The Pro- Mitchell as Leader thread

[captain jake]

I [mod snip] thought it would be nice to have a thread were people can come and say why they think Mitchell should be the leader of sg-1. This is not a debate thread if you don't have good things to say about him then you are not welcome.

Let's try to keep spaming down to a minimum and the conversation on track so we can be taken seriously.

[Lord Shiva]

I agree... Mitchell is not O'Neill and O'Neill is not Mitchell. O'Neill is gone (for now) and people have to deal with it. Stop bashing Mitchell. btw this thread will probably get moved to the character and relationship forum...

[captain jake]

I don't think so because it is dealing with mitchell being the leader.(Atleast I hope it won't)

[The Ori]

I'm dealing with loads of things

1. Hammond still gone
2. O'Niell jokes no more
3. New general
4. New leader of SG-1 in Mitchell
5. Mitchell
6. Dr. Lam - although getting used to it quite quickly.
7. Both Mitchell and Carter as Colonels
8. And now vala to join.

It's a lot to get used to in a period of 2 seasons when for 7 we've had the same thing.

[captain jake]

That is true but the original cast could not last forever and we knew that going in.

[the fifth man]

I'm fine with Mitchell leading SG-1. For one, I think he'll really grow more into that role just fine this season. Besides, I like Carter where she is. Let her deal with the science stuff, where we really need her expertise. Afterall, no one's better than her at that.

[Dream-a-Little]

Thanks for the thread, Ok here goes:

SG-1 is unique in its makeup and IMO requires unique leadership skills. You have a team made up of a high ranking military officer, 2 aliens both from vastly different cultures and a civilian. Unlike the other Stargate teams, IMO, it’s not likely, in its current incarnation, to function well under a traditional military leadership approach. The ability to relate and interact well with vastly different personalities and cultures here would seem to be a prime consideration for leadership of this particular team. All the individual members bring a wealth of knowledge and experience that the team leader can draw upon, but only someone with the ability to relate well to people with vastly disparate personalities and cultures would have the ability to foster cohesion between those personalities and keep them all on the same page with each other in the face of ongoing challenges. Mitchell has demonstrated exceptional people skills when dealing with different cultures. He relates to them on their terms and yet still accomplishes his end objectives. Babylon is one example of this. He achieves far more positive results than either Daniel or Teal’c do using more traditional methods.

While I admire Carter’s scientific knowledge and think she would be a competent leader of a SG team of a more traditional military make up, I don’t find her people skills to be particularly impressive. I don’t think she possesses the ability to be as creative and imaginative in her approach when encountering resistance. In the Scourge she continues to apply reason to the scientist who is refusing to continue moving even when it’s clear that reason is not working. Mitchell applies a nontraditional and more imaginative approach to the situation and accomplishes the objective.

Mitchell also does not have divided loyalties. He is military first and foremost. Carter will always face the internal conflict between scientist and soldier. IMO, Mitchell would be a more attractive choice as leader to a very traditional military man like Landry, not because he is male but because he does not have the kind of divided loyalties that Carter faces. Unlike Carter, Mitchell does not serve two masters.

Even though this team does require an innovative leadership approach it most definitely does require leadership. It was disturbing to watch Carter not be able to step up and fill the leadership vacuum left by Col. Pendergast’s abdicating his authority of his ship in Beachhead, because she didn’t have every single fact and figure. She couldn’t even make a recommendation. That’s a scientist’s response not a military leader’s. A military leader will often not have the option of waiting for all the t’s to be crossed and the I’s to be dotted. He or she must use instinct to fill in the blanks and make a timely decision. In this case Carter was unwilling or unable to make that decision. Mitchell however was willing to make the difficult choice.

Again in Ethon, when a decision where there again was a power vacuum left by Col. Pendergast, that required action that would in all probability cause the death of a team member, Sam was again unable to make the call that everyone basically agreed was the only one to be made. She was not willing to take responsibility for giving an order that would in all probability result in Daniels death, again Mitchell was the one that stepped up and made one of the most difficult decisions any military leader ever is called upon to make.

[captain jake]

Thanks for the thread, Ok here goes:

Your definitely welcome.

