I think that this episode didn't necessarily deal with my big question blatantly but it did relate back in a different form. Though it didn't really deal with teamwork or maturity, I think that if you look at it from a different view it does. That would be the leadership aspect of the episode. The chancellor was ruthless and controlling and ruled by intimidation. When you have someone who is so controlling and demanding then you aren't going to have a group of people who respects you and is willing to work with you. In the end being like that will cause your followers to revolt. Maybe that's just my opinion, but I think if you rule in a more democratic style then people will be more willing to look to you for advice and will respect your choices. As a leader if you want your team to be successful you need to listen to their ideas too. The people need to be able to approach you. When Mr. Woodsworth tried to argue his cause and why his life should be spared the chancellor just looked down on him and wasn't respectful.
In the end not being a good leader had bad karma towards the chancellor. As it would for any leader in my opinion. Someday people get tired of being talked down to and not respected, and when that time comes they have strength in numbers. Teams work better together when they have common interests and goals. So if someone isn't a good leader, a common interest would be for them to not be a leader anymore.
Connecting it back to my big question, how do we have a good team without mature people. In the end I think that your leader needs to be the most mature of them all, when making a good team and someone is leading, they need to have everyone's interests at heart. They need to be able to listen to what others are saying even if it's not what they want. Otherwise their fate will not be good, nor will your success as a team. If you're going to be a team you need to be mature, no one wants to work with someone who isn't willing to listen and do some hard work for a general
RSS Feed