Leadership in the queen movie

Team TWO

Seminar Five Team Executive Summary

The Examination of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in 12 Angry Men

Mathew Lehnig, Kerry (KC) Carter, Chi “Max” Maxey, Sean Gerner,

Greg Swendsen, Tywon “Ty” Petty, and Nate Hurst

University of Charleston

GSL 510 A & S of Strategic Leadership

Dr. Andrew Sidwell

February 2019

Discussion Assignment

During the team meeting, we discussed the leadership roles presented in the film. Examined the portrayal of strategic leadership, especially by Queen Elizabeth and PM Tony Blair. Outside research will be conducted to further discuss the leadership contexts of: A) Inherited leadership roles and positions VS elected leadership roles and positions and B) Tradition-based leadership VS “Modern” leadership. Each individual team member, identified possible conflicts represented and the points of contention between leadership models. Through advocacy and inquiry seek to find bridges between the two and practice creative thinking to generate innovative ways of “transcending” a conflict.

Communication and Discussion

Team Two utilized student emails to pass information amongst the cohort for communication for seminar five’ Executive Summary assignment. Emails were used to recap discussion points and expectations of each team member and facilitated access for each member of this shared document for editing. The utilization of the GroupMe application allowed for quick communications and coordinated efforts.

Individual Summary Observations

Chi Maxey. Inherited Leadership Roles Vs. Elected Leadership Roles and Positions

The inheritance of royal power presumably comes with those inherited leadership roles. Leaders of monarch-type societies are often solely in power without reservation, such as Queen Elizabeth II. One could view inherited leadership roles as a person who carries out the traditional aspects of leading as learned from their predecessor. According to Burley (2017), examples of traditions carried from the past would be dictators and kings. The Great Man Theory regards inherited leadership roles. According to researchers at New York University, Harvard, and the University College London, they “found that a DNA sequence that is passed through one’s genes is linked to individuals in leadership positions” (Besant, 2013). The Great Man Theory is said to have two expectations; they are people born holding traits that help them lead, that they can rise when the time is needed, and according to the Historian, Thomas Carlyle, influential leaders have the gift of “divine inspiration” and the “right characteristics” (Cherry, 2018; Villanova University, 2015). I argue that Queen Elizabeth II bins with one of these concepts, not both and that inherited leadership roles of her ties with tradition-based leadership; however, Queen Elizabeth II did, and with the assistance of Tony Blair, did “rise when the time was needed,” eventually.

Elected leadership roles such as Tony Blair’s, is tied with modern leadership. Opposite of the monarch-type traditional leadership, elected leadership incorporated roles such as co-collaboration, transformation, democratic, coaching, and visionary. Considering Harries, Langan, Seaward, & Frears’ (2006) movie, The Queen, the inverse to the tradition-based leadership roles (inherited), elected and modern leadership is intended to serve the people, whereas the other, the people serve the Monarch.

Tradition-based Leadership Vs. Modern Leadership. According to Burley (2017), Max Weber was the first to define traditional leadership and explained it as “a style where power is given to the leader based on traditions of the past” (para.1). "Modern leadership include qualities of values, commitment, mission, vision, compromise, motivation, and “it is their responsibility to develop followership by encouraging” and “the participation in goal setting and objectives” (Thomas, n.d., section 2, para. 8). “The Queen,” portrayed Princess Diana with modern leadership values and it illustrates Tony Blair’s in Harries’ et al. (2006) movie. Queen Elizabeth II almost seemed to lean towards some aspects of modern leadership, but the re-enforcement of the monarch ideology performed on behalf of, The Queen Mother and her husband Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, took place throughout the movie.

Possible Conflicts and Transcendence. The struggles identified in Harries’ et al. (2006) are the values and beliefs of Tony Blair, and Princess Diane contended with Queen Elizabeth and Phillip. The opinion is that the Queen becomes conflicted between modern leadership influence of Tony Blair and the upkeep of Phillip’s and The Queen Mother’s monarch ideological influences.

