With such an importance regarding followership, what happens when you are unable to connect with each follower? What if only 51.3% of your followers truly supported you (Lindsay, 2020)? Followers are an important part of the leadership process because they are the ones assigned to complete the tasks working in favor of the leader and group, as well as support, challenge, and learn from the leader (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3). While challenging the leader may help advance ideas and goal achievement, too much push back or distrust from the followers can create a problem. According to Lindsay (2020), President Joe Biden won 51.3% of cast votes, leaving a 48.7% gap of follower uncertainty. How is a leader in such high position supposed to lead a country that only 51.3% of voters voted for, and how exactly do leadership theories apply to such high numbers?
The situational approach to leadership suggests a leader adapts to their followers, as they can actively switch from directive roles to more supportive, depending on the situation (PSU WC, 2021, L. 5). As president, it is impossible to adapt and switch roles, and they are faced with the moral duty of carrying out what was promised during their campaign. A criticism of the situation approach to leadership is that compared to smaller, more controllable groups, larger groups of followers may be less predictable, provide fewer chances for style pairing, and lacks evidence to back up its credibility (PSU WC, 2021, L. 5). When leading billions of people, there will be obvious backlash, resistance, unpredictable reactions from fellow country leaders and citizens, and an immense amount of pressure to make the right call. While a leader of such high status can create new ideas in respect of others, push agendas they see fit, and implement reforms to transform areas of living, there will always be groups of people that are left out or negatively impacted. Because of this, it does not seem fit that the situational leadership approach is appropriate to define the position of the President of the United States (POTUS).
The personality and traits of a person are arguably one of the strongest criteria when searching for life partners, friends, and leaders. The Five Factor Model (FFM) introduces conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion as the main categorical summary of human traits and personality (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2). The traits approach is an important aspect of leadership because traits are a way we present ourselves. How exactly is President Biden supposed to win the hearts of the almost 48% of voters that did not choose him on the ballot? As seen with his predecessors, the US citizens that have lived through the ups and downs of presidencies over the years, and the convictions and victories that go along with it, there will never be a time that everyone looks at them in the same light. The trait approach to leadership is criticized for its inability to isolate leadership traits when presented with different situations; “the situations influences” leadership (Northouse, 2018, p. 31). When speaking about the POTUS, this criticism is a perfect description for the issue in terms of this type of leadership. Our traits and personality are a part of us, and it is rarely a changing aspect. To contrast this criticism, Northouse (2018) claims a strength of this approach is that we consider our leaders to be gifted, intelligent, specific types of people and the differences between people is what makes it a fulfilling approach. This type of approach caused an uproar in the recent 2020 election as both political sides argued for who they saw as more fit to represent our country, and former president Trump received backlash from billions of people and the media. President Biden is argued by some to be softer spoken and more people oriented, while former president Trump was thought by some to be the opposite. “People have a need to see their leaders as gifted people, and the trait approach fulfills this need” (Northouse, 2018, p. 30). The end consensus for this approach is that while the trait approach may not fit the role of presidency itself, the trait approach is important for the voters.
In slight contrast, the skills approach explains how “leaders must possess certain abilities that allow them to act as a leader” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4). It would seem obvious that the POTUS should attain skills specific to their role, but Donald Trump, who had little political background, won against Hillary Clinton, who has been in politics for decades. The 2020 election presented Joe Biden as the election winner, but many people are questioning his abilities and skills in different ways than they questioned former president Trump and each president before him. At all times, the president is making decisions and giving speeches, and their skills must be highly adaptable, but there will consistently be groups of people who do not believe in their abilities. Whether it was a good or bad presidency, the president’s legacy is what will always be remembered; what did they accomplish? The skills approach “describes good and bad patterns of behavior without necessarily predicting future success or failure” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4). The 2016 and 2020 election brought to light that former president Trump had no military or political experience, while Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have been in politics for decades. Skills that Trump was recognized for greatly differed from the skills of Clinton and from Biden. The skills approach is rather subjective for the role of POTUS because there is a divide between who we believe has the skills for the position, and the skills that the president objectively has, making the skills approach a partially effecting description of leadership. Trump was not the first president to hold very little “credentials” of presidency, as seen in the graph below (Crockett, 2016).
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7450285/mainchart.png)
(Photo cited from: Crockett, 2016)
The president of the United States holds a great deal of power and high status of leadership. Because there is such a large following, or lack thereof, of this type of leader, it is almost impossible to match just one leadership theory to explain what approach best matches the demands. Some voters value the traits over skills, or how their leader prioritizes goals, and their flexibility in handling certain situations. The best approach, based on the gathered information, helps conclude that there is no determination of one single theory that makes a president successful according to everyone. When dealing with such great numbers, this type of leadership position is unlike average workplaces in which the effectiveness and support of the leader may have bigger impact on them. In terms of presidency, the citizens are the ones who consider which candidate holds the best characteristics and styles to lead the country. The POTUS must acquire parts of each leadership theory, as they are expected to be flexible in their styles and abilities, making it unmatchable to one effective approach for all. Though there are numerous other approaches, the pattern of styles and needs of leaders is clear.
References
Crockett, Z. (2016, November 11). Donald Trump is the only US president ever with no political or military experience. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13587532/donald-trump-no-experience.
Lindsay, J. M. (2020, December 15). The 2020 Election by the Numbers. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers.
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (Eighth Edition). SAGE Publications
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 4: Skills Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules
This was a great idea to write about! I struggled coming up with an idea for mine. However, yours does bring to mind a lot thoughts. Like you say, ‘what happens when you are unable to connect with each follower?’ As I’ve read through all of the theories, and you’ve so succinctly described most of them here, they all seem to rely on being a leader on a smaller scale. Justifiably so, only 46 people have ever ascended tot he heights of being a president, and only so many people can run multi-billion dollar corporations, so it makes sense that leadership is taught on smaller scales. But it does make me wonder. I know that there have been a lot of papers and books and news articles written that describe the various traits of presidents past and current (none that I can reference immediately off hand), and they’ve determined that most of them all share some common traits, even the ones who were not well liked. A good example in this could be President Nixon. Widely known to have lost the 1960 election to JFK because of the advent of tv and he was sick and didn’t look as distinguished as JFK did; but then in 1968, he turned around and won the ticket, and then won again four years later. His personality didn’t change, his traits didn’t change. So maybe it was his followers that changed?
I also think the presidency is a good example, as you point out several times, not everybody like you, or even wants you in the office. When you’re one of those, who won by such a slim margin, how do you lead the people who were so vehemently against you? I think this is where leadership theories fall short, and you only have the examples of experiential leadership throughout your past, and the words of those who have been in those shoes – those who have been president before, in your example.