Elizabeth I Leadership Skills

¶ … Stephen Robin's Leadership Models: Assessment of Film Queen Elizabeth I

What is the leadership-effectiveness model?

Movie scenes

Leadership Characteristics

Leadership behaviors and Styles

Group member characteristics

Internal and External environment

After watching the 1998 movie "Elizabeth," this paper was written which to shortly examine the make of her according to Robin's leadership model. An extremely astute, intelligent and most extraordinary irregularity of her time question of whether Elizabeth should be considered the great model of leadership most would, Elizabeth rose to power and prospered in bonding her people. This monarch did this without husband or successor, was an extraordinary writer who was able to utilize her words in order to gain power and had an age named after her. She was the virtuous and carried herself as ethical symbol to which many would more than likely assign the title "great leader." It was clear from the viewpoint of the movie she was effective in her capability to reinvent herself after coming from a very troubled childhood, on the other hand when compared to women who devoted their lives in service to the human race, women like Susan B. Anthony or Harriet Tubman, for instance, Elizabeth I left a lot to be sought after

Introduction

Ever since films are in fact scripted depictions and productions, some experts believe that they need to have some kind of a high level of truth and the appearance of validity. This is for the reason that the films need to stand in for "typescripts" that students could possibly otherwise run into in case studies, experiential results or work placements. The movie depicts Elizabeth showing the Virgin Queen's development as a ruler over 45 years and rotates around Cate Blanchett's predominating central representation. It shows the difficult relationship among Elizabeth's political and personal life and her strong personality, political skills and aptitude to offer her subjects with an intimate satisfaction. Even though it is ideologically tense, the motion picture makes known Elizabeth as a model of an independent woman even though at the same time displaying her perceptive understanding of the significance of political advertising and manipulation. With that said, this paper analyses the value of using a film in an assessment task to build deep learning about Robbins's (1997) leadership-effectiveness model.

What is the leadership-effectiveness model?

According to Robbins (1997) putting on the change model to effective leadership instigates with a consciousness of your leadership development significances -- what a leader needs to emphasis on to understand their leadership potential such as the case in the movie Elizabeth. Then give themselves the chance to understand and accept the 4 Principles of Effective Leadership. As soon as they have adopted the beliefs and mindsets of effective leadership, like Elizabeth they are able to familiarize their leadership behavior and improve new and improved leadership capabilities. By representing the behavior of an effective leader, much like Elizabeth, they are able to start creating an environment or culture wherein team members feel more involved and can flourish like her kingdom did for 60 years.

Figure 1 this is an example of a leadership effective model

Movie scenes

There are many scenes that were effective for instance Elizabeth persuades Parliament to bring together all of the Catholics and Protestants right into a single Church of England. This was one way of saying be proficient in your job, both as a leader and technically. There was an interesting scene in the movie where Elizabeth charms suitors and comes to the idea of marrying Duc d'Anjou but changes her mind when she sees the union would reap few advantages for herself or England. Here in this particular incident where it shows the development of possibilities and considering the consequences all at the same time. One powerful scene in the movie was where Elizabeth criticizes men in her life by saying, "I will have one mistress here and no master!" (Elizabeth I, 1998) This showed that she knew how to take charge when in charge. Other interesting points in the movie scenes was when the Pope made the attempts to try and absolve Elizabeth of her power and then try and have her killed. This was a time when there was a development of a plan that was done in order to accomplish some given objectives. Elizabeth was a woman that clearly ruled with conviction and passion. In the movie, there was a scene where she claimed she married England. This particular scene was her according to Robbins (1997) take care of her subordinate's needs which is what leaders do. Another leadership scene was when Elizabeth presents her argument about uniting Catholics and Protestants into a particular Church of England. According to Robbins again this is scene shows powerful leadership because Elizabeth kept her subordinates informed.

Leadership Characteristics

According to Robbins's (1997) leadership-effectiveness model, the research shows that Queen Elizabeth I was able to give out a classic example of very public leadership (English, 1997). After being able to rule England for nearly 50 years in the 1500s, Queen Elizabeth I was able to embody a lot of the leadership principles that were talked about in modern theory that are applicable even to this very today. However, Elizabeth, young and innocent, started by surrounding herself with consultants. Most distinguished of these managers was William Cecil, who had been a servant up under Elizabeth as the most trusted friend. By reason of their close connection, Cecil was able to speak more without restrictions to Elizabeth than she would permit anyone different, and certainly she anticipated him to do so. However, in this sense Elizabeth was going after the directions of Machiavelli, as he makes the point as wise ruler acts by "picking the wise men in his state, and giving to them merely the freedom of speaking the truth to him...he must to question them upon everything, and listen to their sentiments, and after that form his own assumptions." (Holbrook, 2009) (Even though experts hardly count Machiavelli as one of today's "contemporary" theorists as mentioned above, he can be looked at as "up-to-date" in the setting of Elizabeth. In actual fact, since The Prince was available in 1532 and Elizabeth started her reign which took place in 1558, and from that point it is obvious that Elizabeth was a scholar, it is perfectly likely that she got her hands on the book and read it.)

