Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12


0 Introduction:

Leadership is a process by which a person influencs others to accomplish an objective and

directs the organisation in a way that makes it more cohensive and coherent. Leaders carry
out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics,
character, knowledge and skills.

“Leadership appears to be, like power,an ‘essentially contested concept’”

(Gallie, 1955 cited in Grint, 2004, p1)

Grint (2004) identifies four problems that make consensus on a common definition of leadership
highly unlikely. Firstly, there is the ‘process’ problem – a lack of agreement on whether
leadership is derived from the personal qualities (i.e. traits) of the leader, or whether a leader
induces followership through what s/he does (i.e. a social process). Secondly, there is the
‘position’ problem – is the leader in charge (i.e. with formally allocated authority) or in front (i.e.
with informal influence)? A third problem is one of ‘philosophy’ – does the leader exert an
intentional, causal influence on the behaviour of followers or are their apparent actions
etermined by context and situation or even attributed retrospectively? A fourth difficulty is one of
‘purity’ – is leadership embodied in individuals or groups and is it a purely human phenomenon?
In addition to these relatively theoretical contentions Grint also distinguishes between attitudes
towards coercion. Some definitions of leadership restrict it to purely non-coercive influence
towards shared (and socially acceptable) objectives. Within such frameworks the likes of Hitler,
Stalin and Saddam Hussein would not be seen as leaders, but rather as tyrants working solely for
their own benefit and depending on threat, violence and intimidation rather than the more subtle
processes of interpersonal influence more frequently associated with ‘true’ leadership. Such
distinctions, however, are always problematic as the actions of nearly all leaders could be
perceived more or less beneficially by certain individuals and groups.

“Scholars should remind us that leadership is not a moral concept. Leaders are like the
rest of us: trustworthy and deceitful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. To
assume that all leaders are good people is to be wilfully blind to the reality of the human
condition, and it severely limits our scope for becoming more effective at leadership.”
(Kellerman, 2004, p45)
The psychodynamic approach, made famous by researchers at the Tavistock Institute, adds
further areas for consideration: what are the psychological factors that encourage people to
become leaders or followers, and what is it about groups, organisations and societies that
gives rise the perception of ‘leadership’? This approach emphasises the importance of
understanding self and others and, through this, understanding the transactional nature of the
relationship between leader and followers (Stech, 2004). Thus, for example, it could be
concluded that the leader fulfils a role of sense making, offering security and purpose to
his/her followers and it is for this reason that they choose to remain followers. In a recent
review of leadership theory, Northouse (2004) identified four common themes in the way
leadership now tends to be conceived: (1) leadership is a process; (2) leadership involves
influence; (3) leadership occurs in a group context; and (4) leadership involves goal
attainment. He thus defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a
group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (ibid, p 3). This is a good definition, but it
still locates the individual as the source of leadership. A more collective concept of
leadership arises out of a review by Yukl: “Most definitions of leadership reflect the
assumption that it involves a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted
by one person [or group] over other people [or groups] to structure the activities and
relationships in a group or organisation” (Yukl, 2002, p3). Even this definition, however,
bscures as much as it reveals. Just what exactly is the nature of this ‘social influence’; how
can it ‘structure’ activities and relationships; and when applied in a group setting who is the
In short, leadership is a complex phenomenon that touches on many other important
organisational, social and personal processes. It depends on a process of influence, whereby
people are inspired to work towards group goals, not through coercion, but through personal
motivation. Which definition you accept should be a matter of choice, informed by your own
predispositions, organisational situation and beliefs, but with an awareness of the underlying
assumptions and implications of your particular approach.
2.0 Background of Barack Hussein Obama II:

Barack H. Obama is the 44th President of the United States.

His story is the American story — values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a
strong family, hard work and education as the means of getting ahead, and the conviction that
a life so blessed should be lived in service to others.

With a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, President Obama was born in Hawaii
on August 4, 1961. He was raised with help from his grandfather, who served in Patton's
army, and his grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle
management at a bank.

After working his way through college with the help of scholarships and student loans,
President Obama moved to Chicago, where he worked with a group of churches to help
rebuild communities devastated by the closure of local steel plants.

He went on to attend law school, where he became the first African—American president of
the Harvard Law Review. Upon graduation, he returned to Chicago to help lead a voter
registration drive, teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and remain active in
his community.

President Obama's years of public service are based around his unwavering belief in the
ability to unite people around a politics of purpose. In the Illinois State Senate, he passed the
first major ethics reform in 25 years, cut taxes for working families, and expanded health care
for children and their parents. As a United States Senator, he reached across the aisle to pass
groundbreaking lobbying reform, lock up the world's most dangerous weapons, and bring
transparency to government by putting federal spending online.

