Example Of Leadership Behavior Analysis: Crimson Tide’s Leading Personalities Argumentative Essay

Published: 2021-06-18 05:12:02
essay essay

Category: Management, Leadership, Elections, Government, Control, President, Officer, Captain

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
Introduction
The military follows a coercive model of leadership, and the leaders literally blackmail the subordinates into performing their jobs and responsibilities (Reid, 2016, Chapter 1). In case of Crimson Tide’s Storyline, the events were taking place deep into the sea when the captain and his first officer had a disagreement over a controversial strategic missile strike that according to junior officer did not receive support from the office of democratic leadership of the America. The captain and first officer were compelled to apply participative leadership due to challenging circumstances whereas, in the initial stages of the movie the formal leading role tried to apply authoritative model.
The Captain Wanted to Capture All the Glory
However, the captain was adamant that the ship must act on the previous set of orders that had authenticated the missile launch, but the first officer did not concur to the final command of the captain, and he had him confined to executive officer’s quarters under guard, and the fight did not stop there. Some of the officers went to meet the first official, who was relieved of duty under the assumption of insubordination, but his friends supported him to have a quo that was initially successful, and the members of the mutiny captured the bridge, and this time the captain was limited to quarters, and his loyal men got to him, and they wanted to take over the command center of the ship. The captain wanted to show the world that he got the guts to fire the nuclear weapon (Northouse, 2016, Chapter 1), and during the process, he would prove his manhood as well. The executive officer stood against the initial conjuncture because he was seeing the bigger picture.
The Conflict
The captain and executive officer argued over the affair that they have to confirm the message first before acting on preexisting orders (Reid, 2016, Chapter 4), and the first officer had a radio buoy launched in order to receive the transmission, but the device did not extend properly, and the connecting ranch started to buckle. Theexecutive officer was committed to cause the captain to see the wrong side of his actions, and therefore, he was working in order to find a way to convince the leader that he may very well start a nuclear confrontation due to confusion, and crew had to confirm the directives first before proceeding with the action (Reid, 2016, Chapter 9). The executive officer was indeed trying to put in the words of logic and wisdom, but the captain was unwilling to listen, and his authoritarian style of leadership was impeding his arrogance with the passage of time.
The Internal Fight after Russian Ship’s Destruction
However, the ship had to rise to periscope depth in order to reconnect communication. The Russian ship was destroyed, and the executive officer was in command when the captain regains control of the vessel, and this time, this was a final encounter of both the commanding officers, and two of the gentlemen were present on the bridge, and the captain punched the OX in the face, but he refused to deliver the missile key, and moments prior to that, the weapon’s expert under the influence of the executive officer did not remove the tactical lock over the firing trigger, and the captain had to go down in order to have a chat with the officer. The executive officer and captain fought by coercing people into obedience, and the logical analysis of the first officer was convincing the major human resource at the ship (Reid, 2016, Chapter 5), but the shift in command caused people to shift loyalties, and therefore, the leadership roles were all mixed up (Reid, 2016, Chapter 8). The fight was simple because the executive officer was asking to apply empirical evidence to the situation, and he was indirectly supporting scientific leadership (Reid, 2016 Chapter 1), and the captain was asking that everyone should follow orders like good soldiers.
War is the only Enemy
The executive officer in the movie established that in the nuclear world war is the only enemy and we as soldiers have the reasonability to prevent it from happening against all costs. The captain was presuming the worst, and he was of the view that Russian civil fighters had gained control of the nuclear assets, and they were about to launch an attack so he had to conduct an offensive strike first, but the executive officer had a counterargument, and he was standing on the grounds those made him belief that they had to confirm the latent message (Northouse, 2016, Chapter 8), but the conflict nestled the entire hierarchy of the ship into chaos, and everybody was experiencing confusion, the executive officer won the battle, and he remained on higher ethical pillars in order to ensure avoidance of nuclear conflict, and he managed to avoid the war after all, but the captain was taking a procedural approach in this regard, and therefore, he did not have the will to listen to logic, and the executive officer characterized the intended actions of the captain as a triggering point of a nuclear Holocaust that would induce the Russians to an equivalently destructive attack, and everything would vanish as a result of that unfortunate development, but executive officer was there to cause every inch of hindrance, and therefore, the war was postponed.
Executive officer: The Ethical Side of Leadership
The executive officer presented the ethical side of the leadership, but the captain the authoritative model (Northouse, 2016, Chapter 9), and both of them brought the crew near to harm in their own way, and the captain took a leading stroll in this regard. As a senior officer, he had to heed the request of his right hand, but he did not do so out of arrogance, and therefore, a leadership crisis occurred.
Wisdom and Logic as Dictators in Leadership
The wisdom and logic has to dictate the affairs of leadership, and one should hear to words of wisdom regardless of speaker’s identity so the first officer was claiming an objective position, and if the captain had the guts to lean a little then, he would have also seen the truth (Northouse, 2016, Chapter 9). The leadership is a practicalized practice of vision, and the people with humanistic and ethical objectives always win the battle. One has to maintain an open mind towards management because it is teamwork (Northouse, 2016, Chapter 4). The captain did not want to admit his mistake, and he was taking cover behind the centuries old excuse of following orders that was used to justify many catastrophes in the history of mankind. The vision of the executive officer was not validated, and nor did that of the captain, but the first officer applied the practice of situational leadership in order to seize the control of the vessel (Northouse, 2016, Chapter 5), and in this way, the executive officer proved his point that seniority does not mean that a person is right, and one should win the argument through application of logic and wisdom (Northouse, 2016, Chapter 3).
The executive officer appeared to be the hindrance in the smooth functioning of the ship, but in reality, the captain was committed to take countless number of lives in a split second, and the ethics of leadership could not allow that to happen (Reid 2016 Chapter 2). The executive officer prevented the war because he was more vigilant, sensible and made awakened decisions (Northouse, 2016, Chapter 7), but the obvious leader did not practice the deep underpinnings of the leadership, and almost sent his crew into the mouth of death underwater.
Conclusion
Be that as it may, the skipper was unyielding that the boat must follow up on the past arrangement of requests that had confirmed the rocket dispatch, yet the first officer did not agree to the last summon of the chief, and he had him bound to executive officer's quarters under gatekeeper, and the battle did not stop there.
The tribunal was disoriented because every officer had solid arguments in order to support his intended decision, and it was problematic to decide whether who was right and wrong. However, the intentions of the first officer were purer than the competing ones, and the lack of ability to confirm directions created all the decisional mess, and as the breaking off of the radio buoy were out of both leaders’ control span, and therefore, they had to base their decisions on intuition, and again the arguments presented proved both the parties wrong as the executive officer does not question the orders of the captain, and the former party had the right to suggest a change of decision, and the latterly mentioned party would have to listen the recommendations, but the officers had to develop a consensus underwater that they failed to do, and so they both were wrong.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice 7th Ed. . Los Angeles : Sage.
Reid, R. (2015). Chapter 1: Trait Theory. University of Dabuque
Reid, R. (2015). Chapter 2: Skills Approach. University of Dabuque
Reid, R. (2015). Chapter 4: Behavior Approach. University of Dabuque
Reid, R. (2015). Chapter 5: Situational Approach.. University of Dabuque
Reid, R. (2015). Chapter 8: Transformational Leadership . University of Dabuque
Reid, R. (2015) Chapter 9: Authentic.Leadership. University of Dabuque
Scott, T. (Director). (1995). Crimson Tide [Motion Picture].

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read