Monday, February 8, 2010
I'll Follow You to Hell and Back: Odysseus' Leadership
Odysseus leaves Troy with nine ships full of men. By the time he is rescued by Calypso, however, all his men have perished. Furthemore, it takes him a full ten years to find his way home. Is Odysseus a good leader who is just cursed by the gods? A good leader with a mutinous crew? Or is he a bad leader who causes his own problems because of misplaced ideals or poor leadership skills? Or perhaps somewhere in between or none of the above? Explain your answer using examples from the text to support your point.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The debate about Odysseus’s leadership skills is a multi-faceted one that could go on and on with little real progress being made. Instead of offering a cut-and-dry opinion on the issue (there really is not one) I offer the two real weighing mechanisms that can be used to determine if he is a good leader or not: Tactical brilliance and relations with people. One’s opinion of Odysseus’s leadership abilities depends on which of these is one’s priority. Thus, I will briefly discuss each of these two ideas.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Odysseus’s biggest asset is his cleverness. In virtually any problematic scenario, he is able to concoct a solution that (generally) minimizes casualties and time-loss. For example, when trapped in Polyphemus’s lair, Odysseus comes up with a way of severely limiting the Cyclops’s ability to harm the men as well as a plan for escaping the cave. Also, in the Trojan war, it was Odysseus who finally figured out how to get the Greek fighters into Troy’s impenetrable walls. In these kinds of “hopeless situations”, a leader like Odysseus is definitely an invaluable asset. Whenever there seems to be no way out, he is able to devise a last-minute escape plan. If one judges leadership ability on intelligence and problem solving skills, Odysseus is an ideal leader.
However, Odysseus’s people skills are probably his greatest weakness as a leader. While he tries to be fair to his men, his headstrong attitude causes people to not want to follow him. For example, on Aeaea, a discouraged Eurymachus responds to Odysseus’s orders,
“Poor fools, where are we running now?
Why are we tempting fate?-
why stumble blindly down to Circe’s halls?
She’ll turn us all into pigs or wolves or lions
made to guard that place of hers-by force, I tell you-
just as the Cyclops trapped our comrades in his lair
with hotheaded Odysseus right beside them all-
thanks to this man’s rashness they died too!” (10.475-82).
Odysseus is too rash and reckless for his men, and his adventuring is often seen by them as simply a distraction that will end up leading to more casualties. His nonchalance about loss of life (as seen from his constant use of scouts to explore perilous unknown islands), also isolates him. This is a major hinderance to him as a leader.
Furthermore, Odysseus is unable to successfully communicate his plans with others. When Aeolus gives him the bag of winds, he does not mention it’s contents to his men. Because of this, they open it, hoping for silver or gold, and ruin their journey home. Had he simply discussed things with his comrades, this costly incident would probably not have occurred. At the Thrinacia, he is unable to express to his men the importance of not harming Helios’s herds. They then break this one rule, which eventually costs them all their lives. If one measures leadership ability by skill at dealing with subordinates, Odysseus is definitely considered subpar.
As I have attempted to express through the above paragraphs, the question of Odysseus’s ability to lead is very complex. However, at least in the way I see it, the debate boils down to two basic issues. The first is Odysseus’s skill as a strategist and tactician. The second is his inability to properly connect and communicate with his men. I hope that, using these two ideas as a framework, we can have an interesting and though-provoking conversation about the topic.
