Introduction
Leadership is defined as the ability of an individual to lead and actuate others through his/her actions. A leader can guide individuals, as well as, organizations to follow a certain path. Leaders are responsible for doing right things for selves and with others. They are the ones who set particular direction as well as the vision which not just help them but others too. Leadership is not restricted to organizations, but it has been witnessed in public sectors, politics and even at our houses. The perception that all leaders practice good leadership qualities is not true. It is not necessary that leadership brings positive change, some leaders possess negative leadership qualities and others good leadership qualities. There are different types of leadership styles, for instance, transactional, transformational, autocratic, charismatic and others. All these leadership styles have certain pros and cons.
The world has witnessed numerous famous personalities who possess different types of leadership styles. Some of them are considered as good leaders whereas others as bad leaders, based on the outcomes they receive due to their leadership traits. The good and bad leaders categorization is utterly based on the qualities they possess. The research paper is going to evaluate the leadership traits between two famous leaders of their time Ronald Reagon and Saddam Hussain. Both personalities are considered as leaders, but the major difference between them is that one is considered as the good leader and another one as the bad leader.
Discussion
Ronald Reagon was the most influential personality. His influence on the people was not taken as the compulsion, but people willingly follow his instructions and paths due to his charismatic personality and leadership qualities. He is one of those leaders whose contributions towards people and society cannot be ignored and forgotten. His presence can be noticed as he was in the forefront in mending America's wounded spirit. His remarkable contributions towards restoring the free world, his unforgettable efforts has made him the best American president in the past half-century. His charismatic leadership style made him successful and famous among nations. The literal definition of charismatic leadership is defined as the desire expectations from leaders and followers side. The leaders possess charismatic leadership behavior when they engage themselves in extraordinary behaviors and depict an eminent expertise. Ronald possessed charismatic leadership style because he had all those prerequisites and traits which are included in this type of leadership style. To hold a charismatic leadership style, one must have effective communication, visionary, trustable, delegation of authority and impression management. All these traits were embedded in Ronald Reagon personality which made him an exemplified charismatic person.
Leadership Traits of Ronald
A good leader is one whose directions are followed by the people by their personal liking. People follow the message of the leaders because they like them and want to obey their instructions. Ronald had the personality because of which he became the likable fellow. The charismatic leader is one who has effective communication skills. Ronald was the great communicator; this fact has been supported by the authors Sheehan and Sheehan. In their book, Reagan was considered among people as the great communicator whose communication style was perceived as charismatic (Sheehan & Sheehan, 2006). Another study revealed that Ronald among all the US presidents was considered as the top most three charismatic presidents of America of the twentieth century when it comes to rating the inaugural speeches (Mio et al., 2005). Ronald had remarkable sense using metaphorical and symbolic words. For instance, Reagan called the USSR as the Evil Empire. The usage of these words for USSR were metaphors for describing the prevailing moral superiority over the Communist regime. Another words he used during his speech "Tear down this wall" it was the symbolic words which used to give U.S.S.R message to end the Cold War. In spite of using the metaphorical and symbolic words, he was good at using those words which depict the sentimental expressions for communicating the novel notions. These words were as follows: "It's morning in America," America, the shining city on a hill (Conger, Kanungo & Menon, 2000)." The expression of these words best depicts the sentimental side of followers.
The best leader is who has a specific vision, and that vision is also clearly communicated to followers without any ambiguity. His statement backed his visionary personality trait " America is too great for the small dream." True leaders never rely on small dreams, same was the scenario with Ronald, as he did not try to take an edge over the Soviet Union. Instead, he worked hard to eliminate the Evil Empire, which ultimately benefit the nation. His clarity of vision made him succeeded. However, it is crucial to find ways that help to communicate the vision to the followers effectively. It is foremost important that leaders and followers must be on the same page when communicating the vision. If followers do not have the similar vision, then it is quite difficult for the leaders to succeed in whatever endeavors he takes for achieving the ultimate vision. Reagon's vision was ideologic, he believed and promoted different conservative concepts, these include low taxes, individual freedom, smaller government, strong national economy, and strength national defense. As per his vision, every American should get the equal freedom to express their individuality. He started to articulate his vision in the way which helped him in appealing the followers. His vision is still prevailing among today's American political leaders of America. Trust is the key factor which creates a strong bond between leader and his followers. Without trust, no leadership is considered as effective; Ronald best quality was his created trust with his followers. He was famous and admired by his candid honesty. He did not believe in speculating the facts and plotting schemes. His integrity and honesty can be witnessed when he took all responsibility of Iran Arms and Contra Aid Controversy on his shoulders. However, he took the mistake of his administrative officials on his shoulders (Shamir, 1999). This is one of the examples which depicted his honesty and integrity levels that also helped in creating trust among followers. It is eminent for the charismatic leaders to an impression among their followers.