SG-1 is unique in its makeup and IMO requires unique leadership skills. You have a team made up of a high ranking military officer, 2 aliens both from vastly different cultures and a civilian. Unlike the other Stargate teams, IMO, it’s not likely, in its current incarnation, to function well under a traditional military leadership approach. The ability to relate and interact well with vastly different personalities and cultures here would seem to be a prime consideration for leadership of this particular team. All the individual members bring a wealth of knowledge and experience that the team leader can draw upon, but only someone with the ability to relate well to people with vastly disparate personalities and cultures would have the ability to foster cohesion between those personalities and keep them all on the same page with each other in the face of ongoing challenges. Mitchell has demonstrated exceptional people skills when dealing with different cultures. He relates to them on their terms and yet still accomplishes his end objectives. Babylon is one example of this. He achieves far more positive results than either Daniel or Teal’c do using more traditional methods.

Yes I believe that is why O'neill did such a good job his "weird" way of ldoing things was what kept the team together. You were right when you said a traditional military approach was not the way to go. It would have been very difficult for daniel and teal'c to handle that. Lot's of the stuff that happens in the field is not published in any military handbook. There for you are required to improvise something O'neill was great at and so is mitchell.

While I admire Carter’s scientific knowledge and think she would be a competent leader of a SG team of a more traditional military make up, I don’t find her people skills to be particularly impressive. I don’t think she possesses the ability to be as creative and imaginative in her approach when encountering resistance. In the Scourge she continues to apply reason to the scientist who is refusing to continue moving even when it’s clear that reason is not working. Mitchell applies a nontraditional and more imaginative approach to the situation and accomplishes the objective.

Yes, carter is way to scientific and by the book. Don't get me wrong to have somebody on the team who is scientific and by the book is extremely helpfull, but that type of a person is not the type of person you want in command.

Mitchell also does not have divided loyalties. He is military first and foremost. Carter will always face the internal conflict between scientist and soldier. IMO, Mitchell would be a more attractive choice as leader to a very traditional military man like Landry, not because he is male but because he does not have the kind of divided loyalties that Carter faces. Unlike Carter, Mitchell does not serve two masters.

Again right on the money, we need somebody that can be fully focused on commanding. We can not have are leader, leading and fixing a DHD at the same time.

Even though this team does require an innovative leadership approach it most definitely does require leadership. It was disturbing to watch Carter not be able to step up and fill the leadership vacuum left by Col. Pendergast’s abdicating his authority of his ship in Beachhead, because she didn’t have every single fact and figure. She couldn’t even make a recommendation. That’s a scientist’s response not a military leader’s. A military leader will often not have the option of waiting for all the t’s to be crossed and the I’s to be dotted. He or she must use instinct to fill in the blanks and make a timely decision. In this case Carter was unwilling or unable to make that decision. Mitchell however was willing to make the difficult choice.

Yes, and whether that choice was a good or a bad one HE MADE IT.

Again in Ethon, when a decision where there again was a power vacuum left by Col. Pendergast, that required action that would in all probability cause the death of a team member, Sam was again unable to make the call that everyone basically agreed was the only one to be made. She was not willing to take responsibility for giving an order that would in all probability result in Daniels death, again Mitchell was the one that stepped up and made one of the most difficult decisions any military leader ever is called upon to make.

Thnx a ton for the post you introduced alot of new, and interesting facts.

[shester]

Thanks for the thread, Ok here goes:

SG-1 is unique in its makeup and IMO requires unique leadership skills. You have a team made up of a high ranking military officer, 2 aliens both from vastly different cultures and a civilian. Unlike the other Stargate teams, IMO, it’s not likely, in its current incarnation, to function well under a traditional military leadership approach. The ability to relate and interact well with vastly different personalities and cultures here would seem to be a prime consideration for leadership of this particular team. All the individual members bring a wealth of knowledge and experience that the team leader can draw upon, but only someone with the ability to relate well to people with vastly disparate personalities and cultures would have the ability to foster cohesion between those personalities and keep them all on the same page with each other in the face of ongoing challenges. Mitchell has demonstrated exceptional people skills when dealing with different cultures. He relates to them on their terms and yet still accomplishes his end objectives. Babylon is one example of this. He achieves far more positive results than either Daniel or Teal’c do using more traditional methods.

