GROUP PAPER/LEADERSHIP GLADIATOR, by Ridley Scott (2004)
1. INTRODUCTION

Acting as observers in this case, we are reviewing the leadership from the perspective of the son of Caesar, Commodus. A man, with love lost. A man, without the desired virtues set by his Father. A man, without morals, as stated by his Father. A man, who competes for favor, trust, honor and value with an authentic leader like Maximus, someone whom has also had the love of Commodus Father and fails to connect with his followers.

1.1 Within and under the guardianship of his father, Commodus struggles to attain any of the qualities connected to an ethical type of leadership that was set up by his Father, namely wisdom, justice, fortitude and temperance, and with
(Northouse 2013:266 f). Something that further affected his relationship with Commodus to the point of making the gap becoming even wider between them, but also solidified the good reasoning by Aurelius, in appointing him Protector in closed chambers in order to usher in a republic and a moderation orientation. Maximus had had a long time to develop these attributes as well, his characteristics align with the positive psychological capacities described by the same authors: Confidence, hope, optimism and resilience. One can argue that they in Maximus was both trait-like, i.e connected to his personality and state-like, i.e developed with training and coaching, most probably in the military and by having Aurelius as a mentor and a Father figure almost.(Northouse 264 f) With an ethical leadership rooted in respect, service, justice, honesty and community, ethical leaders are said to serve others with altruism in mind and their goals align with the goals of their followers and society as a whole. Leadership is then seen as a moral process, stemming from a set of core values and principles within the leader that extends into an organizational and societal context (Northouse 2013:448 f) Accepting the relational concept of a leader and followers we will also in this case look at the aspects of indirect leadership and its influences through symbols and ideologies as stated by Gardner (1995) in