Just putting this out there: I decided not to read Russel's post for the sake of my current non-confused mind. So if I say something that Russel previously stated, please don't count me off on it because I didn't read it.I believe that Odysseus is an extraordinary leader in the sense that he mainly puts his crew in mind. But what makes him closer to satisfactory is when he focuses on himself and what he will be known for (kleos). For example, Odysseus’ choice to tell Polyphemus his name was at the price of boulders coming close to drowning their ship. However, right before this situation, Odysseus does something that would have taken bravery, mental strength, and great leadership. When the crew went to “the land of the Lotus-eaters, people who eat the lotus,” (9:95) brave Odysseus had the courage and strength to resist the temptation of the lovely lotus and make sure his men did the same, so that they would remember their journey home. He had his comrades first in mind, so that they would not become corrupt by the magical lotus. But these are just two of the many different reasons for why or why Odysseus was not a good leader. I do not believe that Odysseus was just caught in the middle of a mutinous crew, nor simply cursed by the gods. I believe that Odysseus was simply caught in the middle of being human, therefore making mistakes. And as someone (I cannot remember who) stated during class, big O did somehow find a way to straighten out every problem he got the crew into. But the biggest problem is that he does not seem to learn from all of his mistakes, so he makes the same mistake twice. Why does Odysseus not learn from these major mistakes that he makes and resolves?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sam’s question, “Why does Odysseus not learn from these major mistakes that he makes and resolves?” I believe that one of the most significant reasons that Odysseus cannot be classified as a great leader is because he is unable to learn from his mistakes. It takes a certain amount of skill and courage for a man to get himself out of a dangerous or tricky situation. One can assume that their fate was do to chance or a single mistake in judgment and I believe that this man should be forgiven, if not honored, because of his ability to end a dangerous situation that could have ended the lives of many of the men in his crew.
ReplyDeleteHowever, under circumstances such as Odysseus’, where Odysseus and his crew fall into many more than just a few traps and unpleasant, to say the least, situations, it is hard to believe that this is caused merely by chance. Odysseus is a man who is easily distracted and longs ultimately for kleos, the greatest kind of fame, as well as power. As he and his men journey back towards Ithaca, they often make stops that end with many men dead and the rest quite shaken and often unhappy.
It is because he has continued to make mistakes that dwindle his crew’s number that they have become mutinous and unhappy. I do not believe that it is possible for a leader or captain to be successful without the support of his crew. This has already been exemplified in the Odyssey in book 10 after Odysseus and his men leave the Aeolian island with the bag of winds. Odysseus’ men are unsettled to see the bag that Aeolus gave to Odysseus and at this point in time have no reason to trust that he would share any sort of riches that possibly lay within in. “Heaps of lovely plunder he hauls home from Troy,/while we who went through slogging just as hard, we go home empty handed,” (10.45-8). This quotation shows the tension between Odysseus and his men, who are feeling underappreciated. They are beginning to get mutinous as they watch their comrades die at the hands of forces such as Cyclops, Laestrygonians, the man-eating monster Scylla, along with many others.
I do not believe that Odysseus is a good leader at this point in the book because he has shown that he is unable to learn from his own mistakes, often letting his men fall into similar traps and bad situations, and because he has lost the trust of his crew, which is growing more mutinous by the day.
Unlike some people, I actually decided to read Russell’s epic comment (yes, that was a pun, but no, I do not expect you to laugh), and largely agree with it. As Russell did, I would like to break the discussion down into two parts: whether or not Odysseus is a good tactical and strategic leader, and whether or not Odysseus is a good leader in terms of interacting with his men.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I agree wholeheartedly with Russell’s first idea that Odysseus is a brilliant tactician. Though Odysseus may sometimes get his men into difficult situations, he always chooses what seems to be the best possible coarse of action for getting himself and his men out of trouble. And, like I said in the debate yesterday, by hanging back from the battle, Odysseus is not showing that he is a coward, but is instead showing the comprehension of military tactics far ahead of his time: that the most valuable soldier, or general should not “lead the battle charge” but instead stay at the rear of the forces, largely out of harms way, so that he can oversee and direct the other soldiers, generally masterminding the battle. For this reason and the ones Russell has previously stated, I believe that Odysseus is far more than adequate according to our first requirement of being a good leader: tactical skill.
