Great Leader

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements In

Educational Leadership In the Social Science

Graduate School Philippine Normal University MAED in Teaching Social Science 2017

By: Jordan Mitchell C. Cruz To: Dr. Zenaida Q. Reyes

I.

Thesis: Che Guevara is one of the great leaders of the societies, in the history of

II.

the world. Sub-Thesis: a. Che Guevara united the Cuban people in overthrowing the prior government before his. b. Guevara improved the economy and industry of Cuba. c. Guevara upped the literacy rate of Cuba by building several universities throughout the state. d. Guevara was an exceptional military leader who was able to defeat large troupes with an army of a much lesser number. e. Guevara is a symbol of radical revolution for those who are underrepresented because of capitalistic society.

III.

Insights:

Ernesto Guevara, more commonly known as “Che”, is a figure in which face can be seen painted on walls, banners, shirts and/or on any space that can serve as a canvass. Indeed, Che Guevara is an iconic figure of the current generation’s pop culture (Carter, 2012). Thus showing how Che exhibits a charismatic personality which not even death has diluted throughout times. And when he stressed his famous last words, before the life-ending bullet which has pursed in his chest: “I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man [not himself]”, maybe he truly meant it and maybe now, for some [or many] now he still lives, through his ideas. But it should be understood that his ideas and beliefs does not end on just the 20 th up to the 21st century pop culture, but extends on the modern politics as well. One of the great leaders, Nelson Mandela, president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999, quoted him as “An inspiration for every human being who loves freedom.” In here, we can easily disclose the whole of Che’s advocacy in his lifetime. But there is something more in Che Guevara that draws the attention of several leaders globally. And when talking about leaders, it should be noted that Che himself was a leader when he was still alive, although never the 1 st leader of his country, where he has realized his nationalistic ideals, during his time. He might be the 2 nd or even the 3rd in command, since the 1st in command was Fidel Castro, another revolutionary like

himself. But there must be a reason why his name [Che Guevara] is more widespread than the later who should logically be the more renowned since he [Fidel Castro] was the Prime Minister of Cuba during those times. Some pointed out that Guevara is the more distinguished personality because he was considered as the heart and mind of the revolution in that the ideal which the revolution, he and Castro share, embodies much of his ideals and beliefs. Also his significant contributions to the movement, although Fidel Castro was the head, were unmatched. Being one of the important leaders of Cuba, in his time, he has a number of significant influences in his country. Good or bad, these impacts will determine his place in the history, either as a successful leader of 20 th century who has realized his socialist ideals for the development of his country, or just another figure with infamous image as a violent dictator, like Hitler, who for once had taken hold of the glory but later failed miserably in their goals. Luckily, there are pre-existing leadership theories that would serve as the guide in defining where Che Guevara is within the scale of a good leader or the contrary. These leadership theories would help not only in knowing if Guevara is indeed a great leader but also in depicting Guevara’s leadership traits and style which might say something about his leadership prowess. Some believed that Che Guevara fits the standards of being a great man according to The Great Man Theory, a theory first proposed by Thomas Carlyle on 1840s, if one will refer to its classical definition. This is true since according to this theory great men are those who have made a great impact and influence on the world thus making a part of the history of the world their biography [their lives shaped the history directly and it is a pre-requisite to understand their life in understanding these parts of history]. Also, this definition takes any leader who has made a great influence in the history as a great man because it was the necessity of the time otherwise he would have not succeeded in one way or another. In here we can see the importance of some uncontrolled chances in the picture. In here we can easily put Che in the spotlight of great leaders or great men, and

