Command Presence: Who Commands the Most Domineering or Difficult Commander in the Star Trek Franchise?

Is Difficulty a Matter of Ranking or Principle?

When evaluating Starfleet captains for their assertiveness or difficulty in commanding their crews, it is essential to distinguish between command presence rooted in principle and that which arises from personal ambition or malfeasance.

Proper Use of Command

The chain of command in Starfleet exists to ensure that all members fulfill their duties effectively while adhering to the principles of the Federation and Starfleet regulations. A commander's primary responsibility is to issue clear and reasonable orders while fostering a supportive environment for their crew. This is not a competition of personal authority but a commitment to the mission and the crew's safety.

The Stubborn – Captain Erik Pressman

In the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Rules of Engagement," Captain Erik Pressman of the USS Pegasus stands out as the most domineering and difficult commander. Not only does he command with a lack of regard for the chain of command, but he also violates Federation treaties with the aim of creating a new weapon.

Pressman’s actions are further compounded by his refusal to recognize the objections of his crew, who correctly challenge his unlawful and ethically questionable orders. His primary objective is to follow his personal and flawed sense of duty, ignoring the chain of command as well as Starfleet regulations. His domineering nature is evident when he declares crew members who object to his actions as mutineers.

The Overzealous – Cadet Tim Watters

During the training mission of the USS Valiant, when Captain Ramirez is killed in action and cadet Tim Watters is forced to take command, the situation presents a mix of admirable and concerning leadership qualities. His ability to maintain the safety and cohesion of the crew initially wins points for his command skills. However, the situation soon escalates when he embarks on a misguided mission with insufficient preparation and experience.

Watters’ domineering command style is further highlighted when he demands blind loyalty from his cadet crew, disregarding their safety and competence due to his lack of formal commission.

Conclusion

Both Captain Pressman and Cadet Watters demonstrate a level of difficulty and domineering behavior. However, true command presence in the Star Trek universe is predicated on adherence to ethical principles, respect for the chain of command, and a commitment to the Federation’s values. In each case, both commanders’ actions stray from this ideal, leading to their respective challenges and liability issues.

Final Analysis

While Captain Pressman’s actions are clearly in violation of norms, Cadet Watters’ behavior, although misguided, can be seen as a result of inexperience and a desire to prove himself. Nonetheless, both display a concerning level of domineering and difficulty in commanding without appropriate regard for proper oversight and ethical conduct.

These scenarios provide a rich tapestry for exploring the nuances of leadership and command in the Star Trek universe, shedding light on the importance of ethical and procedural integrity.