English Language and Composition Section II Total time 2 hours Question 1 (Suggested Writing Time: 40 minutes. This question counts for one-third of the total essay section score.) Directions: The following prompt is based on the accompanying six sources. This question requires you to synthesize a variety of sources into a coherent, well-written essay. Synthesis refers to combining the sources and your position to form a cohesive, supported argument and accurately citing sources. Your argument should be central; the sources should support this argument. Avoid merely summarizing sources. Remember to attribute both direct and indirect citations. Introduction Throughout history, much has been written about what it means to be a leader. Ancient Chinese military general and "Art of War" author Sun Tzu described a leader as one who "cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to proper methods and discipline." Nineteenth-century historian Thomas Carlyle believed leaders were born and not made, while English philosopher Herbert Spencer argued that leaders were the result of the society in which they lived. The decades that followed brought countless studies and research reports that detailed a wide variety of leadership skills, styles and characteristics, with researchers identifying distinct leader "types." Some authors even devoted their work to all the personal factors that influence an individual's approach to management. With all of these differing schools of thought, it's clear that there's no single definition of leadership. What works for one leader may not necessarily work for another, depending on the circumstances and personality type. But there's one thing that nearly every academic, historian and even leaders themselves agree upon: A true leader must be able to inspire his or her team. Assignment Read the following sources (including any introductory information carefully. Then, define the necessary qualities of a good leader. Synthesize at least three of the sources to justify your claim. You may refer to the sources by their titles (Source A, Source B, etc.) or by the descriptions in parentheses. Source A (Brett Power) Source B (Niccolo Macchavelli) Source C (Plato) Source D (Thomas Hobbes) Source E (Jacques-Louis David) Source F (Queen Elizabeth) Source G (Carol Goman) Source H (David Brooks)
Source A Power, Rhett. "Leadership The General Patton Approach Rhett Power..." Linkedin. N.p., 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Oct. 2016. The following is an excerpt from an article by Rhett Power, a best selling author. There are many types of inspirational leaders and you can follow different examples. How to inspire staff and employees all depends on what you mean by inspire. Essentially, the main purpose of inspiration is to get everyone pulling in the same direction in a cooperative fashion. The direction, of course, is to fulfill the mission and goals of the organization. Take World War II General George Patton (1885-1945), for example. He had to inspire an army to perform the scary business of war. His inspirational style was through personal example Get up front, he would order his officers outright intimidation of subordinates and a lexicon of aphorisms that are immortalized in a book by one of his staff officers, Porter B. Williamson. Williamson published a Patton biography in 1979 with the pithy title Patton s Principles: A Handbook for Managers Who Mean it! Not every manager can command the fear and instant obedience of a U.S. Army general, so Patton had a huge advantage. All he had to do to inspire his staff s support was give an order, which would be obeyed without question. Nevertheless, George Patton s leadership principles have substance and are as meaningful today as they were in the life-and-death struggle of war over 70 years ago. Some examples: Patton s principles of command and management: Say what you mean and mean what you say Always be alert to the source of trouble. Select leaders for accomplishment and not for affection. Every leader must have the authority to match his responsibility. Patton s principles for good health: Brain power comes from the lungs. An active mind cannot exist in an inactive body. There is no power in a bushel of blubber. Make the mind command the body. Never let the body command the mind. To gain strength, always go beyond exhaustion. Patton s principles for making decisions: In the long run, it is what we do not say that will destroy us. Talk with the troops. Know what you know and know what you do not know. Never make a decision too early or too late. Patton s principles for success: Never fight a battle when nothing is gained by winning. Success is how high you bounce from the bottom. Always keep something in reserve. Revenge belongs to God. Even though Patton was a volatile and scary leader, he had a special knack of imprinting his leadership aura on others. According to Williamson: I served with General George S. Patton, Jr. No man served under Gen. Patton; he was always serving with us. In truth, I still serve with Gen. Patton, and he continues to serve with me. He makes me take cold showers, he makes me take deep breaths, and he makes me pull in my bushel of blubber.
Source B Macchiavelli, Niccolo. "The Prince: Chapter XVII." Machiavelli: The Prince: Chapter XVII. Constitution Society, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2016. The following is an excerpt from Macchiavelli s explanation on leadership. COMING now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed. Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only. And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign owing to its being new, saying: Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt Moliri, et late fines custode tueri. 1 Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable. Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Source C Plato, The Republic The following is an excerpt from Plato s discussion about leadership.
Source D Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, as updated to modern English The following is an excerpt from Hobbes philosophical book. {23} For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the laws of nature (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep them, when he can do it safely), if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men.... {24} It is true that certain living creatures, as bees and ants, live sociably one with another (which are therefore by Aristotle numbered amongst political creatures), and yet have no other direction than their particular judgements and appetites; nor speech, whereby one of them can signify to another what he thinks expedient for the common benefit: and therefore some man may perhaps desire to know why mankind cannot do the same. To which I answer, {25} First, that men are continually in competition for honour and dignity, which these creatures are not; and consequently amongst men there ariseth on that ground, envy, and hatred, and finally war; but amongst these not so. {26} Secondly, that amongst these creatures the common good differeth not from the private; and being by nature inclined to their private, they procure thereby the common benefit. But man, whose joy consisteth in comparing himself with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminent.... {27} Lastly, the agreement of these creatures is natural; that of men is by covenant only, which is artificial: and therefore it is no wonder if there be somewhat else required, besides covenant, to make their agreement constant and lasting; which is a common power to keep them in awe and to direct their actions to the common benefit. {28} The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence. {29} And he that carryeth this person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides, his subject...
