Donald Tironi
11/7/99
Concepts of Leadership
Amb. Kamal
HW-6(Chief Joseph)
- Introduction
- The topic of this draft is the case study of Chief Joseph. The focus is going to be on the leadership of Chief Joseph, particularly whether or not he was a good leader. This draft will look at Chief Joseph’s leadership qualities and his effectiveness. It will also compare Chief Joseph to General Howard, his American counterpart.
- Thesis
- Facts
- Chief Joseph was the leader of the Nez Perces tribe. He was part of the faction called the "non-treaty" Indians. They were called this because Chief Joseph’s tribe was one of the tribes that refused to sign any of the treaties that would move the Nez Perces of the land and to a reservation. This refusal sparked harsh feelings between the two sides. Chief Joseph and his band of the Nez Perces said they never sold their land to the government. The government argued that they had in fact sold their land. The government wanted the land because gold had been found there. Chief Joseph argued that no one had even owned the land, and therefore he could not sell something he did not own. The government persisted, and in an attempt to avoid bloodshed agreed to move. He was given thirty days by General Howard. This was not enough time, nor the season for the Nez Perces to attempt this move, but Chief Joseph went anyway. Due to other altercations and harsh feelings a war resulted. The excerpt we read is from a speech Chief Joseph gave to the government. In it, he expresses his sorrow for the war, as well as the reasons behind it. Finally Chief Joseph reiterates his only wish. That wish is the ability to return to his homeland, the land where his father was buried.
- Leadership
- The basic question to look at in this case study is was Chief Joseph a good leader. The answer is no, since he did not accomplish his primary goal. The primary goal for Chief Joseph’s tribe was to remain on the land that they were already living on. He even went as far as saying that they would not leave so long as Indian blood still warmed the land. However, when it came down to the choice of move or fight, Chief Joseph broke down and decided to move his tribe in order to avoid a war. This type of compromise is not a type of good leadership. Chief Joseph had said one thing, and that was we will not move. On the other hand, when push came to shove, General Howard intimidated Chief Joseph and was able to get Chief Joseph to move. An important aspect of leadership is respect. By agreeing to move Chief Joseph lost some of the respect of his tribe. It was almost like he had lied to them. He had promised his father on his death bed that he would never leave his land. That land was also an Indian burial ground, the most sacred place to any Indian tribe. Finally it had always been the home of this part of the Nez Perces tribe. Chief Joseph had said he would never move. Now he was telling them that to keep peace they must leave. His people did not want war, but they wanted to leave even less, especially the younger braves. Chief Joseph lost respect because he had preached one action and had agreed to another. He was going against a promise on his father’s deathbed and was even willing to give up their burial ground. This angered many of the braves and that can be seen in the uprisings that took place. In one final meeting between General Howard and Chief Joseph, one of his aids Too-hool-hool-suit speaks his mind. He states his anger towards the white man and is promptly arrested. Too-hool-hool-suit calls this an insult and uses it to anger other young braves. After a grand council, where Chief Joseph preached peace, it was finally decided that war would be declared.
- Chief Joseph vs. General Howard
- General Howard provides the opposite view of leadership. He was a much more effective leader than Chief Joseph. He was also a much more stern leader that Chief Joseph. General Howard was sent to do a job, and that job was to move the Nez Perces to a reservation. General Howard tried to do this peacefully, but was prepared to fight if he had to. Chief Joseph was not prepared to take this risk. Secondly General Howard was not willing to compromise a great deal. He told Chief Joseph his tribe had to move and that was the end of the dispute. General Howard made offers as to where on the reservation the Nez Perces could live but it had to be on that reservation, there was no negotiating. General Howard was not a man of great integrity, but he was effective. He accomplished what he was sent to do. He forced Chief Joseph to agree to move, and when the Nez Perces attacked, General Howard did not hesitate to retaliate. Even as his men were killed and wounded General Howard pressed on because he knew eventually the Nez Perces would be unable to fight, and he was right. Finally, Chief Joseph surrendered, and General Howard had won. This ability to accomplish his main goal makes General Howard a better leader than Chief Joseph. This also shows how Chief Joseph was not a very good leader.