He was elected the 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008, and sworn in on
January 20, 2009.
Background of George W. Bush

Bush was the 41st president of the United States whose term in office was dominated by
foreign affairs.

Bush was born on 12 June 1924 in Massachusetts. In his infancy, the Bush family moved to
Greenwich, Connecticut. Bush served as a naval pilot during World War Two. He returned to
Yale University to complete his education and then moved to Texas to work in the oil

In 1964, Bush ran unsuccessfully for the Senate as a Republican. In 1966 he was elected to
the House of Representatives. In 1970, he again ran unsuccessfully for the Senate. In 1971,
President Richard Nixon appointed Bush as US Ambassador to the United Nations, the first
of several high profile appointments Bush was to receive during the 1970s. In 1973, he was
chosen to head the Republican Party National Committee. He took up the post as the
Watergate scandal deepened, and showed his loyalty to the party and Nixon in his consistent
defences of Nixon's conduct. Gerald Ford appointed Bush to be chief US liaison to China,
then in 1976 persuaded him to become director of the CIA, serving for a year.

In 1979, Bush announced he would seek the Republican nomination for the presidency.
Ronald Reagan won the nomination and chose Bush to be his vice-presidential running mate.
He served two four-year terms as vice president. In 1988, he ran for president and won.
Foreign policy dominated his presidency. At Bush's meeting with Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev at the Malta summit in December 1989, the two leaders declared an end to the
Cold War. In 1990 - 1991, Bush constructed the international coalition which ousted Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein's armies from Kuwait, defeating Iraq in February 1991.

However, Bush was unable to shake off the perception that he was not concerned with
growing problems caused by a recession in the US economy, and he fought a lacklustre re-
election campaign in 1992. He was defeated and retired from politics. In 2000, his son
George W Bush was elected president, the first time a father and son had been president since
John Quincy Adams (1825 - 1829) succeeded his father John (1797 - 1801).

Leadership theories are a relatively recent phenomena that have been advanced by the sudden
interest in historical leaders and the desire to identfy the characteristics and behaviours that
these leaders exhibited. By understanding the characteristics of ledader, their success and
failures as well as the political and work environment they faced, the modern day worker can
hope to replicate this success.


Whilst behavioural theories introduced the notion of different leadership styles, they gave little
guidance as to what constitutes effective leadership behaviours in different situations. Indeed,
most researchers today conclude that no one leadership style is right for every manager under all
circumstances. Instead, situational theories were developed to indicate that the style to be used is
dependent upon such factors as the situation, the people, the task, the organisation, and other
environmental variables. Fiedler (1964, 1967) proposed that there is no single best way to lead;
instead the leaders’ style should be selected according to the situation. He distinguished between
managers who are task or relationship oriented. Task oriented managers focus on the task-in-hand
tend to do better in situations that have good leader-member relationships, structured tasks, and
either weak or strong position power. They also do well when the task is unstructured but
position power is strong, and at the other end of the spectrum when the leader member relations
are moderate to poor and the task is unstructured. Such leaders tend to display a more directive
leadership style. Relationship oriented managers do better in all other situations and exhibit a
more participative style of leadership. Hersey and Blanchard (1969, 1977, 1988) had similar ideas
but proposed that it is possible for a leader to adapt his/her style to the situation. They argued that
the developmental level of subordinates has the greatest impact on which leadership style is most
appropriate. Thus, as the skill and maturity level of followers increases, the leader will need to
adapt his/her taskrelationship style from directing to coaching, supporting and delegating. A
similar model was proposed by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) who presented a continuum of
leadership styles from autocratic to democratic. Another influential situational leadership model
is that proposed by John Adair (1973) who argued that the leader must balance the needs of the
task, team and individual. The effective leader thus carries out the functions and behaviours
depicted by the three circles, varying the level of attention paid to each according to the situation.

James MacGregor Burns was the first to put forward the concept of ‘transforming leadership’. To
him, transforming leadership “is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts
followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents” (Burns, 1978). He went on to
suggest that “[Transforming leadership] occurs when one or more persons engage with others in
such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and
morality”. At the heart of this approach is an emphasis on the leaders’ ability to motivate and
empower his/her followers and also the moral dimension of leadership. Burn’s ideas were
subsequently developed into the concept of ‘transformational leadership’ where the leader
transforms followers:

“The goal of transformational leadership is to ‘transform’ people and organisations in a literal

sense – to change them in mind and heart; enlarge vision, insight, and understanding; clarify
purposes; make behaviour congruent with beliefs, principles, or values; and bring about changes
that are permanent, self-perpetuating, and momentum building” (Bass and Avolio, 1994).

The transformational approach has been widely embraced within all types of organisations as a
way of transcending organisational and human limitations and dealing with change. It is
frequently contrasted with more traditional ‘transactional’ leadership, where the leader gains
commitment from followers on the basis of a straightforward exchange of pay and security etc. in
return for reliable work.


