For at least a decade, American presidents have been embroiled in a crisis of leadership, mostly because presidents have lacked the perspective that can be gained in the corporate world, and the country has been forced to navigate a number of different crises without the guidance and strategic direction of an unshakable leader. The leadership crisis has led to a number of difficulties for the country, including more than a decade of war, a financial crisis, and a lingering stagnant economy, among many others. What can Presidents like Barack Obama or George W. Bush learn from business and economic leaders like Michael Bloomberg in order to improve their leadership skills and put to bed the crisis of leadership that currently exists in the United States? Business leaders are forced, on an almost daily basis, to deal with conflicts and crises, and their mistakes can lead to financial disasters and the loss of their jobs.
Under this pressure, business leaders like Michael Bloomberg forge a steely reserve and the ability to come out of crises better on the other end. With the current state of American leadership at the top, it is important to analyze and understand just what makes some corporate leaders successful. Unless the country learns from business leaders, it risks continuing the current trend in presidential leadership, where departments fail to communicate with one another, spending spins out of control, and American foreign relations are stunted. That knowledge, in turn, can expose some of the deficiencies in American presidential leadership that have led the country into dark places over the last few years.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Leadership in Politics: Paper Proposal".
Americans are currently forced to deal with a lack of leadership at a time in the country’s history when dynamic leadership is perhaps most necessary. Though it is perhaps easy to blame one party or another for the dearth of American leadership, as Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post made clear, are not limited to one party or another (Marcus, 2011). Both parties, it seems, fail to communicate critical details with important staff members and fail to provide strategic solutions to the critical problems facing the country. They opt, instead, to pass the buck, claiming that their role is to listen rather than lead. The situation has become so dire, in fact, that the American public has grown cynical when it comes to a president’s ability to lead the country through crises. In his recent work, Medvic described this phenomenon, noting that in today’s America, citizens have developed something of a superiority complex to their politicians (Medvic, 2013). By this, he means that they feel more competent to lead than the very leaders they put into office. This can become especially dangerous in an age when leaders are asked to deal with some of the most difficult and pressing problems imaginable, including wars and economic disasters.
In his 2010 book, Bob Woodward describes a practical situation in which President Obama’s leadership might have been lacking, and story revolves around national security, the most serious of presidential issues. Obama had planned a meeting with CIA Director Michael Hayden, but he stood Hayden up, and after promising to have lunch with the director, he failed to make that happen, either (Woodward, 2010). This shows the president’s unwillingness to treat his subordinates with respect, and it shows an inability to prioritize. In business, a company cannot function when leaders fail in their duty to be reliable to their understudies, and this is why Obama and others could learn from Bloomberg. As the Mayor of New York City, Bloomberg has made the city’s government more transparent, instituting a free hotline that provides information for average citizens. He has also invested in technical additions and helped the city’s data analysis capabilities. More than that, he has proven to be a cooperative leader, bringing together various members of the community and eliciting the input of employees across a wide range of departments. He has given his time and made himself accessible, choosing to provide solutions to problems rather than waiting for the public to come up with its own answers.
Though Michael Bloomberg is not the only business leader who has found success with leadership, he does provide a useful example because of his later treks into the world of politics. As a CEO, he grew his company into what would become Bloomberg, LP, a multi-service corporation with a presence in news media, the legal world, market systems, and business information. Describing the challenge faced by Bloomberg in his new role as a politician, Tom Lowry wrote, “Bloomberg sees New York City as a corporation, its citizens as customers, its sanitation workers, police officers, clerks, and deputy commissioners as talent. He is the chief executive. Call him a technocrat all you want; he’s O.K. with that” (Lowry, 2007). Lowry is careful to note that not all has been rosy for Bloomberg in his time as mayor, but as an innovative, business-minded leader, he has been able to bounce back from setbacks. His success in helping New York become more successful after building a small company into a multi-billion shows that presidents can learn much from his ability and willingness to put forward innovative ideas and ensure that the city’s departments are ready to implement them.
Some may argue that little can be learned from leaders like Bloomberg, as business leadership and political leadership are two entirely different animals. These individuals will note, quite rightly, that political leaders have to account for more than just the bottom line, understanding, at least on the presidential level, that their decisions impact real human beings. Government, they will argue, has a duty to do more than just bring in a profit, and presidents have a responsibility to care for the wellbeing of both the country at large and its people. This includes, among other things, considering issues like hunger, poverty, and national defense, each of which can hurt the bottom line while making the country a better place to live. Though these counter-arguments are compelling, they fail to recognize that Bloomberg and people like him operate in whatever sphere they are given. One of the critical aspects of good leadership is understanding the implications of one’s actions, and borrowing from an executive’s leadership style would not necessarily deprive a president of the ability to consider factors other than economics in his or her decision making.
By reading this paper, individuals will come to see some of the similarities between the public and private sectors. Even though leadership styles and leadership effectiveness have both differed between these sectors, there exists tremendous overlap between the two. Readers will come to understand that in the midst of an American leadership crisis, presidents can learn how to integrate bold solutions, how to communicate well with employees up and down the bureaucratic chain, and how to motivate those employees by empowering them rather than undermining them in the public forum. Some argue that presidents cannot act like CEOs because presidents have to consider more than just the bottom line, but this ignores the underpinning argument. Presidents need not make decisions like CEOs would in order to draw from the leadership qualities shown by those executives. In sorting through their own considerations, including care for the underprivileged and the need for strong national defense, presidents can learn the basics of bold leadership from Michael Bloomberg and people who find themselves at the top of other companies.
- Lowry, T. (2007). Bloomberg: The CEO Mayor.
- Marcus, R. (2011) Where is Boeher and Obama’s Courage to Lead? The Washington Post. 15 Feb 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021504310.html
- Medvic, S.K. (2013) In Defense of Politicians: The Expectations Trap and Its Threat to Democracy. Routledge. New York.
