The definition of leadership that I found most appealing is described in “Transactional and Transforming Leadership,” by James McGregor Burns. In this piece Burns portrays leadership in this way, “I define leadership as leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and motivations-the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations-of both leaders and followers” (100). In this we can see that leadership involves not only the ideas and concern of the leader, but gaining the trust and loyalty of the followers.
Today, at least in the area of political leadership, the public seems to be more concerned in voting for celebrity, than a leader. In the past there was more reasoned discussion on the issues of the day. While the twenty-four hour news cycle and the internet have brought more people into the debate, the noise of special interest groups or the extremes of both parties has drowned out some of the ability to solve the problems we face.
The difficulty faced today by leaders and followers is one of trust. While the voters may like a candidate as an individual, there is a lack of trust. There seems to be a disconnect between those in power and those that put them there. This can be seen in polling that has Congressional and Presidential favorability numbers at record lows. It is possible that this could change if the next generation of political leaders were to embrace Burns’ idea of leadership.
A candidate who can run on shared ideas and values can motivate his followers to stick with the agenda when times get tough. In today’s political climate, as our leaders are viewed as celebrities, once the going gets tough, the followers pack their bags and go home. Leaders and followers are superficial, were as, with the Burns model there is a shared sense of purpose and willingness to dig in to do battle for a common purpose.
An example from the past would be President Ronald Reagan. During his campaign he focused on four to five issues that resonated with people of all types. Once elected, he held firm to his beliefs and went directly to his followers to contact Congress to get their legislation passed. In Burns’ words, “. . . the genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their follower’s values and motivations” (100). Reagan knew where his people stood on the issues and had the ability to get them motivated to get the job done.
A more recent example would be Congressman Ron Paul. Rep. Paul was not well known on the national stage, yet had an impact in the 2008 Republican primaries. Paul, like Reagan had a simple and straight forward message that crossed party lines. A Ron Paul rally had people of all ages, ethnic, social and religious groups together based a set of shared values. Even though he did not win the nomination of his party, Paul’s followers have established a couple of political groups to continue the work of the Ron Paul Revolution.
Why was Reagan successful, while Paul failed using the same strategies and Burns’ model of leadership? The big difference in the two was that Reagan had been a governor and was better known to the public. The turning point in the primaries forReagan came in a debate in New Hampshire. Reagan had lost in Iowa to George H. W. Bush who was claiming he now had “Big Mo.” Reagan and Bush agreed to a debate in New Hampshire that would be paid for by the Reagan campaign. Reagan also invited the other four candidates to the debate. Bush refused to debate them and eventually left.
Mark Hatfield of the Senate Historical Office put importance of this debate in its proper context writing,
This proved to be a pivotal moment in the campaign; when the moderator, John Breene, ordered Reagan's microphone turned off, his angry response, "I am paying for this microphone Mr. Greene", struck a chord with the public. Bush ended up losing New Hampshire's primary with 23 percent to Reagan's 50 percent. Bush lost most of the remaining primaries as well, and formally dropped out of the race in May of that year.
Ronald Reagan at that moment touched America. Not only did Reagan talk about opportunity and fair play, he proved it with his actions during this debate.
Unfortunately for Ron Paul he had no such moment in the debates. With the cable news network’s controlling the debates, Rep. Paul was marginalized and was not allowed to participate in one debate. Undaunted, Paul took his message to the internet which, it seemed, the majority of his support was based. While this was effective in raising money and getting his message out, it didn’t help in the polls or the primary contests.
In both Reagan and Paul you have two leaders that stood for what they believed in and attracted followers that felt the same way. This is what a leader should be, someone with a strong foundations of beliefs that can rally people from different backgrounds and social standings to unite for a common purpose. President Reagan may have started out in the movies, but when it came to leadership, he was not just a celebrity.
Today, at least in the area of political leadership, the public seems to be more concerned in voting for celebrity, than a leader. In the past there was more reasoned discussion on the issues of the day. While the twenty-four hour news cycle and the internet have brought more people into the debate, the noise of special interest groups or the extremes of both parties has drowned out some of the ability to solve the problems we face.
The difficulty faced today by leaders and followers is one of trust. While the voters may like a candidate as an individual, there is a lack of trust. There seems to be a disconnect between those in power and those that put them there. This can be seen in polling that has Congressional and Presidential favorability numbers at record lows. It is possible that this could change if the next generation of political leaders were to embrace Burns’ idea of leadership.
A candidate who can run on shared ideas and values can motivate his followers to stick with the agenda when times get tough. In today’s political climate, as our leaders are viewed as celebrities, once the going gets tough, the followers pack their bags and go home. Leaders and followers are superficial, were as, with the Burns model there is a shared sense of purpose and willingness to dig in to do battle for a common purpose.
An example from the past would be President Ronald Reagan. During his campaign he focused on four to five issues that resonated with people of all types. Once elected, he held firm to his beliefs and went directly to his followers to contact Congress to get their legislation passed. In Burns’ words, “. . . the genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their follower’s values and motivations” (100). Reagan knew where his people stood on the issues and had the ability to get them motivated to get the job done.
A more recent example would be Congressman Ron Paul. Rep. Paul was not well known on the national stage, yet had an impact in the 2008 Republican primaries. Paul, like Reagan had a simple and straight forward message that crossed party lines. A Ron Paul rally had people of all ages, ethnic, social and religious groups together based a set of shared values. Even though he did not win the nomination of his party, Paul’s followers have established a couple of political groups to continue the work of the Ron Paul Revolution.
Why was Reagan successful, while Paul failed using the same strategies and Burns’ model of leadership? The big difference in the two was that Reagan had been a governor and was better known to the public. The turning point in the primaries forReagan came in a debate in New Hampshire. Reagan had lost in Iowa to George H. W. Bush who was claiming he now had “Big Mo.” Reagan and Bush agreed to a debate in New Hampshire that would be paid for by the Reagan campaign. Reagan also invited the other four candidates to the debate. Bush refused to debate them and eventually left.
Mark Hatfield of the Senate Historical Office put importance of this debate in its proper context writing,
This proved to be a pivotal moment in the campaign; when the moderator, John Breene, ordered Reagan's microphone turned off, his angry response, "I am paying for this microphone Mr. Greene", struck a chord with the public. Bush ended up losing New Hampshire's primary with 23 percent to Reagan's 50 percent. Bush lost most of the remaining primaries as well, and formally dropped out of the race in May of that year.
Ronald Reagan at that moment touched America. Not only did Reagan talk about opportunity and fair play, he proved it with his actions during this debate.
Unfortunately for Ron Paul he had no such moment in the debates. With the cable news network’s controlling the debates, Rep. Paul was marginalized and was not allowed to participate in one debate. Undaunted, Paul took his message to the internet which, it seemed, the majority of his support was based. While this was effective in raising money and getting his message out, it didn’t help in the polls or the primary contests.
In both Reagan and Paul you have two leaders that stood for what they believed in and attracted followers that felt the same way. This is what a leader should be, someone with a strong foundations of beliefs that can rally people from different backgrounds and social standings to unite for a common purpose. President Reagan may have started out in the movies, but when it came to leadership, he was not just a celebrity.
RSS Feed