While I admire Carter’s scientific knowledge and think she would be a competent leader of a SG team of a more traditional military make up, I don’t find her people skills to be particularly impressive. I don’t think she possesses the ability to be as creative and imaginative in her approach when encountering resistance. In the Scourge she continues to apply reason to the scientist who is refusing to continue moving even when it’s clear that reason is not working. Mitchell applies a nontraditional and more imaginative approach to the situation and accomplishes the objective.

Mitchell also does not have divided loyalties. He is military first and foremost. Carter will always face the internal conflict between scientist and soldier. IMO, Mitchell would be a more attractive choice as leader to a very traditional military man like Landry, not because he is male but because he does not have the kind of divided loyalties that Carter faces. Unlike Carter, Mitchell does not serve two masters.

Even though this team does require an innovative leadership approach it most definitely does require leadership. It was disturbing to watch Carter not be able to step up and fill the leadership vacuum left by Col. Pendergast’s abdicating his authority of his ship in Beachhead, because she didn’t have every single fact and figure. She couldn’t even make a recommendation. That’s a scientist’s response not a military leader’s. A military leader will often not have the option of waiting for all the t’s to be crossed and the I’s to be dotted. He or she must use instinct to fill in the blanks and make a timely decision. In this case Carter was unwilling or unable to make that decision. Mitchell however was willing to make the difficult choice.

Again in Ethon, when a decision where there again was a power vacuum left by Col. Pendergast, that required action that would in all probability cause the death of a team member, Sam was again unable to make the call that everyone basically agreed was the only one to be made. She was not willing to take responsibility for giving an order that would in all probability result in Daniels death, again Mitchell was the one that stepped up and made one of the most difficult decisions any military leader ever is called upon to make.

I couldn't have said it better. This is a perfect summary.

Mitchell being a MOH helps in the leadership catagory. MOH people take things a step further to get the job done. They go the "extra mile". They are a quick thinkers and get things taken care of. They don't sit around analyzing things. They take action. Like Mitchell did in Stronghold. He didn't have time to get into a discussion with Sam. The ship was leaving and he knew Teal'c would be lost if he didn't go get him.

Sybil

[ShardsofGlass]

Huh, I just noticed that this thread is back and it's in a new spot. Interesting. Well, to be on topic, I'm a supporter of Mitchell as leader, and I'm hoping the writers write him more clearly in charge next season.

[MediaSavant]

I see this from a real life perspective in business. I work at a company that has different departments that specialize in different disciplines. When a major project comes up, a specialist from each discipline must participate to get the project done. On an organizational chart, they may all have the same rank in the company, so they aren't necessarily in a militaristic hierarchy. Someone at the same "company rank" who is a generalist and doesn't have to sweat the details like the specialists do, may be appointed "project leader" to see the overall picture while the specialists concentrate on what they do.

That's how I see Sg-1. Whether the "generalist" is O'Neill or, now, Mitchell, it shouldn't be one of the specialists. It's not the most effective way to achieve the team's goals.

This mirrors how modern business organizations have evolved--less hierarchal, more horizontal, lean & mean, giving more responsibility to individual specialists and less "bossiness" to the leader.

If SG-1 were a larger unit, it might require a more hierarchal management structure.

[ShardsofGlass]

MS, I totally agree with you on your points. I also wanted to add something else. In my old company, the VP of sales left and there was an opening for a new VP. The company could've hired from within because there were several sales reps who had been with the company for many years. However, they decided to hire someone from another company who had to relocate from across the country. But not only was she from another company, she was fron a different industry entirely.

When she came in, she had a learning curve. In fact, she met with a lot of people in the company just to see what we did even if we weren't in sales. And she had to rely on her staff for a ton of things, particularly anything to do with the business we were in because it was completely different from her last one.

But what she brougth with her was all the years of experience she had doing sales and being a VP of sales from her other companies, experience she could apply to the new company and new business, even though they were very unfamiliar to her.

That's how I see Mitchell. He's the guy who has a ton of experience as a leader under his belt. It's just not a leader of an SG-1 team. And that doesn't bother me. He's relying on the rest of his team as he should. He's constantly asking for their advice (i.e., "Ideas, anyone?"). Usually he takes it but sometimes he doesn't, which is his perogative as leader.

Was our VP of sales perfect in her first year? Of course not, but she must've done something right because the company did pretty well and she kept her job. Just like Mitchell wasn't perfect in his first year.