Points of Contention. The disputes between tradition-based leadership and modern leadership are that the two becomes merged as “modern traditional leadership.” If we view tradition and modern leadership separately through their lenses, there is a clear distinction between the two. Thoroughly scratching below the surface, identified modern traditional leadership is in corporations, civil authorities, and the government. Rendering Burley (2017), modern illustrations of old-fashioned leadership found on organization charts where they depict the pyramid construct, gives authority, and it insinuates that traditional leadership resides in a company. Board of directors, executive boards, or a CEO resides in the “eye” of the pyramid construct, and this place is where decisions are made and directed down. He further explains that “today’s military is an excellent example of traditional leadership. Officers and leaders “make decisions and those under their command execute the orders” (para. 3). Traditional leadership models also found, is the in police and fire departments (Burley, 2017).

Transcendence of Bridges. Blair served as a bridge between the people and Queen Elizabeth II. He notes that Princess Diana is the “peoples princess” which led his pursuit to have her funeral public, not private. Queen Elizabeth II viewed this differently, that her funeral shall be private and the choice of her family, since the princess was not a member of the Royal Family. Blair continued to bridge ideas and information from the public, such as a tabloid’s publication of a poll suggesting that “70% of people believe that” her “actions have damaged the monarchy” and that “one in four are in favor of abolishing the monarchy altogether” (Harries et al., 2006, scene 24). A traditional leader does not always welcome new ideas as he or she is usually the source for all new business and ways of operating. Without input from her team, the traditional leader is often unaware of changes and problems and is slow to react to change. (Burley, 2017, para.5)

Constitutionally responsible, Tony Blair intrusively made her cognizant and understanding of the information and views from society. The Queen slightly shifted in values, commanding the half-mast of flags. When the Queen exited her car with Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh, to see Princess Diane’s place of mourning at Buckingham Palace, the news reported that the last day “the Queen was among her people outside the palace was the day the war in Europe ended” (Harries et al., 2006, scene 29). The people silently spoke to the Queen of how they feel about the princess through the flowers and memorabilia placed at the princess’ place of mourning; despite the views of the people of England, they showed respect to Queen Elizabeth II as she walked the perimeter of the crowd (Harries et al., 2006, scene 30).

When the Queen delivered a tribute to Princess Diana over live television, she portrayed “authentic” leadership to the people and delivered a message the people of England wanted to hear, or perhaps needed to hear. Tony Blair’s wife, Cherie, says to him, “Heart, what heart? She doesn’t mean a word of this,” and Tony responds with, “That’s not the point. What she’s doing is extraordinary. That’s how to survive” (scent 31). Although the Queen did the right thing, it was not genuine to her, nor was she comfortable, moved, and applauding at the end of Earl Spencer’s eulogy of his sister, Princess Diana (Harries et al., 2006, scene 32). The Queen’s rhetoric of her tribute and her presence at Princess Diana’s funeral was a modern leadership role she played, to “survive.”

Mathew Lehnig. The stage is set right from the begging, in the first nine minutes of the film inherited roles and elected roles are clearly defined. The movie begins with a quote from Henry IV, PART II “UNEASY LIES THE HEAD THAT WEARS A CROWN.” The Queen sits with her Mr. Crawford, her painter, and discuss voting. In the background on the Television, Tony Blair was just elected the youngest Prime Minister. The Queen is not partial and cannot Vote, but she understands fully that it is her government. The Queen is addressed by Robin and told that the Prime Minister is on his way, she quickly remarks; ‘The Prime Minister-to-be, I haven’t asked him yet.” A discussion between the Queen and Robin about Tony Blair’s Manifesto that promises the most radical modernization and a shake-up of the Constitution in 300 years is met with criticism. Outside his wife, who is an anti-monarchist, reminds him that he was elected by the whole Nation.

The difference in governance and protocol is quickly shown in Mr. Blair’s first meeting with the Queen. The Queen understands her roles and responsibilities to this Nation is to advise, guide, and warn the government of the day and reminding Mr. Blair he is her 10th Prime Minister. The Queen also tells Mr. Blair, with a hand gesture, to bow to her to receive her acceptance of his position as Prime Minister. “The duty falls on me as your sovereign, to invite you to become Prime Minister, and form a government in my name.” He agrees and has to kiss her hand. These actions clearly define the hierarchy in a Monarch regardless of an elected Prime Minister.