in doing so, we would also include in that spotlight Nero, Stalin, Hitler and the like, which many historians and sociologists do not see as great leaders, but ruthless dictators who have failed miserably in the end. Hence, in taking this theory [Great Man Theory] one might use its psychological definition which states that great men were great men because they were born to be great men, not only by divine intervention [like its classical definition], but because they were bred to be which means that their future of becoming leaders were already prepared beforehand. All they have to do is walk through it. Che Guevara was of an aristocratic family who have had been exposed to a wide spectrum of political perspective, even on his youth, due to his father’s association with the republicans on his time. Because of this, one might say that it would be very reasonable for such a man to become who he was, a political personality, but it should also be noted that Che Guevara has done much in turning his fate to be where he is now in the history. Some of these were the fact that he has had asthma on his early life, which no one would have thought that he would become a good military soldier-leader later in his life. Also the political belief of his father, which for most would be laid down to their sons, is contradictory to his political belief which is Socialism. Also, he had graduated as a Medicine student, not related in any way on politics, but he extended his discipline to politics that today he is known in the history not as a medical figure, but a political figure. In this it can be seen that not all of his achievements were passively acquired by breeding, but most of his achievements were actively gained by struggles and effort, or utmost maybe a divine intervention which controlled the chances [if not his own strivings] for him to become who he is known in the history. Related with the Great Man Theory, stems out another theory which also states that, “Leaders are born, not made” known as Trait Leadership Theory, by the same theorist, Carlyle with Francis Galton who believed that some particular traits are possessed by these individuals who allowed them to become effective leaders. If theory will be used in the case of Guevara, specifically the model as presented by Stephen Zaccaro (2004), there will be traits which Che Guevara possesses, and others he did not.

Che Guevara was known to being extraverted, which there will be lacking of proof besides the testimonies of online and the popular world. But some might also infer that he is extraverted based on how he is able to convince people on his ideals, and attract people to side in his struggle. Also he was able to extend his social circle to a distant world of Fidel Castro, a distant world of rebels which at that time must have been very detached from his lifestyle as a medical personnel. If not from extraversion, his ability to attract people towards his ideals was from his Charisma which might have been from his character which might be the same reason that until now he is still luring youth towards his ideals and beliefs when he was still alive. That goes the same for the youths he has recruited via telecast on Radio, otherwise known as ‘Radio Rebelde’, which they have done to overthrow the government led by Fulgencio Batista. Undeniably his charisma can be attributed to the substance of his ideals and beliefs which were open in a sense that they were nonconforming and unconventional; and at the same time honest to himself and towards others in a sense that he does not compromise his words and actions, and by being direct. While the trait of conscientiousness remains a question in his character. He was seen as a very conscientious person throughout his life if one would check only on his ideals and beliefs he, himself, quoted. His conscientiousness is especially true in the early part of his life, based on the stories of people accounting his bibliography, and also from his autobiography, however, his act of ruthless execution of the criminal tells otherwise. Some who were executioned were said to be the innocents and this was because of the summary execution he has done a lot during his reign. From these executions, although deemed as an unconscientious act, sociologists might see this as a need for power and control which is a trait also included in Zaccaro’s model of traits of leaders hand in hand with conscientiousness. Intelligence is no question with this man who shrouded himself with his wise ideals and philosophies. And going back to his early life, intelligence is not uncommon to him in his schooling up until he completed his medical schooling before he became associated with the rebels. Competence was a trait Guevara did not lose even after his studies when he joined the rebels when he was assigned by Castro to lead a vastly

outnumbered troupe against Fulgencio Batista’s troupe. Several times has this been the case before they have gained enough recognition so as to recruit more guerillas than ever [e.g. Radio Rebelde]. Most of these skirmishes ended in their victory which can be attributed to his ability to make intelligent decisions many times during the warfare, solve problems and manage a group of people well which can directly evidence his aptitude in military tactics and leadership. All of which were traits of a competent leader which allowed him to gain reputation as a leader from the soldiers under him which has taken up their loyalty towards him. Rather than focusing on the innate traits of the leaders which shapes them in becoming great men, another of the theories that might give light to the leadership of Che Guevara is the Behaviorist Theory of Leadership. The main concern of this theory is obviously the behavior of the leader in reaching his goal which, in contrast with the trait of leadership theory, can be learned. A leader can either be task-oriented or people –oriented. From here will he build the leadership style he will use for the attainment of his objectives. Che Guevara, although seen as compassionate to the poor and ruthless to the enemy, is obviously an task-oriented leader wherein he focuses on the end of his mission, which is freedom. Because of this, a more punitive leadership style was utilized by him and Fidel Castro when they have had took hold of the government of Cuba. He was a directive type of leader or in the political term, an autocrat or a dictator and the desiredend of his advocacy was freedom, the removal of injustices through socialism. Che Guevara’s leadership style or his focus on his leadership might tell something about the way he led, but it does not tell anything about its effectiveness. All of the leadership styles can be effective in one way or another, maybe on the way a certain leader executed a certain leadership style, or maybe depending on the circumstance or the situation by which a certain leadership style is applied. In this, we are already touching yet another theories namely Contingency Theory of Leadership, Situational Theory of Leadership and Implicit Leadership. Based on the Situational Theory of Leadership alone, as developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, we can say that Guevara is not an effective leader because he himself asserted that no compromises shall be made, in that he is even stiffer than the head of