Ronald was well-known for showing off his conviction and courage. He used his personal conviction and strength to persuade the followers and also impress them with his values. Reager’s spontaneous personality and speaking without fear his opinions made him courageous and convicted among followers. He used the humor element very often in his speeches. Ronald showed his expertise when he managed the administration by utilizing delegation. He was not convinced for augmenting his personal power rather he was strongly convicted for his subsequent policies and vision. He was the expert tasks delegator and based on the socialized power orientation; he was considered as the good charismatic leader. In the times of social crisis, the charismatic leader comes up with a solution through his radical vision. In Reagon's charismatic leadership style, the situational context played an eminent role. One of the best examples was when he started campaigned in the 1970s when the nation was suffering from an economic downturn, during that time, he directly appealed to the followers' core convictions. At that time, he established a new vision which included strong military, small federal government and boosting economy. Throughout the crisis time, he had taken numerous actions which were backed by his followers. Through those visionary actions, he attributed charisma to his leadership style.
Leadership Style & Traits of Saddam Hussein
It was mentioned earlier that the leader is not assumed as positive leaders but also negative leaders. Positive and negative leaders both possess different types of leadership traits. Ronald was categorized as a positive leader as he possessed all the positive, charismatic leadership traits. Whereas, on the other hand, Saddam Hussein was considered as a negative or bad leader. He was an autocratic leader who loved to dictate others and forcefully make them their followers. The ruling nature and cruelty cost half million lives of Iraqi. He was the ruler of terror, who tried to control others decision by creating fear and terror. The autocratic leadership traits include nationalism, controlling power, need for influencing others and power needs, not a trustable relationship with others, one's self-confidence and esteem, and tendency to solve problems for own interests (Sadler, 2003). The high nationalism score depicts that the leaders usually blame others for all the losses a country faces.
Saddam Hussein was the personality who had scored high regarding nationalism. He was the cruelest personality who never stepped back taking lives of innocent for controlling them. People of Iraq was forced to obey his instructions because they were afraid of Saddam's brutal decisions. Saddam Hussein was not convinced to delegate authority by maintaining trust elements with others. That is the reason; he never involved anybody else in his final decision. He took self-interest decisions without taking anybody else input in the decision-making process. Saddam Hussein was the leader who had high urged to control others. He manipulated the surrounding environmental factors just to remain in power and control. He considered others as the ladder to achieve his personal interests like power and status. He believed that by creating fear and terror among people, he would have been achieved the desire self-interest outcomes. For that reason, he created a massive police state apparatus as well as paramilitary troops that helped in creating fear and terror among the other political opposition parties. He developed relationships with the top army leaderships to gain in return his interest outcomes. He also underestimated the power of a common man; that was the reason; he sacrificed the lives people for attaining more power. He took major war decisions against neighboring states for acquiring nuclear weapons, biological weapons and oil control. His decisions devastated the well-being of common people at Iraq.
The evil side of his leadership started in 1979 when he became the president. During that event, where he was officially taking his position as president, he betrayed all those people who were relying on him. The intoxication of power and control actuated him to enter in the war with Iran (the Muslim neighboring country). The war was fought to gain power and control internationally. The purpose was to take over the oil reserves and nuclear weapons. The war lasted for eight years and cost more than million lives of people. He built a relationship with the western countries for his benefits. On the command of the western world, he used chemical weapons against Iran soldiers. He possessed all the autocratic leadership traits: little or no input from members, leaders inability to delegate authority, lack of trust, lack of integrity and honesty, and building relationship for own interest rather others' interest. Saddam Hussein bossy attitude failed to create a friendly and trustable relationship with his people. That was the reason; everyone betrayed with him in his last ruling days. The dictatorship and bossy attitude created resentment among the people of Iraq. He was more inclined towards taking manipulated and self-interest decisions rather than creative and innovative solutions. One of the reasons of his failure ruling era was that he was more compelled to take self-interest decisions on his own without involving others (White, 1962; Kellerman, 2004).
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that leaders possess positive and negative personality traits which ultimately provide beneficially and adverse outcomes. In political history, we have examples of bad and good leaders who possess different types of leadership styles for instance Saddam Hussein (bad leader) and Ronald Reagon (good leader) held autocratic and charismatic leadership traits respectively.
References
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (7), 747.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Mio, J. S., Riggio, R. E., Levin, S. S., & Reese, R. R. (2005). Presidential leadership and charisma: The effects of metaphor. Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 287-294.
Sadler, P. (2003). Leadership. London: Kogan Page.
Shamir, B. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257.
Sheehan, J. J., & Sheehan, O. (2006). The American Presidency: Categorizing and assessing leadership qualities. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30(1), 9-14.
White, J. D. (1962). Autocratic and democratic leadership and their respective groups' power, hierarchies and morale.