- Antithesis
- Some would say that Chief Joseph was not a good leader but if we look we can see that the opposite case is actually the truth. Chief Joseph was not a bad leader, but rather he was a great Indian leader that accomplished the greatest of all tasks. It seemed that the greatest task for Chief Joseph was to keep the Nez Perces on their land at all costs. However there is one inherent priority the is the greatest of all. This priority is the survival of your society, in the case Chief Joseph’s priority was the ensure the survival of the Nez Perces tribe. When looking at the prospects of war Chief Joseph saw that his tribe was severely out-manned and outgunned. This led him to the conclusion that the Nez Perces would be unable to survive a war with the American government. This was a very good observation, especially since the government also enlisted other tribes to aid in the fight against a group of Indians. Going to war was a great risk for the survival of the Nez Perces and that was a risk that Chief Joseph was not willing to take. Rather, Chief Joseph attempted to insure their survival by agreeing to move. If the Nez Perces moved, the American government would stop harassing the Indians. The Nez Perces would move, but they would be spared the horrors and death of war. It is easy for any leader to make an easy decision, but it takes a great leader to make the hard decisions. This had to be one of the most difficult decisions for Chief Joseph to make. But to him the choice was clear, he had to move.
- The second example of how good a leader Chief Joseph was, is found in his view of peace. Many in his tribe wanted war, especially the young braves. The Nez Perces harbored ill feelings toward the Americans, and felt war would gain the revenge they wanted. However Chief Joseph stood up to these people and preached peace. One of the basic qualities of a leader is he must have a vision and believe in it. Chief Joseph’s vision was one that had the Nez Perces and the Americans living in peace. He believed in this so much that he was willing to stand against all others and express his view. There are two good examples of this. The first is at the last council between General Howard and the Nez Perces. General Howard arrested Too-hool-hool-suit, and placed him in prison. This was seen an a great insult to his people. However, instead of acting Chief Joseph informed his other aids not to act but rather to just talk. This would have been a very easy place for Chief Joseph to start a war, and base it on this insult. He did not. Instead he spoke his mind and left. The second example can be found when looking at the Great Indian Council before the war. Virtually all the Nez Perces were calling for war, except Chief Joseph. He still stuck to his vision of peace, and right up until the start of the war, he tried to persuade his followers to opt for peace rather than war.
- Chief Joseph can also be seen as a better leader than General Howard. General Howard may have been a more effective leader, but Chief Joseph had a higher moral value. General Howard was willing to use everything he deemed necessary to accomplish his goal, even war. Secondly, General Howard was not even willing to negotiate. When Chief Joseph finally agreed to leave he was given thirty days to leave. That was not enough time and it would be dangerous for the Nez Perces to leave then. Chief Joseph asked if it could wait until the spring, but General Howard said no. In fact, he told Chief Joseph that the troops would move in one day after the thirty were up. Secondly, General Howard did not respect the Indians. This was shown when he arrested Too-hool-hool-suit. After Too-hool-hool-suit spoke his mind, General Howard had him arrested. Secondly, during the war women and children were killed. Chief Joseph said that Indians would never do this as it was a cowardly act. Another show of disrespect was the scalping of the dead Nez Perces. The Nez Perces did not scalp the dead Americans. They left them to be taken care of in the proper manner. The opposite was done by the Indian troops that were aiding the Americans. On his integrity, Chief Joseph is seen as a better leader than General Howard was.
- Conclusion
- The leadership of Chief Joseph brings up an interesting question of what makes a leader good. In today’s society, results are what makes a leader good. On this criteria Chief Joseph failed to be a good leader. He was unable to be effective and accomplish his goals. He was not able to keep his land or insure the survival of his tribe. He was not able to accomplish anything. Also Chief Joseph’s followers did not even follow him. Even as he preached peace, the young braves were purchasing ammunition in anticipation of a war. Also effectiveness is what makes General Howard a better leader than Chief Joseph. General Howard was sent to move the Nez Perces to a reservation, no matter what it took. He did just that. The ends justified the means. Today, integrity is not important in good leadership. This was not the case earlier this century. If given the choice between Harry Truman or Bill Clinton as president of the United States, most young Americans would choose Clinton due to his effectiveness. However the older generation would choose Truman because he was seen as a good and moral leader. It would be interesting to compare these two views on the case study of Chief Joseph. Would the older generations see Chief Joseph as a better leader and if so why.
