knowledge and ability to perform. The point of all this is to show whether you are a large, dominating NFL coach, or a sharp, business-formal corporate boss, if you do not lead with success and enthusiasm to make your subordinates perform well, none of that matters.
In the end, the only way someone is a successful, long-lasting leader is if they can perform well and have their subordinates perform well. Depending on what they are leading this can be significantly different but overall people must lead in what they are good at so that they have the authority to demand the necessary respect to make the system work. Anyone can be a leader in certain things within life, they just have to find the things that best suit them as people. So, I think that leading is a lot less about the typical traits of “being a good speaker” or “being able to say no to people” and more about leading in the areas that we are all uniquely built for.
To apply this to my life, I am a leader within my fraternity that handles the financial matters. I was elected to be the treasurer of the chapter and this also reflects on the main point of my leadership philosophy. Every role on the executive board has a different specific job. While some people are capable of multiple positions, I for instance would not be very good at other jobs, which would in-turn make me lose the respect of the rest of the brotherhood if I were to not do my job adequately. That is why I ran for only treasurer because I knew that I possess the necessary traits and abilities to do this job particularly well, which will make me successful on the executive board as a leader. Also, in the future I will continue to progress and learn new random skills that I can apply to specific leadership roles, and hopefully continue to lead in areas that I will perform well. I will also use the Sean McVay concept and never let appearance or anything else deter me if I truly believe I could do a great job in the leadership position I am going for.
Why I chose this paper and how it facilitated change in my understanding of Leadership
I have chosen the “pick a leader” paper from PLCY201. This is one that not only helped facilitate my understanding of leadership through one of the greatest leaders of all time, but it also helped shape my growth as a writer and student. I chose to write about Golda Meir, a woman who not only is directly responsible for Jewish people being alive today but was also remarkable in becoming the first and only female prime minister of Israel. If there is a definition of a model leader, it is Golda Meir. On top of her being an inspiration, it was also an essay that helped me grow as a writer as well. I did so much research on this topic for only a three-page essay, which helped me understand the importance of condensing my work into something with very little “fluff.” This was one of the main concerns of the teaching team and that helped me grow a lot as a writer. I was extremely proud of the way I used fourteen sources and learned a lot about the topic to shape my understanding rather than just filling in the requirements.
My 'Pick a Leader' Paper
For centuries there has been conflict between Jewish and Arab people in the Middle East. There has been long debate and warfare over who has the right to different parts of Israeli land, including the holy city of Jerusalem. Israel gained their independence in 1948 and was declared the home of the Jewish people. One of the leading Zionists in helping Israel gain its independence and begin the creation of what is now a booming first-world country was Golda Meir, a Ukrainian woman who moved to the United States as a child. She slowly moved up the ranks in the Israeli government and eventually became the only female Prime Minister ever in 1969. Golda Meir was a natural servant leader who used authentic styles to effectively lead Israel through their tough times of gaining independence, but ultimately her overconfidence and clouded judgement led to her downfall and catastrophic destruction.
Although she went to school in the United States, Meir was a Zionist her whole life. Even through high school she was involved in advocating for Israel as a state for Jews to seek protection. She attended college at what is now the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee contrary to what her parents wanted from her (Golda). They wanted her to drop all pursuit of a career and seek marriage for financial reasons and protection. Being a woman growing up in the early 20thcentury was very hard as she had many hopes and dreams. Many people doubted her, which caused her to have to run away to stay with her sister in Denver (Golda). She later married and moved to Israel to live on a kibbutz with her husband. The ambition she showed to run away from her family that did not support her goals and move across the world to help the Israeli cause and make Aliyah shows her authenticity and how she is decisive in doing what she thinks is best for her and the things she cares about. The largest trait of her leadership style is her authenticity because her entire life has been devoted to helping Israel and the Jewish people. Her first position was Secretary of the Women’s Labor Council in 1928 where she was forced to move away from her husband and children, only seeing them on the weekends (Provizer). This alone shows her devotion to helping and creating change, which clearly worked as it only took Israel three years after becoming a nation to pass a law ensuring the full equality of men and women in 1951 (Raday).
