Leadership, Mitt Romney and Hilary Clinton, they have been persistent and motivated candidates for the highest leadership position in the United States: President. Both Romney and Clinton are exploring a run for the presidency in 2016. Each of them has had “vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals” (Northouse 2013 p. 21). Despite multiple attempts to gain the office neither has been able to achieve that goal. Is there something else missing from their perceived leadership abilities?
Romney has displayed an inability to convince other of his sociability the “inclination to seek out pleasant social relationships” (Northouse 2013 p. 26). Advisers indicate that his experience on the campaign trail will make him “more comfortable in public” (Rosenthal 2015). In fact what he needs is to be friendly, outgoing and have positive energy (Northouse 2013). He has offended many with his comment that 47% of the population is dependent on the government. The real number was likely to be much lower depending on how reliance on government was measured (Scherer 2012). This comment alone impacted his sociability by not showing concern for others’ well being during trying economic times.
Clinton faced challenges to her integrity during her time as Secretary of State due to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. She was grilled by Congress and appeared have exceeded her level of tolerance for the line of questioning when she displayed anger in denying the idea of a cover-up. Despite the reality that the House Intelligence Committee report did not conclude Clinton delayed action (Collins 2014) the House of Representatives reauthorized the special committee’s investigation without setting a deadline (Associated Press 2015). Certainly this will be raised as an issue during any campaign where Clinton runs for president. How well she handles the ongoing investigation will reveal any changes in her leadership traits.
Clinton will need to exhibit at least two of the ten traits Stogdill identified. Each of these is needed by all opposition political party members; the “willingness to tolerate frustration and delay” and a “readiness to absorb interpersonal stress” (Northouse 2013 p. 21). As president she would have to lead the very same legislators in front of whom she must testify. So she must exhibit sociability to some degree. Clinton also must be able to influence the followers, the legislators, either directly or through the input of constituents.
Romney and Clinton each face challenges in leadership traits. It may be time for fresh leaders to be evaluated and nominated.
References
Associated Press. (2015 January 6). House reauthorizes special committee probing Benghazi attack. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/01/06/us/politics/ap-us-benghazi-investigation.html
Collins, G. (2014 November 26).Counting Benghazi Blessings. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/opinion/gail-collins-counting-benghazi-blessings.html
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Rosenthal, A. (2015 January 14). Rationale for another Romney candidacy: He would have prevented ISIS. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/rationale-for-another-romney-candidacy-he-wouldve-prevented-isis/
Scherer, R. (2012 September 18) Mitt Romney video fact check: Is 47 percent of US ‘dependent’ on government? The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0918/Mitt-Romney-video-fact-check-Is-47-percent-of-US-dependent-on-government
Ryan T Russler says
In the last two presidents we have seen what can happen when we have leaders who only carry a few traits that Stogdill identified and were able to capitalize on those traits, rather than having a well rounded base of all strengths. In Bush we saw a leader who was able to rub the country the wrong way, and seemingly run through congress like a bull in a China shop, but still get his own way from time to time. Bush was able to get so many different financial and war-based proposals through the house and the senate and did so under the guise of national safety and financial well being.
Obama was just the opposite. Barack Obama is one of the finest orators in the last century. He has an ability to inspire many with his words, unfortunately his follow through leaves a lot to be desired. He has instead decided to push the bounds of legality in order to push forward his party’s agenda to the American people.
To your subject matter, I agree that both of these candidates have a lot to overcome. Mit truly does seem out of touch with the voting base in America, not only within his own party, but also with the Democratic voters as well. Hillary at this point seems to have an open run through the Democratic nominations, however, the country is still reeling from the Obama hangover that has left a bad taste in the mouth of a lot of voters. It will be interesting to see if either or neither of these candidates step up to the plate when it is necessary, and if so, will that even make a difference to the outcome of 2016.