UNDERSTANDING TYPICAL OF
LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND FOREIGN POLICY
PERFORMANCE IN THE USA
By; Kam Imam
If i have learned anything in a lifetime in politics and government, it is the thruth of the famous phrase, “History is Biography”, that decision are made by people, and they make them based on what they know of the world and how they understand it.
Vice President george Bush,1987
One of the most unsetting things for the foreigner is the impression that our foreign policy can be changed by any new president on the basis of the president’s personal performance.
Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, 1979
Leadership, power, influence, path-builder, director. it can defined in many ways, but most commonly Leader is person who influences the thoughts and behaviors of others; a leaders is one who establishes the direction for others to willingly follow. One person can serve as a leader or several persons might share leadership. A person may be appointed as leader or may be elected by people within his circle. Leaders play vital role in standardizing performance. Leaders can influence other to perform beyond the expectations. Managers plan, organize, lead and control so that “leading” and “managing” are inseparable, they are both integral part of each other. If one cant influence and inspire others to work willingly towards aims then all planning and organizing will be ineffective. Similarly setting direction is usually not enough, no matter how inspiring one can be, management skills are crucial.
Leaders will simultaneously fill many roles interacting, motivating group members, solving conflicts as they arise. Leaders set vision, strategies, goals, and values in order to guide for desired action and behavior. Leaders are characterized by certain traits which distinguish leaders from non-leaders includes Drive, desire to lead, honesty, cognitive ability, self-confidence and knowledge. Effective leaders must have two major qualities: knowledge and communication competence. Leader needs knowledge of issue and the ways of effectively leading a team. This knowledge will enable leader to identify alternatives available. He also needs to be an effective communicator as equally listener and speaker. Leaders should acquire qualities of flexible, openness, empathetic, courage, interactive, and positive attitude.
Leaders are rarely chosen by elections. People with admirable, desirable, and consistent behavior inexplicably rise to leadership. These select people have certain characteristics that help people to recognize them leaders. Amongst these are confidence, morality, discipline and respect.
One important quality of a good leader is confidence. When a leader believes in himself, others will follow suit. Leaders cannot expect others to believe in them if they doubt themselves or the decisions they make. In addition, in order to lead, one must have a sturdy set of moral values. A steady set of values will always be a reference when one is faced with tough decision-making. People should be able to predict how their leader will react to certain situations because they know what creed they live by. A leader with moral values gives those who they lead assurance that the decisions they make will be desirable ones. Another trait that a good leader possesses is discipline. Leaders must be able to first discipline themselves and then those who they lead. With little effort, a leader should be able to put others on the right track. Finally, all leaders need respect: respect for themselves, respect for others, and most importantly, respect from others. A leader with no respect is no leader at all. People adhere only to those whom they respect; therefore, a leader must earn the respect of others through consistent and continue accountability. Any person who has these traits (confidence, morality, discipline, and respect) possesses the keys to leadership. It is their choice to use them effectively or not to use them at all.
Leader Characteristics is natural ability or made that influencing foreign policy performance in america and almost happened all over the world. It is used to influenced by inclining to take risks to exploit opportunities, world of view as a jungle, distrustful of others, contemptuous of his adversaries, and has a quick temper.
President is driven by a fear of failure stemming from low self-esteem, a fear overcome in the past by dramatic and succesfull action that restored his self-confidence, respond the crisis he faces, confine himself to the cannons of rational choice, or respond his unique characteristic behaviour affected by his background, belief, and his personality traits.
Individual Character In U.S Policy
Nation states are incapable of acting or thinking, they are simbols for collectivities and the people within their borders. So that the personal characteristic to make decisions on behalf of the nation are crucial to show what they are, why they are, and how they are in domestic and public role.
Here is the characteristic that has been potrayed by Charles W. Kegley jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf;
1. Individuals as a source of foreign policy
Individual is not the supporting aspects in leadership but the primary characteristics belongs to leader as the first capital that has been owned. Individual characteristics is main source for the leader. Ralp W. Emerson aphorism: There is properly no history only Biography, means that individual leaders are the makers and movers of history.
It is not strange anymore why in the exchange presidence Each new administration seeks to distinguish itself from its predecessor and to highlight policy departures as it seek to convey the message that it has enginered an new and better order.
As written in the American foreign Policy book literature (1996). For example, Truman doctrine, the Kennedy round, as if asserted that the individual are synonymous with the nation itself, and off routinely attributing foreign affairs successes and failures to the administration in which they occured. It is because the assumption and the fact that this policy of president has happend repeteadly so that the social society have opinion New Leader assumed to make a difference.
No boby refused that Leadership and policy are potrayed synonymous, and change in policy and policy direction are perceived as results of the predipositions of the leadership. Characteristic of individual draws attention to the psychological foundation of human conduct. Perception, personal need, and drivers are all important determinant of the way people act. The cognitions and responses of decision maker are determined not by “objective” fact of the situation; but by their image of situation. Act according to the way the world appears not necessarily to the way it is (boulding 1959)
2. Individual and foreign Policy performance
Almost every period the performance, policy and characteristic of leader is not identical, each person differs in some way from every other. Here we can see the Instance of Personal diversity of american president in post war II “soft-spoken” Ike eisen hower, “Charismatic” Jack kennedy, “Triky dick” Nixon, “Down-home” Jimmy Carter, Hollywood “Dutch” Reagan, Preppi” George Bush, “Slick willie” Clinton.