In addition to her authenticity, she was always a natural servant leader. In 1967, after her public retirement from politics, she was convinced to serve as the leader of the Mapai political party. She was almost seventy years old, but her political party needed a face that they could trust, and she gladly stepped in because she did not want to see it fall. Her deep love for her party stemmed from her own political beliefs as she helped to create it in 1930 (Provizer). The Mapai party, also known as The Worker’s Party, “was very involved in the lives of citizens, inter alia providing social services such as a health fund, sports club, and youth movement” (Mapai). The focus of that party that she helped create and lead is one that took charge in developing Israel as a country. They created the Israeli Defense Forces and helped to build communities for millions of Jewish immigrants seeking protection in Israel (Labor Party). She believed in the creation of a Jewish state so that people from all over the world can seek protection in a time where they were one of the most hated groups in the world (and the most hated group in that area of the world). Although she had a husband, healthy children, and an amazing career, she still voluntarily supported this party at the highest of levels into her seventies.
While the vast majority of actions taken by Meir helped people survive, she did receive a lot of criticism for the way she went about doing them. One of her main criticisms was how she spoke about Palestinians. This is very much so up for interpretation due to her leading a nation that has been at war with another group of people for years so many people whole-heartedly agree with her, while others paint her as a racist. For example, she once said, "When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? … It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist," (Soussi). The basis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is who has the right to the land of Israel. Because of this, she obviously would be publicly vocal about the validity of the opposing side’s claim to the land. Both parties have legitimate claims, whether it be that it was promised by God, “we got there first”, “we won the wars”, etc. Meir said the previous quote in 1969, only a few months after being sworn in as the Prime Minister. What must be remembered is that she devoted her entire life to providing the Jewish people with a place to seek protection from everyone trying to kill them, which often times was the Palestinian forces. Meir was very direct in the way she made these claims which is why people that did not benefit from her tended to hate her. While this may not have been the most respectful thing to publicly say about a group of people, that is a common view among the people she represents. It is a negative thing because of her public condemnation of an entire people, but it adds to her authenticity as her mission in life is almost directly in opposition to the people she is publicly condemning. Another important piece of context is that “On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948” (Creation of Israel). The initial proposal divided the land and it was not until every surrounding Arab state threatened to attack the newly found Israel that the Jewish people were given the territory. However, that attack actually happened in 1967 and it is known as the Six-Day War (Deutsche). The claims publicly made by Meir were exactly two years following the attempted decimation of her nation, and about twenty years following her nation agreeing to share this land in the first place. Under all of this context, it is more clear that while yes, she should have spoken her concerns in a more respectful way, she was simply frustrated because of the constant attempts of destruction when her, along with other officials, were more than happy to split this land in the first place.
Meir’s leadership style was extremely effective because she placed a high emphasis on serving people, so she was able to gather a following relatively easily. However, toward the end of her role as Prime Minister, she allowed overconfidence to cloud her judgement, which led to a devastating time period for her country. On October 6th, 1973 the Yom Kippur war broke out following an attack on Israel where “Egyptian infantry armed with anti-tank weapons crossed the Suez Canal and assaulted the Bar-Lev Line in the southwest... Simultaneously, on Israel’s north- eastern border, Syrian armor attacked Israeli positions all along the Golan Heights” (Bolia). This was considered a terrible mistake on Israeli leadership from the generals to Meir. Meir was known as someone who was very quick and decisive and was able to see clearly through very difficult situations. However, in this instance she was informed of the potential attacks but still declined the Israeli Defense Forces proposal for a preemptive attack (Ginsburg). She was placed under heavy scrutiny following the war due to her alleged knowledge of the attacks without taking action. She responded by saying, “My heart was drawn to a preemptive strike, but I was scared” (Ginsburg). However, she also further defended her stance by claiming ignorance and saying that she was not informed on the danger even though multiple reports say it was clear that war was on the cusp. Her defense became concerning when she further claimed that “I knew then, and I know now, too, that it’s possible, maybe we could even say certain, that boys who are no longer would still be alive,” (Ginsburg). She went from saying that she did not know the status of the attacks, to saying that she was just scared, to saying that she knew the decision to launch a preemptive strike would have saved Israeli lives. The constant change in story coupled with the idea that she was potentially “scared” and knew it would save lives, is rather concerning from the Prime Minister of a nation that many countries were set on destroying. She also further defended herself as she claimed she was worried the United States would blame them for the war if they struck first, so she was hesitant (Ginsburg). This is not valid though because the United States had already publicly supported Israel numerous times before and it just would not make sense for Israel to start a war with every neighboring country. Many believe that the main cause of her withholding an attack was overconfidence in her countries air forces due to them being far superior to the Arab air forces at the time (Bolia). Following the Yom Kippur war, she resigned June 4th, 1974 as controversy was high, her cancer was spreading, and she struggled to form a government (Provizer).
