Jeremy Lacy

9-24-15
Leadership 102
Dr. Gower
Contemporary vs. Historical Leadership Essay
Things change over time. This simple fact of life is widely agreed upon and can be
observed almost anywhere one may look. The seasons change, the tides shift, beliefs and ideas
develop, companies expand, people grow, and leaders cycle in and out of positions of authority
daily. However, does leadership itself ever really change? It is not deniable that leadership differs
greatly among diverse contexts, but arent the same principles of leadership that were effective in
the ancient times still effective today? Or have the components of effective leadership changed as
the history of the human race progresses through time? While strong arguments can be made for
either side of this question, it is undeniable that many leadership styles implemented today have
been in existence, or at least existed in theory, for a very long time.
Perhaps the greatest example of contemporary leadership is the current Catholic Pope,
Pope Francis. Popes, like American politicians, are often unintentionally divisive figures
holding rigidly to church tradition/doctrine as they separate the church from, and resist the
changes of, the rest of the world. However, Pope Francis has chosen to be different in his short
time as the leader of the Catholic Church. Pope Francis understood what Sophocles demonstrated
in his classic play Ajax: that one must be able to adapt to a changing organization. This principle
has been crucial for the Pope as he has been able to unify many non-Catholic followers as well as
the 1.2 billion Roman Catholics by adapting to the changing world around the church. In keeping
with the idea of adaptability first demonstrated by Sophocles, the Pope has been able to reconcile

(to differing degrees) the church with much of the rest of the world, including other religious
communities and the homosexual community (which has had tension with the church for
centuries).
Another aspect which Sophocles demonstrates in his work Ajax is the importance of
humility. The saying pride cometh before the fall is one which ever so often proves true.
Humility, on the other hand has a mysterious way of uniting followers and strengthening an
organization. Much the opposite of the character Ajax, Pope Francis exercises humility very
often in his leadership role. Washing the feet of a Muslim prisoner and responding to questions
on gay members of the church with who am I to judge? top the list of the demonstrations of
humility enacted by Pope Francis (Fortune.com). Such a leadership style produces awe-inspiring
admiration from followers and works to unify people around the world. It also demonstrates how
ancient principles of effective leadership are still just as applicable today as they were in the past.
Niccolo Machiavelli. The name itself is associated with power, manipulation, and fear.
Fittingly so, Machiavelli urged leaders to do whatever was necessary to achieve their goal. While
most people are at least vaguely familiar with this controversial idea of the ends justify the
means, every good leader should be familiar with Machiavellis other contributions to
leadership. One of these includes the idea that culture is unchangeable it must either be
destroyed or preserved, but not changed. He claims that there is nothing more difficult to plan
more dangerous to manage than the establishment of a new order (Clemens, 140). In many
cases, Machiavellis claim has been proven correct, with leaders failing miserably to change the
culture around them. However, this rule of thumb which has been supported by historical events
since the time Machiavelli first wrote on the subject has been challenged in more recent times by
Ford Motor Company CEO, Alan Mulally.

Mulally was placed in the drivers seat of a Ford company which struggled because of its
traditional, unrealistic culture in 2006. Between the time of his appointment and his retirement in
2014, Mulally did what Machiavelli claimed he could not: he changed the culture at Ford. Ford
was a traditional company which ran on many of the same values as it was established upon in
the early twentieth century values well-suited for that historical context, and not so well-suited
for the historical context of today. These values led to practices which were failing the Ford
Company, and when Mulally stepped in, he turned them around. He got employees to buy into
his vision for the company which was critical for revolutionizing the culture at Ford. Another
distinction between Mulallys leadership style and that encouraged by Machiavelli is in the way
in which the leader treats his/her constituencies. While Machiavelli approved and even
encouraged manipulation as a tactic when dealing with followers, Mulally operated in such a
manner as to treat his followers very well. He was so concerned with the personal needs of his
followers that he paid 47,000 UAW workers 8,800 dollars each in profit sharing (Fortune.com).
The stark contrast between these leaders reveals the importance of context in the
discussion of leadership. Mulally would have been a fool to implement Machiavelli-style
leadership in 21st century corporate America because the corporation was simply too large to
completely destroy the culture and start over. He also could not have gotten away with
manipulation as the leader of a large corporation in this day and age. It goes to show that context
is everything when it comes to leadership.
One of the most influential leaders of contemporary times is the retired New York Yankee
shortstop, Derek Jeter. Jeter was not just a superstar on the field, but an excellent role-model who
functioned as a symbol for everything that was good in baseball. The ancient philosopher
Pericles knew the importance of distinguishing an organization from others, and he did that

successfully as an orator in the city of Athens. Like Pericles, Jeter distinguished himself from the
rest of the baseball world throughout his career: he was consistent, genuine, humble, extremely
hard-working, and he played by the rules (unlike many of his steroid abusing opponents). Jeter
also relied on another principle first described by Pericles: the balance of the individual and the
organization. As a superstar, Jeter was careful to direct personal attention back onto that of the
team during interviews and appearances off the field Jeter never became bigger than the team
he played on.
Jeter set an example not just for his teammates, but also for many young fans who
idolized him as a player. His impact on the baseball world earned the respect of all baseball fans,
even the respect of the fans of rival teams. By the end of his career, Jeter unified the baseball
world much the same way as Pericles unified ancient Athens: by being different from the rest.
By analyzing examples of both classical and contemporary leadership, we can discover
insight on the subject. By isolating the tactics and principles which work in different time
periods, it becomes apparent what truly works and what does not. Of course, the complexity of
leadership lies in the fact that everything is situational and based upon context and time period.
This complexity, however, is what makes leadership fascinating and it is what compels us to
want to become great leaders.

References
Clemens, J., & Mayer, D. F. (1987). The classic touch: Lessons in leadership from Homer to
Hemingway. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Nisen, M. (2013, November 06). Alan mulally explains how he turned around ford. Retrieved
from http://www.businessinsider.com/alan-mulally-leadership-style-2013-11
The world's 50 greatest leaders (2014). (2014, March 20). Retrieved from
http://fortune.com/2014/03/20/worlds-50-greatest-leaders/