the state, his comrade, Fidel Castro which at times compromises. Che does not, hence he is not able to adapt to the situation, and he openly admits it. Based on Fred Edward Fiedler’s Contingency theory of leadership, on the other hand, we might say that he is might have been an effective leader, or if not, at least a credible leader for the citizens of the time. According to Fiedler, good leadership depends on the leader’s innate trait or personality [which might go back to Carlyle’s Theories: Great Man Theory and Leadership Traits Theory] and on the current situation. There must be a fit between them, and in contrast with the Situational Theory of Leadership, the fit between the two should be rigid, not just a mere adaptation of the leader for the current circumstance, but the right leader for that certain circumstance. Che’s era in Cuba is marked by several injustices which started from the top, from the government of state itself. This is when the government, which is governed by a dictator Fulgencio Batista, who has avowed several restoration programs for economy, industry and agriculture, but has not been felt by the Cuban citizens. Instead, they were more aware of the corrupt activities of their government which causing further poverty. Fulgencio Batista was known, especially by the rebels, as the puppet of the United States in that they see that US, especially in his reign, has a very vast control of the country, especially in its economy. In pointing out the economy of the state at the time, extreme poverty was caused by a number of capitalistic industries erected by US inside the Cuban state which made the Americans wealthier than ever and them, even poorer, and thus the socialist idea would not be a bad idea. The situation is right for him, not the other way around. In this, Implicit Leadership Theory by Robert Lord can also be applied which states that there is a good leader because of the presence of the followers who welcomes the reign of a certain leader which in this case is Che Guevara. Although Che Guevara is cruel at times that he might have had ended several innocent lives because of summary executions, this was not far from what has been happening prior to him and Fidel Castro, which was caused by the Batista Government, plus the mass famine, injustices and mass corruptions. In contrast to the latter, there were improvements in Castro’s government because they have realized the promises of former president Fulgencio

Batista which he has failed to do before he was overthrown from the position such as the economic system and industry. Education were also given importance in that Castro’s government, specifically Che Guevara, led the construction of several universities and supported the journey towards the improvement of the literacy rate of the country. Castro Government, in his leadership also, made several land reforms, and endeavored to equally distribute the lands to the farmers so as to up the agriculture of the country. All of which were not overseen by the people of the state, and so despite the several cases of summary executions, possible warfare with other countries and dictatorship, they have been very tolerable to them. To command compliance from the people is one of the most difficult part of becoming a leader, and also an integral part of being one. A motivation to follow rules is necessary. These motivations come in forms of reward or punishment. Che Guevara is known to use the second more often for he directly inflicts the punishment of those who deviate from the law, a suspect of insurgence or a criminal. This punishment is mostly death, and can be torture at times when necessary to gain information. Reward was often overlooked in his reign since the good thing he laid to the people of the state cannot be seen as rewards since he is providing these as a part of his program of governance and not as rewards. Hence, using the transactional theory of leadership, one can say that Che Guevara focuses on the punitive side of it. The rewards which Che Guevara wanted the people to attain in following the laws of the state or believing in their government are the internal motivators such as freedom and injustices, among many. And because he is able to deliver it properly to the people, they actually work for some as their motivator. This type of motivator is under another theory of leadership known as Transformation Leadership Theory which is a more mature and pro-active type. It is difficult to place Che Guevara among the individuals who have been a great leader during their time because most of the time the definition of a good leader is quite subjective. Some give it to the leaders who have had made a great impact one aspect, the other on another. Some place it on the economy, while the other on agriculture, while some even on spirituality or even religion. But through the several leadership theories, it would be much more objective in determining if a certain leader is actually a

great leader or not. In this case in which many leadership theories were used in analyzing Che Guevara’s case, it can easily be seen that in plenty of the theories of leadership Guevara has proven himself as a great leader, regardless of his ruthlessness nor his wickedness as his critique would tell of him. But there were still few leadership theories in which Che Guevara would not fit, and therefore considered as an ineffective leader.