Although she faced controversy, it is hard to nitpick someone who had done so much good for years. Even after the controversy of the Yom Kippur War she was named the most admired woman in England in 1973 (Provizer). Overall, Golda Meir helped establish a nation to serve as the home of the Jewish people, which ultimately saved many lives around the world. She used a combination of authentic leadership as well as being a servant leader to attract many people and that is why she was very liked among the Zionist community. Her career was always very authentic as she had basically been training to lead since high school in the United States. Her party placed heavy emphasis on helping people with financial support, building safe communities, and overall assisting Jews in settling in their new homeland. It was not until her mid-seventies that she was finally called into question, albeit rightfully so. Although no one can truly pinpoint the exact reasons she hesitated to strike prior to the Yom Kippur war, it clearly became evident that she was not so authentic anymore. She went in circles trying to explain herself because she did not want to face the ridicule of making a mistake of that caliber. In reality, the old Meir that everyone loved as she was moving up the ranks in the Israeli government, probably would have sent that attack, or even just would have been honest in the media regarding what truly happened. This shows how Golda Meir’s leadership style changed from an authentic server to a secretive, reserved, but still well accomplished, well respected individual.
Although she went to school in the United States, Meir was a Zionist her whole life. Even through high school she was involved in advocating for Israel as a state for Jews to seek protection. She attended college at what is now the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee contrary to what her parents wanted from her (Golda). They wanted her to drop all pursuit of a career and seek marriage for financial reasons and protection. Being a woman growing up in the early 20thcentury was very hard as she had many hopes and dreams. Many people doubted her, which caused her to have to run away to stay with her sister in Denver (Golda). She later married and moved to Israel to live on a kibbutz with her husband. The ambition she showed to run away from her family that did not support her goals and move across the world to help the Israeli cause and make Aliyah shows her authenticity and how she is decisive in doing what she thinks is best for her and the things she cares about. The largest trait of her leadership style is her authenticity because her entire life has been devoted to helping Israel and the Jewish people. Her first position was Secretary of the Women’s Labor Council in 1928 where she was forced to move away from her husband and children, only seeing them on the weekends (Provizer). This alone shows her devotion to helping and creating change, which clearly worked as it only took Israel three years after becoming a nation to pass a law ensuring the full equality of men and women in 1951 (Raday).
In addition to her authenticity, she was always a natural servant leader. In 1967, after her public retirement from politics, she was convinced to serve as the leader of the Mapai political party. She was almost seventy years old, but her political party needed a face that they could trust, and she gladly stepped in because she did not want to see it fall. Her deep love for her party stemmed from her own political beliefs as she helped to create it in 1930 (Provizer). The Mapai party, also known as The Worker’s Party, “was very involved in the lives of citizens, inter alia providing social services such as a health fund, sports club, and youth movement” (Mapai). The focus of that party that she helped create and lead is one that took charge in developing Israel as a country. They created the Israeli Defense Forces and helped to build communities for millions of Jewish immigrants seeking protection in Israel (Labor Party). She believed in the creation of a Jewish state so that people from all over the world can seek protection in a time where they were one of the most hated groups in the world (and the most hated group in that area of the world). Although she had a husband, healthy children, and an amazing career, she still voluntarily supported this party at the highest of levels into her seventies.
While the vast majority of actions taken by Meir helped people survive, she did receive a lot of criticism for the way she went about doing them. One of her main criticisms was how she spoke about Palestinians. This is very much so up for interpretation due to her leading a nation that has been at war with another group of people for years so many people whole-heartedly agree with her, while others paint her as a racist. For example, she once said, "When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? … It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist," (Soussi). The basis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is who has the right to the land of Israel. Because of this, she obviously would be publicly vocal about the validity of the opposing side’s claim to the land. Both parties have legitimate claims, whether it be that it was promised by God, “we got there first”, “we won the wars”, etc. Meir said the previous quote in 1969, only a few months after being sworn in as the Prime Minister. What must be remembered is that she devoted her entire life to providing the Jewish people with a place to seek protection from everyone trying to kill them, which often times was the Palestinian forces. Meir was very direct in the way she made these claims which is why people that did not benefit from her tended to hate her. While this may not have been the most respectful thing to publicly say about a group of people, that is a common view among the people she represents. It is a negative thing because of her public condemnation of an entire people, but it adds to her authenticity as her mission in life is almost directly in opposition to the people she is publicly condemning. Another important piece of context is that “On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948” (Creation of Israel). The initial proposal divided the land and it was not until every surrounding Arab state threatened to attack the newly found Israel that the Jewish people were given the territory. However, that attack actually happened in 1967 and it is known as the Six-Day War (Deutsche). The claims publicly made by Meir were exactly two years following the attempted decimation of her nation, and about twenty years following her nation agreeing to share this land in the first place. Under all of this context, it is more clear that while yes, she should have spoken her concerns in a more respectful way, she was simply frustrated because of the constant attempts of destruction when her, along with other officials, were more than happy to split this land in the first place.