Now on to Russell’s second idea: that Odysseus cannot truly be considered a quality leader because of his poor “people skills”. While this may be true, I believe I may have discovered an explanation for the bigger picture of things. We have already established that Odysseus is very gifted intellectually. What if he realized that he, like so many of the world’s smartest people, simply did not have the skills to relate with other people easily. If this were true, he would most likely choose the most obvious plan of action, being the tactician that he was: he would try to find an assistant to be his go-between in terms of relating with his followers. By now, you have probably already figured out what I am talking about: I believe that Eurylochus was intended to be the voice of Odysseus. He would be the person the crew/soldiers would deal with directly while Odysseus would serve as the brains of the operation.
(My apologies, there is aparently a 4,096 character limit that my comment surpased by almost 800, so I was forced to break it into halves)
ReplyDeleteNow I know what you’re thinking: how do we know this is true? The fact is, we don’t, this is really just a speculation. But the other fact is, we have no reason to believe this isn’t true. We know Eurylochus is Odysseus’s second-in-command, whom he trusts to take command of half the army when he feels its best to split into two groups, such as on Circe’s island. (10.224) We also know that he is well-respected by Odysseus’s men and is an excellent speaker from the rousing speech he gave to convince the men to eat Helios’ cattle (12.366-378) It makes perfect sense that Odysseus would want a trusted man such as Eurylochus to be his second-in-command and personal “people-person” to the crew. Odysseus, of course, understood, the principle I mentioned in the debate yesterday, that every Caesar needs a Marc Antony, or in other words, every “ambitious” (that too was a joke, but most of you probably won’t get it) leader needs a less-ambitious assistant he can depend on to reach out to the crowds for him.
But what happens if the assistant does not stay unambitious? This seems to be the case here with Odysseus and Eurylochus. At some point, Eurylochus decides to go against his master, Odysseus. This may have been because of the way he was made to look like a fool at Circe’s island or this may have been because he was simply sick of being dragged through so many treacherous situations, with comrades being killed at every one. In either case, he becomes mutinous and the result is similar to if Odysseus’s arm had been cut if: he is still able to function, but not nearly as well as he was before. And once the most influential member of Odysseus’s crew obtained this mutiny “virus”, it is not hard to imagine how it could spread to the rest of this crew.
In conclusion I, along with Russell, have shown that Odysseus was an excellent tactical leader, this is essentially indisputable. Then, while Russell said that Odysseus is not truly a good leader because of a lack of “people skills” I have shown a completely possible and, in my beliefs, likely situation where Odysseus realized this personal shortcoming and attempted to rectify it by using Eurylochus for his interactions with his crew members.
Let me now remind you of the original post. Doesn’t the situation I described fit under the label, “a good leader with a mutinous crew”? I believe that Odysseus was simply an excellent leader who was cursed by having to endure a mutinous crew, as well as the hatred of the gods. (I would go more in depth on that second point, but I realize that I am now at almost 850 words and the chance of anyone actually reading this far is virtually non-existent.)
In my opinion, Odysseus is not a reliable leader. His selfish ways are the reasons for all of his problems. There are countless examples in this book of the distrust between Odysseus and his crew, that leads to casualties in their journey home. How can anybody be a good leader without being trust worthy? Its impossible, and Odysseus is the prime example of this. His neglect to explain his methods to his crew leads to them questioning his motives. Such as the story of the cattle. All Odysseus told them was not to eat the cattle, a seemingly simple request, but he gave them no reason as to why not. This leaves his crew to question why they cant have it. Was there really a good reason, or did he just want it for himself? The questioning of his motives cost his crew their lives. But had Odysseus shown his crew that he was trustworthy, things could have turned out a completely different way. They would have believed that even though he didn’t explain why, that not eating the cattle no matter what was what was better for them. And they would have made it home.
ReplyDeleteIt can be argued that Odysseus is a model leader because of how often he gets his men out of trouble. In reality though, he is often the cause of their trouble. He leads his crew blindly into these situations, and then is forced to use his trickery to get them out.