George Washington. Ronald Reagan. Margaret Thatcher. Barack Obama.
Lee Lacocca. Patricia Carrigan. Don Bennett.
What is the difference between these two lists? Unless you’re vying for a spot on Jeopardy, there should be one list that the names are very familiar to you while the other makes you go “Who?”. In actuality, each of these lists contain people who are considered leaders for different things they have accomplished. How is it, then, that someone can ramble off the facts about what the first list of people did but stare at the second list and, again, say “Who?” I believe this ties into a question of what types of leaders are best remembered and my thought that those best remembered are those who utilize the situational approach.
According to Northouse (2013), situational leadership is “the theory…that different situations demand different kinds of leadership” and that “a person [must] adapt his or her style to the demands of different situations” (Pg. 99). To put it in other terms, this approach basically states that a leader recognizes what is needed for their followers, be it employees or a country of people, and tailors their leadership approach to best serve the situation.
How does this relate to the first list of people? In each case, the leader was responding to the situation that the country found itself in. Was the United States a newly born country and needed strong figure head to lead it? Yes, and George Washington was the man for the job! Was the United States outraged over 52 hostages being held captive for over a year and tired of a “free-love” generation? Yes, and Ronald Reagan made promises of vengeance if hostages were not returned and a return to “family values” in his campaign for president. Had the United Kingdom become known for corruption and the people don’t know if they can trust leadership? Yes, and Margaret Thatcher came in as Prime Minister with a strict set of moral guidelines and a way to “fix” the United Kingdom and return it to its former glory (Iron Lady, 2012). Was the United States tired of the way government had seemed to be ran for years on end? Yes, and Barack Obama swept in with the promise of “Change.” With each of these leaders, they addressed situational needs with their political campaign, their political stance and ideals once they were the leader of their respective countries, or a combination of both.
Now, how does this tie into situational leaders being the best remembered in history? If you ask anyone who lived through the 80’s what their thoughts are on Ronald Reagan, I’m pretty sure you will find that you’ll get a polarized answer of either loving or hating the president. Why do people have such a drastic reaction? According to the documentary Margaret Thatcher: The Iron Lady (2012), the people of the United Kingdom’s opinion of Thatcher was highly connected to if they made or lost money during her time in office. In essence, their opinion was shaped by how her leadership effected their money, or the situation of their wealth. In both of these cases, though, we are talking about people who were in leadership positions over 30 years ago now and yet, we still remember what they did. I can’t help but wonder if the same could be said about President Pierce?
I challenge you to stop and think of someone who you remember as a leader and ask yourself if you remember them because of the person they were/are or if you remember them for how they reacted to a situation.
The answer just might surprise you.
References:
Byron, A. (Director). (2012). Margaret Thatcher: The Iron Lady.
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.