On leadership [Content Warning: discussion on violence]

I recently did something I don't normally do: I watched a Lord of the Rings (LOTR) film - and most of it, at that. 

When I do watch one of these, I often just follow one set of characters rather than the film as made, in its entirety - and in most films (not just the LOTR films) I skip all violence that is, in my opinion (IMO), gratuitous - glorifying characters for killing, desensitising violence by ignoring the emotional trauma, and the general wanton taking of non-human life (e.g., “oliphaunts”) is distressing, harmful to individuals and societies in many cases, and of not plot value: it is, in my opinion, blood money - bloody scenes to sell more tickets.

For what it is worth, the actual film was “Return of the King”, and I have to say I was utterly unimpressed by the King of Rohan. 

His approach to speeches before battles seemed to be long the line of (and yes, I am being a touch facetious here) “this is going to be bad, so lets be the baddest ever and glory in the badness of it all”. 

* massive eye roll *

Aragorn as King has some of that aspect in his speeches as well, but also some more inspirational words about aiming for a higher purpose - let’s have a better world after this. 

His speech compares well with Eisenhower’s order before D-Day in World War (part) Two. 

It is, IMO, important not to hide or ignore important but unpleasant or distressing facts - and many people I’ve come across - particularly in the business world - have a tendency to do that in order to try to be more inspirational. 

However:

• follow up the negative with purpose or some other worthwhile positive (and character development or similar most times doesn’t count);
• leave assessments along the lines of “this will be the worst ever” (or most important ever - although you can say most important out of immediate timeline, if that is the case) etc to historians - that sort of assessment needs to be done after the fact, objectively, and by qualified experts.
  

You need to maintain your credibility and be authentic, and much of what came out of King of Rohan’s mouth surprisingly had the flavour of people looking bad and thinking & talking as if battle was glorious - with a tokenistic nod to the actual horror ... and I write “surprisingly” because Tolkien  served on the Western Front of World War (part) One (WW1): he had personal experience of the horrors of war.

And on war, the King of Rohan didn’t just “unimpress” (yeah, I know - made up word: deal with it) me with his speech making: his tactics were also unimpressive. 

His main tactic seemed to be to scream “charge!” to initiate a line-abreast cavalry charge, with the occassional interspersed screaming of “bring them down”. 

Now, with long range weapons, there can be a role for charging as quickly as you can. In WW1, moving as quickly as you could over “no man’s land” minimised the time the enemy had to aim at you accurately and shoot - which was especially significant for artillery (which was the main killing weapon for much of that war, as I understand - see here for more on that war generally - including PTSD, injuries, human rights abuses, etc). 

In terms of the era being portrayed in the LOTR films, archery and catapults were the main long distance weapons. As film-makers generally portray archery, being quick would be advantageous, but, as recreated by Lars Andersen, which is likely more historically accurate, moving quickly may not be as useful.

In any case, a line-abreast approach was quickly abandoned in WW1, with a move to - to simplify - small groups or columns moving as close as possible before concentrating on a particular part of the line. 

That fitted with my response to watching this fool and his charges (maybe it was just the macho mentality? Thinking they were superior and could overcome a trained, capable, well positioned enemy by being superior males? [yes, sarcasm]), which was to wonder why not, say, have part of your force do a wedge attack to draw the enemy out of their positions, and then attack the enemy on their flanks as they try to flank your wedge of troops? 

When you’re in a desperate situation, leadership should show at least some awareness of the situation and consequent adaptability. 

If you have genuinely prepared for that situation - and I am broadening this beyond warfare to life in general - it is valid to say something along the lines of “you know what to do; remember your training, and let’s do this”.

As an example of a possible response in situations you haven’t prepared for, something I have often used when teaching people to skipper dinghies and small boats is “I see we have 200' waves today - that’s a bit unusual for this time of year. This is what we’ll do” - even if “what we’ll do” is “we’ll start doing everything as usual, and work out how to adapt”.

So, going back to the movie, instead of  screaming “bring them down” about anything, make a suggestion as to how. 

Anyhow, now that I’ve got that off my chest, time for - to use an old phrase - a Bex and a lie down (and note that it is a very good thing that Bex is not available any more).

 

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

• there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”; 
  
• I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
  

 

If they are of any use of interest, the activism information links from my former news posts are available in this post. 

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.

Vote Yes for the Voice in Australia.  

Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.