Meir’s leadership style was extremely effective because she placed a high emphasis on serving people, so she was able to gather a following relatively easily. However, toward the end of her role as Prime Minister, she allowed overconfidence to cloud her judgement, which led to a devastating time period for her country. On October 6th, 1973 the Yom Kippur war broke out following an attack on Israel where “Egyptian infantry armed with anti-tank weapons crossed the Suez Canal and assaulted the Bar-Lev Line in the southwest... Simultaneously, on Israel’s north- eastern border, Syrian armor attacked Israeli positions all along the Golan Heights” (Bolia). This was considered a terrible mistake on Israeli leadership from the generals to Meir. Meir was known as someone who was very quick and decisive and was able to see clearly through very difficult situations. However, in this instance she was informed of the potential attacks but still declined the Israeli Defense Forces proposal for a preemptive attack (Ginsburg). She was placed under heavy scrutiny following the war due to her alleged knowledge of the attacks without taking action. She responded by saying, “My heart was drawn to a preemptive strike, but I was scared” (Ginsburg). However, she also further defended her stance by claiming ignorance and saying that she was not informed on the danger even though multiple reports say it was clear that war was on the cusp. Her defense became concerning when she further claimed that “I knew then, and I know now, too, that it’s possible, maybe we could even say certain, that boys who are no longer would still be alive,” (Ginsburg). She went from saying that she did not know the status of the attacks, to saying that she was just scared, to saying that she knew the decision to launch a preemptive strike would have saved Israeli lives. The constant change in story coupled with the idea that she was potentially “scared” and knew it would save lives, is rather concerning from the Prime Minister of a nation that many countries were set on destroying. She also further defended herself as she claimed she was worried the United States would blame them for the war if they struck first, so she was hesitant (Ginsburg). This is not valid though because the United States had already publicly supported Israel numerous times before and it just would not make sense for Israel to start a war with every neighboring country. Many believe that the main cause of her withholding an attack was overconfidence in her countries air forces due to them being far superior to the Arab air forces at the time (Bolia). Following the Yom Kippur war, she resigned June 4th, 1974 as controversy was high, her cancer was spreading, and she struggled to form a government (Provizer).
Although she faced controversy, it is hard to nitpick someone who had done so much good for years. Even after the controversy of the Yom Kippur War she was named the most admired woman in England in 1973 (Provizer). Overall, Golda Meir helped establish a nation to serve as the home of the Jewish people, which ultimately saved many lives around the world. She used a combination of authentic leadership as well as being a servant leader to attract many people and that is why she was very liked among the Zionist community. Her career was always very authentic as she had basically been training to lead since high school in the United States. Her party placed heavy emphasis on helping people with financial support, building safe communities, and overall assisting Jews in settling in their new homeland. It was not until her mid-seventies that she was finally called into question, albeit rightfully so. Although no one can truly pinpoint the exact reasons she hesitated to strike prior to the Yom Kippur war, it clearly became evident that she was not so authentic anymore. She went in circles trying to explain herself because she did not want to face the ridicule of making a mistake of that caliber. In reality, the old Meir that everyone loved as she was moving up the ranks in the Israeli government, probably would have sent that attack, or even just would have been honest in the media regarding what truly happened. This shows how Golda Meir’s leadership style changed from an authentic server to a secretive, reserved, but still well accomplished, well respected individual.
Leadership in My Life
While I have already touched on this briefly, I have accepted positions as treasurer for my fraternity and a local campaign in Maryland. Many things from PL have helped me throughout this such as the way in which I think outside the box. Professor Hall and Professor LTC Feehan have both placed an emphasis on the way in which we talk about current events and really elaborate on conversation to develop a deeper understanding of whatever issue it is. Because the campaign I am working on really has myself and two others making decisions, I have expressed the importance of talking out every decision we make to ensure it is not only a good decision, but that it holds true to our values. Similarly, the position papers and then debates further helped me understand the importance of not just taking an issue at face value because no matter what your first impressions are, there is always room for a further understanding and possible alternative solutions to whatever the topic may be.