美国俄克拉何马城论文代写：领导风格
美国俄克拉何马城论文代写：领导风格
风格:李将军似乎是一个独断专行的领袖，他只相信自己，在赢得了许多战役之后，也变得自大和自信，另一方面，张伯伦是一个信奉他的士兵的自由主义领袖。
信心:李，北维吉尼亚州的领导人对他的军队有很大的信心，并为他们提供了更广阔的战场空间。但事实证明，这是一个失败，因为他无法在危急时刻把他们绑在一起，而张伯伦则相信他的士兵(杰弗里，2013年)的能力。
沟通:李在战场上与一个相对较新的团队合作，要求他们进行直接对话。但是李没有完成这项工作，但是张伯伦上校是一个很有语言的人，他很清楚如何有效地沟通以获得预期的结果。
缺乏共识:两个强大的朋友，李和朗街缺乏共识，也导致了他们的失败。像一个好的领导者一样，李没有能力去解决不同的问题，因为张伯伦知道如何用言语来激励他的力量(领导经验，2013年)。
快速的决定:李和强人未能预测最重要的第三天的情况，结果导致他们的失败。另一方面，张伯伦知道该怎么做。他相信“做或死”的情况并没有把他的位置留给他。
分析
李和张伯伦在沟通技巧方面都很优秀，但是前者有一个新的团队，他们可以工作并沟通，从而导致灾难。无论如何实现任何目标，团结都必须存在。一个人应该注重组织的目标而不是个人的自我，这是李没有做到的。然而，我们可以说张伯伦的领导风格对战斗有很大的影响。他点燃了胜利的火花，失去了赢得胜利的希望，只是说了一句“刺刀”。他曾经是一个简单的大学教授，他有着充满活力的领导风格，改变了整个局面，把失败变成了胜利。
美国俄克拉何马城论文代写：领导风格
Style: General Lee seems to be an autocratic leader who believe in himself only and became arrogant and over confident too after winning number of battles, on the other hand Chamberlain was a liberal leader who believes in his soldiers.
Confidence: Lee, leader of Northern Virginia had a great confidence in his army and gave them a wider space for the battle. But it proved a failure as he won’t be able to bind them in crucial times of emergency, whereas Chamberlain believed in the capability of his soldiers (Jeffrey, 2013).
Communication: Lee was working with a comparatively new team in the battlefield which demands direct conversation among them. But lee failed to do the job, However colonel chamberlain was a man of language and knew well how to communicate effectively to get desired results.
Lack of consensus: Lack of consensus between two strong friends, Lee and Longstreet, also resulted into their defeat. Like a good leader, Lee was not capable to solve the differences where as Chamberlain knew how to play with words to motivate his force (Leadership experience, 2013).
Quick decisions: Lee and Strongman failed to predict the situation on the most important third day which results into their failure. On the other hand Chamberlain knew what to do. He believed in` Do or Die’ situation did not leave his position `little round top’ given to him.
Analysis
Both Lee and Chamberlain were good enough in communication skills, but the former had a new team to work and communicate with which leads to disaster. However to achieve any goal, unity must be there. One should focus on organization’s goal instead of personal ego, which Lee failed to do. However we can say that Chamberlain’s leadership style had a great impact on the battle. He ignited the spark of victory among the force that loses all hope of winning just by saying a word `BAYONET’. He had been a simple college professor, who with dynamic leadership styles changed the whole scenario and turned the defeat into victory.