Source E Jacques-Louis David, Napoleon Crossing the Alps The following is a painting showing Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor, crossing the Alps to invade Italy. The name at the lower left refers to Hannibal, the Carthaginian general who led elephants over the Alps, posing the most serious threat the Roman Empire ever faced.
Source F Queen Elizabeth speech, 1601.
Source G Goman, Carol Kinsey. Eight Tips for Collaborative Leadership. Forbes, 2014. Today s corporation exists in an increasingly complex and ever-shifting ocean of change. As a result, leaders need to rely more than ever on the intelligence and resourcefulness of their staff. Collaboration is not a nice to have organizational philosophy. It is an essential ingredient for organizational survival and success. One my most popular speaking topics is The Power of Collaborative Leadership. (In fact, this year I m presenting this seminar in five countries. The topic s popularity stems from corporate clients realizing that silo mentality and knowledge hoarding behaviors are wasting the kind of collective brainpower that could save their organization billions. Or lead to the discovery of a revolutionary new process or product. Or, in the current economic climate, help keep their company afloat when others are sinking! And it s not just corporate profits that suffer when collaboration is low: the workforce loses something too. Individuals lose the opportunity to work in the kind of inclusive environment that energizes teams, releases creativity and makes working together both productive and joyful. Here are eight tips for building collaboration in your team or organization: 1. Realize that silos can kill your business. Silo mentality is a mindset present when certain departments or sectors do not wish to share information with others in the same company. This type of mentality will reduce efficiency in the overall operation, reduce morale, and may contribute to the demise of a productive company culture. Silo is a business term that has been passed around and discussed in many boardrooms over the last 30 years. Unlike many other trendy management terms this is one issue that has not disappeared. Silos are seen as a growing pain for organizations of all sizes. Wherever it s found, a silo mentality becomes synonymous with power struggles, lack of cooperation, and loss of productivity. 2. Build your collaboration strategy around the human element. In trying to capture and communicate the cumulative wisdom of a workforce, the public and private sectors have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in portals, software, and intranets. But collaboration is more than the technology that supports it, and even more than a business strategy aimed at optimizing a organization s experience and expertise. Collaboration is, first and foremost, a change in attitude and behavior of people throughout an organization. Successful collaboration is a human issue.
Source H Brooks, David. Why America s Leadership Fails. The New York Times 23 August 2016 The following is an excerpt from David Brooks, a New York Times editorialist. We ve clearly had a failure of leadership in this country. The political system is not working as it should. Big problems are not being addressed. But what s the nature of that failure? The leading theory is that it s the corruption: There is so much money flowing through Washington that the special interests get what they want and everyone else gets the shaft. Another theory has to do with insularity: The elites spend so much time within the Acela corridor that they don t have a clue about what is going on beyond it. There s merit in both theories. But I d point to something deeper: Over the past few decades, thousands of good people have gone into public service, but they have found themselves enmeshed in a system that drains them of their sense of vocation. Let s start with a refresher on the difference between a vocation and a career. A career is something you choose; a vocation is something you are called to. A person choosing a career asks, How can I get the best job or win the most elections? A person summoned by a vocation asks, How can my existing abilities be put in service of the greatest common good? A career is a job you do as long as the benefits outweigh the costs; a vocation involves falling in love with something, having a conviction about it and making it part of your personal identity. A vocation involves promises to some ideal, it reveals itself in a sense of enjoyment as you undertake its tasks and it can t be easily quit when setbacks and humiliations occur. As others have noted, it involves a double negative you can t not do this thing. It s easy to be cynical, but I really do think most people entered public life with this sense of idealistic calling. When you spend time around government officials you are constantly struck by the fact that they are more impressive in private than in public. Somewhere at the base of their personal story you usually find an earnest desire to serve some vulnerable group. The fact is, political lives are simply not that glamorous or powerful or fun. Most politicians wouldn t put up with all the fund-raising, the stupid partisan games, unless they were driven at some level by the right reasons.but over the years, many get swallowed by the system: all the calculating consultants; the ephemeral spin of the media cycle; the endless meetings with supplicants; the constant grind of public criticism; the way campaigning swallows time so they get to spend less time thinking about policy; the way service to a partisan team eclipses service to the cause that brought them into this in the first place. As the poet David Whyte once put it, Work, like marriage, is a place you can lose yourself more easily perhaps than finding yourself losing all sense of our own voice, our own contributions and conversation. It plays out differently in different cases. But a careerist mentality often replaces the vocation mentality. The careerist mentality frequently makes politicians timid, driven more by fear of failure than by any positive ideal.such people are besieged by the short-term calculations and often forget about their animating vision and long-term ideal. They rationalize that, since the opposition is so evil, anything that serves their career serves the country. This is not just bad for the people involved but for the system itself. People with a vocation mind-set have their eyes fixed on the long game. They are willing to throw themselves toward their goals imaginatively, boldly and remorselessly.people who operate a career mindset, on the other hand, often put self-preservation above all. Nothing gets done because everybody s doing the same old safe rigid thing.