Society, in general, has a lot of leaders; from the neighborhood old-timer who guides and lectures the neighborhood youth to the gang leaders, or the quarterback in the football team and their star cheerleader. A public leader, however, is a person who holds a public office and serves or guides the community as a whole. Public leadership is a combination of collective efforts where public bodies and agencies work together to achieve a common vision based on common goals and values ( Brookes & Grint, 2010). Barack Hussein Obama’s leadership style was charismatic in nature and was centered on a big vision for the future. He had the vision for hope and change and the ability to motivate or inspire his followers to join a cause that was bigger than themselves ( Tavares, Sobral, & Wright, 2019, July). Once in office, however, he became more of a delegator of roles (Laissez-faire) as he would distribute responsibilities to competent and qualified personnel to carry forward his agenda. This displayed characteristics of a participative style of leadership at first, but was more of a hands-off style of leadership. His leadership would, later on, assume a more situational approach, starting from the campaign period where he would inspire people to join a cause bigger than themselves. To once in office and being inclusive to bring a sense of involvement. Sometimes a hands-off approach for example, the healthcare bill. He also possessed a certain set of skills in the political arena, predating his presidential bid back in Illinois. He had learned tactics to help him be influential in the state capital by forming political alliances in golf clubs and poker games, to more official settings. He formed formidably strong political bonds even with legislators outside the state of Chicago with the likes of Emil Jones who would later help him run for Senator. Theresa May, on the other hand, had a lot of negative reviews during her tenure as Prime Minister. She rose to leadership during a time of crisis (Brexit) which is always a gamble. This makes her leadership more situational ( Cherry, 2006). In addition, sadly, whether being a minority in her field as a woman may have attracted more criticism about the mistakes she made before she resigned remains a question yet to be answered. She may not necessarily be the bad leader people painted her out to be, rather but a bad leader for the situation at hand. Theresa May was more of a participative leader at first as she would listen to her advisors and seek second opinions from her colleagues and aides. She was, however, clear on what she wanted as her legacy, but was more open to alternatives and suggestions. It was a promising start and she showed resilience even to her critics. As resistance continued to mount, she shunned advisors and remained focused on what she had promised to deliver, which was Brexit. Towards the end, with even more criticism, she became more rigid and single-minded. Her methods became repetitive as seen in her efforts to try and win the common house over and her blatant refusal to negotiate the deal with the European Union. Her biggest drawback would be her inability to listen and also actively communicate about her vision which culminated in her, unfortunately, having no firm stand even on Brexit; her main objective. Her style of leadership would have probably worked to reform, for example, rigid oppressive systems like the former British Police service or the fight for women in leadership in the United Kingdom, which are causes she previously fought for. In 1984, Desmond Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in resolving and ending apartheid. Later on in 1993, The Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded to Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk for the same and for laying a foundation for a democratic South Africa. Desmond Tutu was the first black Anglican Archbishop of both Cape Town and Johannesburg. He often used his platform to be the voice of oppressed black people in South Africa and was always outspoken in his criticism of apartheid. He guided South Africa with wise speeches and optimism, having the backing of the church until they saw the end of apartheid in 1994. He stands out because of his legacy of reconciliation and forgiveness. He never advocated for violence and, in fact, denounced terrorism against the then oppressive South African government. Mandela, on the other hand, often referred to as the father of South Africa, fought against apartheid as an activist. He joined the ANC (African National Congress) in 1994 and at first advocated for non-violent protest, following Mahatma Gandhi's example. He would later resort to more violent tactics as peace bore no fruits and this move got him and his fellow activists branded as terrorists. He was arrested and sent to jail where he spent 27 years, most of it on Robben Island. It was during that time that he became a symbol of the anti-apartheid movement that was a global movement at the time. The fight was successful owing to local and international pressure that finally put an end to the apartheid regime. On 11th February 1990, Frederik Willem de Klerk, who was president at the time, released Mandela from prison. They worked hand in hand to end apartheid and abolish the laws, free activists and allow political parties to conduct their activities (Houston, 2014). F.W de Klerk played a central role in liberalizing the political situation and created an environment for negotiations. The 21st Century brought with it a positive paradigm shift that saw women doing more in the workplace, taking more leadership positions and generally being more proactive in decision-making. Studies show that workplaces with an equal gender mix perform better than their male-dominated counterparts. This has however not translated to more balanced workforces, and more specifically, in leadership positions. It is still uncommon to see women in traditionally male-dominated fields and vice versa, but the situation is better than it used to be. My experience under a female boss was quite unique in my opinion. The pros were mostly centred on more empathy around the workplace, which is of course, for the women who managed to retain their empathy after climbing the corporate ladder. Generally, they would be more understanding in situations like maternity leaves because they would relate to what they were going through. A boss that is female is more approachable mostly owing to the fact that women communicate better than men generally. Women also tend to rise through the ranks by doing the work rather than through managerial positions or departments like accounting. This means they know or understand when the staff is performing well or poorly and acknowledges or rewards them accordingly. The cons, however, would be that in some instances, their behaviour is associated with hormonal changes. In their defence though, men also go through hormonal changes. So, bearing this in mind, a stressed or tired or frustrated female boss would be difficult to deal with but so would his male counterpart. It has often been stated that women’s emotions are more amplified. This is in reference to the myth that women are mostly in the mercy of their hormones. Female workers also seem to prefer having male bosses, probably owing to a psychological factor even though a female boss would be easier to approach. Also, owing to the hard nature of climbing the corporate ladder, women tend to even push fellow colleagues down in order to get ahead. In matters pertaining to being a leader myself, one of the biggest disadvantages I would face would easily be the need to please everyone. It is in everyone’s nature to seek general approval of people or be liked. This might lead to making popular decisions rather than wise ones and this might affect people or the business or organization. It would also take a great deal of effort to learn to make unpopular decisions that are eventually better for the people or the company.
References.
Brookes, S., & Grint, K. (2010). A new public leadership challenge? In The new the public leadership challenge (pp. 1-15). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cherry, K. (2006). Leadership styles. Retrieved from.
Houston, G. F. (2014). Frederik Willem de Klerk: the pragmatic peacemaker. Africa's Peacemakers: Nobel Peace Laureates of African Descent.
Tavares, G., Sobral, F., & Wright, B. E. (2019, July). Commitment to Public Values
and Charismatic Leadership in Front-line Public Organizations. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2019, No. 1, p. 17396). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
