Approaches Applied to Different Leaders

Nedanstående innehåll är skapat av Mimers Brunns besökare. Kommentera arbete

Brief information about the four leaders…

George W. Bush – President of the United States since 2000.
Tony Blair – Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since 2001.
Saddam Hussein – President of Iraq (1979- April 2003)
Ayatollah Sayed Mohamad Baqir al-Hakim – Leader of Supreme Council of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (SCIRI) since 1982.

NOTE: Ayatollah is not a name! It is a title, like “Sir” in Arabic!


THE QUALITIES OR TRAITS APPROACH

This approach supports the idea of Saddam being born as a leader, not “made”. For Saddam, this approach is even stronger, as he didn’t get education, having a stepfather which refused to let him go to school. Saddam was born to a peasant family. Still, he has through approximately 24 years been the president of Iraq. It is not to say that Saddam was a “nice” leader, but it is for sure that he was an effective one.
Bush, on the other hand, comes from a royal family, his father being the previous president of the United States. I can’t consider Bush to be a good leader either, neither effective. Bush is very obsessed over his own presidential role that is born with him – he needs to stay at centre all the time, and is born as a seeker of attention. Born with the desire of power, just like Saddam. Ayatollah al-Hakim and Bush have one thing in common within this approach – they are both born to use religion to fulfil their leadership needs. al-Hakim using Islam, and Bush using Christianity. Blair on the other hand, is more of the European culture, avoiding blending religion in to politics. Though, Blair, just like Bush, is very self-confident as a leader, being another inherited characteristic between leaders. Of all of these four, Saddam Hussein seems to be the one leader most suitable for this approach, as it’s easy to say that his leadership wasn’t taught or learnt. Although, I can’t agree that his leadership consisted of good tactics.
He had the desire for power long time back, and Saddam made his leadership an obligation for Iraq. That is to say, without no Saddam, no Iraq. And opponents or people to say against are executed. With consideration to Saddam’s leadership tactics, he was not a good leader, as his leadership was an obligation. He did as he pleased. Although, a very effective leader for sure…


THE FUNCTIONAL or GROUP APPROACH

This approach is easily applied to all the leaders, but partially. All of these leaders can be taught to be a better leader, not necessarily becoming a leader from start. All of these leaders’ leaderships can be developed and perfected. I am doubting that all of these leaders actually do what they do in consideration of their groups/people. These leaders focuses on their function as leaders from their own perspective, and they don’t cooperate with their groups. That is what I mean by “partially”. Blair is the type of leader in this case, whom makes decisions against the nature of the group, just like Bush.

Saddam and al-Hakim can, to a certain degree convince their people that their functions are right and what is done is for the best of the group. It’s harder for Blair and Bush to convince their people – either these more developed countries have the education and think far open-minded, or that their people don’t trust in their leaders at all… Or perhaps both. As I pointed out earlier, that’s the reason why this approach can apply to all, because I believe strongly that all of their leaderships can be developed, perfected and even make these leaders more open-minded about different styles of leaderships (see the Situational Approach).

THE BEHAVIORAL APPROACH
The behavioural approach consists of four types;
low on consideration and low on structure
low on consideration and high on structure
high on consideration and high on structure
high on consideration and low on structure

Point 3 suggests that this type satisfies subordinates and group performance. However, I can barely see any of the four leader fulfilling point 3…Bush for instance, is (in my personal view) point 2 – low on consideration and high on structure. I don’t agree with him, as a leader, establishing trust, mutual respect and so forth. A leader with high on consideration, would most likely be a warm-blooded person. Bush is cold blooded. Most of his announcements and speakings are far more formal, than showing consideration. As a president, he is far more an “I”, instead of “us” (even though he speaks of the opposite). Blair is kind of the same, just perhaps not as extreme. I have to suggest that there should be different stages of each point, some are more extreme than others.
It is very hard to decide what Ayatollah al-Hakim and Saddam Hussein are. It is very easy to say they are at times point 1 and point 3, which at the same time feels impossible as a similar question rises up: How can they be both low on consideration and structure and high on consideration and structure? At the same time, I don’t know if any of these types suits in to the two leaders. They might show consideration, but for the most of the time it could be an obligation, which otherwise would result in execution or being isolated from the group as an enemy. It is true indeed that we have got some pretty strange leaders!


THE STYLES OF LEADERSHIP APPROACH

This approach is applied to all of the leaders differently. Each leader has adopted different styles of types of leadership, which works better or worse depending on what style is adopted. George W. Bush: Between Autocratic and Paternalistic. Bush makes his own decisions and moves towards his own will, although he can, at times use/listen to advice from others. Although, the decision is always made by Bush. Even though most of the country is against his decision, he will carry it out anyway.
Tony Blair: Paternalistic. Blair isn’t as autocratic as Bush. Even though Blair makes his own decisions, he is more open-minded towards his people and whoever he is cooperating with. During the latest war, he worked, almost at the “command” of Bush.

Saddam Hussein: Beyond Autocratic – Dictatorship. Saddam is a dictator, so that means autocratic + more than autocratic. Apart from making decisions, he is also controlling his people. It is an obligation to vote for Saddam in his regime. Oppositions are executed and tortured. Saddam only makes decision within his country. However, even that is unacceptable – as dictatorship is considered to be a threat towards humanity.

Ayatollah al-Hakim: Autocratic. al-Hakim’s movement is a religious movement, even though it’s political at the same time, and even here we can see that the leader makes his own decisions. As al-Hakim convinces his people, “What we do is right” assumingly giving false facts from the Quran.


THE SITUATIONAL APPROACH

Ayatollah al-Hakim seems most suitable in this approach. al-Hakim has got a background of politics and religion, he is what we call a possible fundamentalist. And now, he is the leader of the SCIRI. I am assuming that his group considers of him as a good leader, the reason being that the group is fundamentalist group, and the group relies on their leader doing the right thing as he is an “important Muslim” who “knows what’s ri...