The concept of the ‘charismatic leader’, although introduced earlier (e.g. Weber, 1947; House,
1976), became popular in the nineteen eighties and nineties when charisma was viewed as an
antidote to the demoralising effects of organisational restructuring, competition and redundancies
dominant at the time. The charismatic leader was seen as someone who could rebuild morale and
offer a positive vision for the future.

This approach, in effect, combines both notions of the transformational leader as well as earlier
trait and ‘great man’ theories. Researchers have taken different positions, but overall four major
characteristics of charismatic leaders can be identified: (1) a dominant personality, desire to
influence others and self confidence; (2) strong role model behaviour and competence; (3)
articulation of ideological goals with moral overtones; and (4) high expectation of followers and
confidence that they will meet these expectations (Northouse, 2004, p171). Despite the hype,
confidence in this approach to leadership is rapidly declining. A number of high profile corporate
scandals, plus the tendency of charismatic leaders to desert organisations after making their
changes (often leaving even more significant challenges), has highlighted that this may not be a
sustainable way to lead. Because of the way in which charismatic leadership presents the leader
as a saviour, it is now often referred to as ‘heroic leadership’. There is a resistance to this view of
the leader within many industries and organisations are seeking alternatives that develop quieter,
less individualistic leadership (Mintzberg, 1999; Badaracco, 2002).


The notion of the ‘servant leader’ has been around for some time. Like Burn’s early conceptions
about transforming leadership, the emphasis is on the moral and ethical dimensions of leadership.
The difference, however, is that the servant leader follows his/her path out of a desire to serve
rather an out of a desire to lead.

“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to
serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. He or she is sharply different from
the person who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or
to acquire material possessions.” (Greenleaf, 1970)

The focus on serving a greater purpose has made this approach popular within the church and
non-profit sector but has had limited impact in more commercial sectors. A related concept that
has had wider acceptance is that of ‘team leadership’. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) emphasise
the importance of leaders knowing when to follow and the importance of the leader acting as a
facilitator rather than director. They propose that the leader should ask questions rather than
giving answers; provide opportunities for others to lead them; do real work in support of others
instead of only the reverse; become a matchmaker instead of a ‘central switch’; and seek a
common understanding instead of consensus. Belbin (1993) presents a similar image of the team
leader as someone who chooses to delegate and share team roles; builds on and appreciates
diversity; seeks talented people; develops colleagues; and creates a sense of mission.

An increasing awareness of the importance of social relations in the leadership contract, the need
for a leader to be given authority by their followers and a realisation that no one individual is the
ideal leader in all circumstances have given rise to a new school of leadership thought. Referred
to as ‘informal’, ‘emergent’, ‘dispersed’ or ‘distributed’ leadership, this approach argues a less
formalised model of leadership (where leadership responsibility is dissociated from the
organisational hierarchy). It is proposed that individuals at all levels in the organisation and in all
roles (not simply those with an overt management dimension) can exert leadership influence
over their colleagues and thus influence the overall direction of the organisation. The key to this
is a distinction between the notions of ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’. Leadership is regarded as a
process of sense-making and direction-giving within a group and the leader can only be identified
on the basis of his/her relationship with others in the social group who are behaving as followers.
In this manner, it is quite possible to conceive of the leader as emergent rather than predefined
and that their role can only be understood through examining the relationships within the
group (rather than by focussing on his/her personal characteristics or traits). The origins of such
an approach have their foundations more in the fields of sociology and politics than the more
traditional management literature and draw on concepts such as organisational culture and
climate to highlight the contextual nature of leadership. It is a more collective concept, and would
argue for a move from analysis and development of individual leader qualities to an identification
of what constitutes an effective (or more appropriate) leadership process within an organisation: a
move in focus from the individuals to the relationships between them; from managers to
everyone within the organisation. A still more radical process view of leadership encourages a
different approach to the identification and development of leadership within organisations. It
promotes a focus on the way relationships give rise to varying identities, each defined by how
they relate to others. So we should talk of a leader/follower effect rather than ‘leaders’ and
‘followers’ per se. This draws attention to the outcomes of effective leadership rather than the
necessary precursors or behaviours; and on the development and promotion of leadership
skills within all people at all levels in the organisation rather than just those at the top of the
hierarchy. The aim is to produce an ambience and culture that encourages high levels of integrity,
creativity, imagination, care and collective ambition for ‘excellence’. The process view also
draws attention to the emergent nature of leadership. It is not a fixed entity, but rather a flowing
and evolving process whereby different ‘leaders’ may become revealed over time as a
consequence of group interaction.
“Leaderless but leaderful.” (Vanderslice, 1988)