The film revolves around the death of Princess Diana and how the Queen and Mr. Tony Blair decide to handle the events that follow. The primary focus is centered on Princess Diana’s funeral and whether it should be private or public. The Queen feels Diana’s family feels it should be a private matter because she is no longer a part of the Royal family. However, Tony Blair engages with the public and makes a brief but powerful statement; “She will be remembered as the People’s Princess.”

The Royal Family is betrothed by old ways and hereditary privilege to understand how the country has changed. Both Tony Blair and Prince Charles see the change and are trying to convince the Queen to understand the magnitude of the situation. Not only that, but the tabloids are starting to turn on the royal family. Tony Blair calls the Queen to convince her of some kind of response because the mood is quite delicate. He suggests that she to fly the flag half-mast at Buckingham Palace and fly down to London. However, she denies and believes the press is the problem and will not bend to their will. Tony Blair works diligently with the press, but it not him they want to see it is the Royal Family. Mr. Blair tries desperately to be the face, but the public wants the Queen to come to London. The Queen starts to understand when the people begin to sleep outside of Buckingham Palace in anticipation for the Princess Funeral.

The Prime Minister becomes relentless in his pursuit of the Queen to make an appearance. The situation has become quite critical and that 70% of the people believe the Queen has damaged the Monarchy and 1-4 people believe it should be abolished. Her inherited privilege has led to this dire situation, but a true leader of the people has stepped up and given the Queen the advice she needs to do the right thing. The Queen goes back and forth with the old ways but tries to understand the new. In the end, she follows the Prime Ministers advice and makes a public appearance on behalf of the Royal family and delivers a televised address to the world.

Understanding your people is one of the earliest things we learn in leadership. The Queen didn’t understand this; she was raised in a Monarch. She was told every day that the people would love and respect her no matter what. She ruled the country for over fifty years without genuinely knowing her constitutions. Tony Blair, an elected leader of his people, showed the Queen what was right and necessary to uphold the values of the people. Tony Blair, not only leads his people, but he leads his Queen regardless of her outlook on the matter. In the end, a common bond was built between the two, and the Mentor became the Mentored.

Joshua . Who holds the real power for the country? Is it the Queen or the Prime Minister? I would like to see what the results would look like with a survey of the citizens of the United Kingdom. The answers will drastically vary depending on the perspective of the individuals if they are looking at the questions literally or practically.

At the beginning of the film, the scene opens with the Queen's first interaction with the newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair. During their brief conversation, she laid out her extensive history and wisdom of dealing with Prime Ministers. She even went as far as bringing up the late Winston Churchill as an example for whose shoes Tony will have to fill. Though the people elected the Prime Minister, the customary action of the Queen offering the position to Tony Blair made for quite an awkward interaction. This uncomfortable engagement was the first of many throughout the film, but we would eventually see the transformation of the Prime Minister into the leader that stands for the people.

John F. Kennedy said, “…those who look only to the past are certain to miss the future.” I believe that the Queen was on the verge of falling into this very predicament with her actions after the passing of Princess Diana. The overall persona of the Queen can be described merely as Stoic. She felt that her duty was to the country and her feels came second. Over the previous years of service, this method worked well for the Queen. However, a change in the people had occurred where the people hoped for a more personal leader, and the Queen was still stuck in her old ways.

The Queen's assistant provided Tony Blair with insight to the Queen that opened up his view of her. The assistant stated that the Queen truly felt as though she was hand selected by God to be in her position. This self-pressure gave a new appreciation for all that the Queen was going through with the weight of the country on her shoulders.

Luckily for the Queen, she had an unexpected ally on her side. This ally was none other than the Prime Minister who throughout the film has been contrarian at best. He was able to be direct and honest with the truth on the ground for how the people felt about the Queen. She was living obliviously to what the fact was about the public perspective of her. Tony’s bluntness to the situation was the smack in the face that was required to get the Queen acting in the best way for the country. She finally made the public appearance to address the passing of Princess Diana that the country and the world longed for. Without the bold actions of Tony Blair the end result for the Queen and country could have a much different outcome. His leadership and understanding of what the people needed was paramount.

