Sam Houston: Ethical Leader

Ethical Leader
Sam Houston was an ethical leader in his actions to defend Texas against Mexico. Sam Houston moved to Texas in 1832 while Texas was still North Mexico (Campbell, 2007). He spent the next thirteen years fighting and championing for Texas statehood. Sam’s use of ethical leadership trait of potential harm dilemma while using critical thinking, specifically reflective thinking saved the military men under his control and ultimately won the battle against Mexico. Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education [BCEE](2017) defines potential harm in ethical leadership lesson as “an ethical dilemma stemmed from potential harm caused by a decision you made”(BCEE, 2017c, p. 6). After the fall of the Alamo, Sam was faced with an ethical

If he would have listened to the government men calling him a coward for not fighting, he would have been sending all those men to certain death. Sam could not ethically send men into battle knowing they were untrained. Sam Houston was quoted as saying “I intend to fight when I have a chance for success” (Campbell, 2007, p. 79). Sam’s used reflective thinking as part of his critical thinking processes on how to attack this ethical dilemma. Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education states that reflective thinking, is a broad and informed “problem-solving and deliberate decision-making that relies heavily on information, deliberations, time, planning, and comprehensive consideration” (BCEE, 2017b, p. 28). Sam Houston was constantly sending out runners for reconnaissance reports on the position of the Mexican army and how many men were in the camp. He knew the land and what area’s to avoid because of flooding. Retreating when the Mexican army got near was Sam’s way of using time on his side. Sam knew it was just a matter of time before he would be forced to fight the Mexican army. In using critical thinking he was able to decide the best place and time while being proactive and not reactive. I too in my life have been faced with

While stationed in Guam I was assigned to the 36th Security Forces Squadron outside my career field. Every few years the base holds a defender challenge for the major command where a few security forces members from each base participate in a three day long challenge. The vision of this event is designed to mentally and physical challenge its defenders endurance. There is an obstacle course, land-navigation, and live-fire shooting course to name a few. I was the only supply person assigned to the host unit and in my leaderships foresight they failed to request another supply person from base supply. Short story I was a single point of failure. Other event duties had shift work to relieve while the other slept. I did not, so my dilemma was to stay up for three days with no sleep and issue, track, receive the unit’s equipment, avoiding a report of survey or pick a shift to work with sleep. But at the same time I had to rely on the men to take care and return the proper equipment with no discrepancies. I ethically struggle with this dilemma because I knew that after twenty-four hours of no sleep I would drastically decline in my performance. According to an article written my Mikel Theobald for Everyday Health website after twenty-four hours of no sleep you have impaired coordination, memory lose (2018). After thirty-six hours your physical health starts to be negatively impacted