4.1 Leadrship qualities of Barack Hussein Obama II:

4.2 Leadership qualities of George W. Bush:

5.0. Barack Obama and Transformational / Charismatic Leadership:

Transformational Leadership (as developed by Burns (1978) can be defined as, the process
whereby an individual engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of
motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower. (Northhouse, 2004)
Trasnformational leadership is often seen as synonymous with charismatic leadership.
Charismatic leadership is a special personality charcteristic that gives a person exceptional
powers that result in the person being treated as a leder. House (1976) published a theory
of charismatic leadership with in which he describes the personal charcteristics of this type
of leader as being dominate having a storng desire to influence others, being self confident,
adn having a strong sense of one’s own moral values. Furthermore, Yukl (2006)
Summarized the leadership behaviours that explain how a charismatic leader influences the
attitudes and behaviours of followers; such behaviours include:
1. Articluating an appealing vision
2. Using strong, expresive forms of communication when articulating the vision
3. Taking personal risks and making self-sacrifices to attain the vision
4. Communicatiing high expectations
5. Expressing confidence in followers
6. Modeling behaviours consistent with the vision
7. Managing followers impressions of the leader
8. Building indentifiation with the group or organisation
9. Empowering followers

Obama has mixed old and new media strategies to sustain and build popular support.

6.0. Analaysis:

It’s no wonder they call the “King of Good Times,” because the Indian tycoon sure knows
how to throw a party. Jack Welch remains quintessentially Indian. He refrains from
negotiating during Rahukalam, the hours during the day that some Hindu faithful believe are
unlucky. And he has his planes blessed at Tirupati, a Hindu temple in southern India, before
putting them into service. That’s not to say, though, that he thinks his current streak is just a
run of good luck. One of his says is “I had to show the world that I was quite capable of
standing on my own feet, making money and shareholder wealth,” The best thing i love
about him is his love and respect towards the nation. Weather it is Sword of Tippu Sultan or
the belongings of Mahatma Gandhi; he proves that he is the true Indian. Everything he does,
he does it for India. I simply love him, Salute to . He is completely a different man in
business field, his life style is absolutely differing from the other business man like Anil
Ambani, Bill gates etc. He plays a life like play boy. Apart from the business he is enjoying
the life as heaven. He entertains his life like investing in cricket, formula one race. The point
is even in entertainment also there will be business; there he is proving himself as strategic
business man. Not only is the style of business, own lifestyle also a completely different. He
is also a very good hard worker. On my point I will say that he is a very good situation
analyser, all his business activities depends on situation. He acts according to the situation.
Even though he born with “silver spoon” his charismatic and contingency leadership
approach change into “Golden spoon”. Where ever he footed all resulted in success may this
is because of his leadership traits. Brilliant orator and sportsman, has won trophies on the
professional car racing circuits and is a keen Yachtman and aviator. He is involved in a
variety of sport by way of personal participation as well as promotion of sport and cultural
activities by steering various sponsorships. Amongst his museum collection of historic rare
automobiles are Jaguars, Ferraris, Alfa Romeos and Mercedes Benz. He has always believed
that Corporate Enterprise must have a strong sense of responsibility towards society and more
importantly, the needy. He has achieved a victory in his business life. The entry of , the
liquor baron, into national politics, with his base in Karnataka, has given a new dimension to
the ever-evolving political equation of our country and Karnataka. It is not for the first time
new political parties, which were re-conditioned with new name, like old wine in the new
bottle, have appeared on the Karnataka political scene. However, 's entry into politics
especially in Karnataka is bound to make a dent in the vote banks of Congress and Janata
Parivar, if not in the vote bank of BJP, which in any case is a minor player in the Karnataka
political playground. As on now, it makes more noise and garners few votes.

6. Conclusion:

Barack Obama is a good leader because he is a good manager. Decision making is

fundamental to organizational life. Every success, every mishap, every opportunity seized or
missed stems from a decision someone made - or failed to make. Many of the leadership
qualities such as motivation, inspiration, vision, and reflection etc. can be transferred from an
experienced leader to one who is struggling to be one. leaders manage as well as lead
therefore they need both the qualities of leadership as well as management to manage day-to-
day activities.
7. References:

1. Kouzes and Posner, “The Leadership Challenge”, John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

2. Stephen P. Robbins and Nancy Langton, “Organizational Behaviour Concepts,

Controversies, Applications, Prentice Hall, p253

3. L. Daft, 2005, The leadership Experiences.

4. Mac million P, Grint K 2005, Leadership: Limits and possibilities

5. Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P, 2003, A review of leadership
theory and competency frameworks.

6. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. and Pitsis, T, 2005 Managing and organizations: an

introduction to theory and practice.

7. Gill, R, 2006, Theory and practice of leadership .