Nate. In Harries, Langan, Seaward, and Frears (2006) film The Queen, it is depicted that Queen Elizabeth II and newly elected Prime Minister (PM) Tony Blair were struggling with a crisis of public perception with regards to the sudden and tragic death of Princess Diana. PM Blair, who was elected to bring change to British Society, believed that the royal family was sending the wrong message to their subjects by remaining silent about Diana’s death, who was widely viewed by the general public as one of the people. The Queen’s decision to close ranks, shield the family, and remain silent was made based on what she thought what was right and proper due to her upbringing and established traditional practices.

Where the Queen viewed the death and mourning of Diana as a private family affair, she failed to realize that society had established a very deep and emotional bond to the memory of the late People’s Princess. The family’s silence created dissent amongst the people as they were looking for leadership from the royal family in this tumultuous time and who felt that the royals didn’t care. Personally, the family (other than the princes) had a contentious relationship with Diana towards the end of her life and they took it on the chin in the court of public opinion during that time. There is where the optics of silence equated to the family being out of touch with the common man and did not care of things happening outside the palace walls.

Strategically, PM Blair could not ask for a better opportunity to drive home his message of change with the populace and his advisors, along with his wife, were pressuring him to capitalize on the optics of the situation. Rahm Emanuel, former presidential Chief of Staff, once quipped: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before (2008). PM Blair’s reluctance to use the chance to gain public favor by grandstanding the royal family and instead plead with the Queen to reconsider her decisions showed more to his personal character and understanding of his role as Prime Minister, than what he was being advised to do.

Inherited Leadership Roles and Positions vs Elected Leadership Roles and Positions

Inherited leadership roles and positions are those that are passed down through a line of succession and are endowed with rights, privileges, responsibilities, traditions, customs, and courtesies set forth by predecessors, such as the royal line of the British Monarchy. According to Royal.uk (2016), British kings and queens serve as Head of State where their function is to “act as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.” In modern times, their role to protect the kingdom, generate trade, and tend to the poor remains some of their primary tenants, yet it is done so under the purview of Parliament.

British elected roles, like the Prime Minister, find their beginnings stemming for the Magna Carta of 1215 where it was established that barons (chosen by the king) were to consult the king on matters of government and the 1254 mandate that County Sheriffs were to represent issues of taxation. It was not until the reign of King Henry IV that the practice of electing representatives to what has now become their executive branch of government. Thus, through Parliamentary acts over several hundred years, only those who are elected to the Houses of Lords and the House of Commons have the authority to introduce legislation that may in turn become law (History.com, 2017).

Tradition-based Leadership vs “Modern” Leadership.

Tradition is what connects us to our past which, in the case of the British monarchy, comes with hundreds of years of internally driven pressure to ensure the continued success of the royal family line. This royal line stems from aristocratic wealth which formed the basis of upper-class society who were the default leaders of their time and their leadership practices are therefore based those that came out of aristocratic society. While time and societal progress have since limited the function of the Monarchy, royals have become expected to present themselves as leaders to which their self-interests are secondary to their duties to the British empire and its people.

Modern leadership though relies more on a collaborative effort that solicits inputs from all those involved rather than a tradition-based model that is beholden to its past in order to make decisions. As social and cultural values changes, modern leadership models and practices change and is also presented with its own challenges of accountability, especially in today’s Age of Information. What is said now, is readily available half-way around the world within a matter of seconds. Getting out in front of an issue has become a continuous game of tag.

Possible Conflicts and Points of Contention

Traditions are what define us as a culture and society and can be a powerful motivator when they are deep rooted in the collective subconscious of a given populace after hundreds or thousands of years. Traditions give us identity, modernization gives us change, and change threatens tradition which challenges identity and has contributed to conflict throughout time. While not all change is bad or completely detrimental to tradition, it is when there is immediate, rather than gradual, change that those bound to tradition feel threatened.