In the movie, one of the leadership characteristics was integrity. For example, Elizabeth promises Queen Mary that she will act as her sense of right and wrong orders when she comes to power. In this case she was simply keeping her superiors informed of her actions. Another incident was when Queen Elizabeth asks all of her counselors whether she should make the decision to attack Mary of Guise in Scotland. This shows here that as a good leader, she actively listen to feedback from her assistants. Another time of using integrity was when Queen Elizabeth starts identifying her mistake in going to war with Scotland. However, in this situation as a leader she did not show discouragement when facing certain setbacks. She was able to accept full responsibility for and make a correction in regards to poor team performance. Elizabeth only trusts Walsingham because he was the one individual one to tell her not to make any plans to go to war. As a good leader Elizabeth was able to credit assistants for having good performance. Even though Norfolk is being under arrest, Walsingham expresses to Norfolk that he was the most influential man in England but could have been bigger still if only he had the bravery to be loyal and not been so conceited.

Leadership behaviors and Styles

When it comes to leadership and behavior styles, the movie showed Elizabeth I as a woman that was demonstrating her vision for England by admitting to have the "heart of a man" in spite of noteworthy opposition and her early fight. It can be added the trait "Machiavellian" when recognizing the shifts the character completed in Elizabeth approach and style. The first standpoint that could be considered is the transformational leadership actions of Elizabeth I and Philip II in the movie. Research shows in the original formation of the theory of transformational leadership Bass took notice of was that there were three leadership behaviors linked with transformational leadership (English, 1997). The first is perfect influence. This takes place when the leader's behavior makes the association with the followers' feelings and worth systems in such a way as the supporters are able to identify themselves with the leader. However, the second one is called the intellectual stimulation. This is where the leader's behavior generates within the followers a consciousness of a specific problem or permits the follower to convey a paradigm shift in the hostility of a particular issue. The third is recognized as being the individual contemplation (Senge, 1994). This is where the leader's actions has an authorizing influence upon the supporters through the establishment of resources, motivation, confidence, illumination, training and chastisement. Later on, Bass and Avolio were able to add a fourth transformational behavior that they named inspirational motivation. However, this is when the leader's conduct stimulates the follower through vision, the utilization of symbols to bring passion and clarity for the cause, and by being the representative personification of the suitable character and arrangements for the formations or societies that they are able to lead. However, in the circumstance of Philip II and Elizabeth I this would be the countries of England and Spain correspondingly.

There are three observations concerning transformational leadership in regards to Elizabeth leadership in the motion picture. The first was made of the Burns paradox that distinguishes "the dependence of leaders on followers' expectations and perceptions and potentials" (English, 1997). At the core of Burns paradox is the idea that "followers also have the potential for making significant contributions to successful leadership" (Hollander 44). That influence appears to be released when the leaders start realizing that "leaders are the ones that are called upon to be receptive likewise has supporters" (Holbrook, 2009). This is seen in the movie where Elizabeth's response to English population's need for stability and peace. In this logic she was following her own people. Even though Elizabeth herself would have perhaps been shocked by the idea of following someone. Elizabeth's words and behaviors conversed the message that the driving perseverance of her time in power was to start peace and constancy within the kingdom by directing a reasonable course. This reverberated with her subjects for the reason that that was where they anticipated to go.

However, now this in turn secured a more emotional bond among Elizabeth and her subjects it seems from the movie. It would seem that for transformational leadership to be efficiently exercised a leader needs to be able to identify the needs and wants of his or her groups. Being a person with a strong incentive the leader "recruits and action pertinent to those of such needs" (Elizabeth I, 1998). The leader makes the point "their creative understandings to possible followers, sees their attention spark additional communication. The first act is key for the reason that it breaks up a motionless situation and starts a relationship" (English, 1997). The dynamic that retained this from being a realism in the period of influence of Phillip was that even though he was a man of great leadership he was likewise a monarch was supreme power next to Phillip. This led him to the delusion that there was no need in making this type of assembly.

Group member characteristics

In the movie, the Privy Council was Elizabeth's group of advisers and they seemed to have her back. All of their main purpose was to basically just give numerous different opinions and the Elizabeth would decided on the issue at hand (Serva, 2004). However, the movie did shows some scenes where the group advice was at times ignored however the Council still was recognized to carry out her wishes. From the movie point-of-view it was clear that the routine administration was usually left up to the Council. They were the ones that seemed to be involved in matters of military, religion, the queen's security, financial side, and the well-being of the citizens (Scherer, 2007). It dealt with both matters of individual and national interest, delivered announcements in the queen's name, and supervised law and implementation. From the movie standpoint, Elizabeth's council was able to make decisions, but the monarch could veto whatever they wanted without question. Who was in it depended on who the queen wanted there. However, certain powerful nobles were essential in the Council so that their and their monarchies' interests were epitomized so that a rebellion would be evaded as the movie was able to show. Trusting that more members (and as a result more different feelings) would cause more difficulties, Elizabeth as a leader made it her decision to get rid of the previous member count by bring the number down lower. The Counselors engaged helpers who did most of the work. However, in the movie, not everyone was loyal to the queen. Committers of high treason and other serious crimes would get the death sentence which the queen often gave. There was one particular scene when she felt very bad about signing someone death warrant. The movie showed that often a violent death sentence in the situation of high treason involving person being hanged. Then they were taken down before dead, dragged face descending through the streets, but in the movie, Elizabeth leadership ordered them to be beheaded.

For instance, when Parliament is scheduled to take a vote on Elizabeth's suggestion to start the Church of England, she barely wins approval for the reason that Walsingham locked up the most spoken antagonism clergy until after the vote (Elizabeth I, 1998). It is clear that Elizabeth's snub of her lover, Robert Dudley, causes him to turn out to be her dissatisfied enemy and to aid the schemers that were all in contradiction of her. It was clear from the movie that no one is safe; even Walsingham's deputy is killed by an obsessive priest (Elizabeth I, 1998).