Individual and each characteristic of president, it can be seen from life history of policy makers, psychological make up and Worldview.The caused of personal diversity according to the barber, donovan and stoesinger are determined by their early chilhood experiences, relationship with their parent and peer, their self concept, and the like. These background factors are presumed to mold the leader’s personalities, belief and their later decision-making styles and policy making Behavior
3. Personal characterictics and foreign policy behaviour
These are some example of Personal characteristic and foreign policy behaviour; Woodrow wilson which has bad experience with his father made him to have created an all comsuming need in later to life to attain self-esteem. His policy is always back to his experience when he was child where his father always gave punishment to him which asked him to make policy that forced him to strove in order to perform great deeds to conpensate for his fear of rejection. James forrestal, the first american secrectary of defense, which always be driven and worrisom forrestal became obsessed by paranoiac fantasies too much that took him ended his carier tragically. Kennedy with his family which caused different treatment to the son in the family. So that in every his policy always make one policy different with predessor. The case of henry kissinger which escaped from persecution when he was still young. The fact when he was be president of America he consistenly acted as policy maker on his belief, first, that people are limited in what they can do, and second, that because of the complexity of life, many inponderables make history move. Ironically, however, the principle of uncertainty that supported his pesimistic world view may have been the source of his successes, for kissinger’s achievement may be attributed in part to his ability to use ambiguity, negotiated compromise, and secrecy as well as public relation strategies inginiouly devised to enhance his image.
These short story is to illustrate the varied personalities of those who have risen to position of power in the american foreign policy establishment and the impact of their need, back ground and prior experiences on their later outlook and policy making behavior.
One critical component of what leaders in managerial roles bring to the work setting is their traits, that is, the relatively enduring characteristics of a person. The current view is that specific traits do not invariably determine leadership effectiveness but they can increase its likelihood. The traits of leadership has indicated are most apt to predict effective leadership are drive, motivation to lead, honesty/integrity, self-confidence and emotional maturity.
As a person moves up in the organisation, the relative importance of technical and the importance of conceptual skills become increasingly critical. It should be clear that all three of these types of skills are vital to the leadership position. The first of these, emotional intelligence, has probably received the most attention to date, one of its chief proponents even going so far as to say it is the indispensable ingredient of leadership. The essence of emotional intelligence, as name implies, involves an awareness of others’ feelings and a sensitivity to one’s own emotions and the ability to control them. Then social intelligent, which is more focused outward on being able to ‘read’ other people and their intentions. A person who is socially intelligent is someone who has considerable tacit knowledge, knowledge that is not always directly made explicit or to use a more everyday term, is ‘savvy’. For leadership to occur, traits and skills must be transformed into behaviour. There are two types of leaders’ behaviour. Task behaviour, also termed initiating structure’ behaviours, centre on specifying and identifying the roles and tasks of the leaders themselves and their subordinates. Such behaviours involve planning assignments, scheduling work, setting standards of performance and devising the procedures to carry out the tasks. People behaviour, has also been termed ‘consideration’ or ‘relationship’ oriented. Essentially, include being friendly and supportive, showing trust and confidence.
We can explore these ideas further by looking specifically at the relationship between presindetial character and presidential performance. James david barber’s analysis of president’s personal traits and leadership styles is particularly informative. According to the Barber, president can be understood best by observing their “style” (habitual ways of prforming political roles), “World View” (political relevant belief), and especially “Character”, the way the president orients himself toward life not for the moment, but enduringly (barber 1992).
In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of 'successful' leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy and identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland, for example, Leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. Not so much as a pattern of motives, but a set of traits is crucial. To lead; self-confidence and a high self-esteem is useful, perhaps even essential. Barber explored dimensional character of presiden into two kinds. First, Critical means that the energy president put into the job active or passive. Second, their personal satisfaction with their personal duties. Postive or negative. These explanation can classified broader into four catagories; passive – negative emphasize their civic virtue like the calvin coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower, passive – positives are after love like william taft, warren harding and ronald Reagan, Active negatif aims to get and keep power like Woodrow wilson, Lindon Johnson and Richard Nixon President, and active – positive means that president want most to achieve result, here we can looked at how franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy George Bush and Bill Clinton lead and be real president in his foreign policy and Etc.
Surely, every styles of leadership will gave the positive and negative impact. But the posisitive character of president theoritically will minimize the negatif impact especially in facing the internal and external problem that president face. We realize that leader personalities impact foreign policy performance in many ways, ranging from grand design to their choice to the adviser and way they organize their advisory systems. In this context Alexander George (1988) describes three different approaches president have evolved for managing the task they all face of mobilizing available information, expertise, and analytical resouces for effective policy making. For example the formalistic which clear lines of authority minimize the need for presidential involvement in the inevitable politicking among cabinet officer and presidwntial adviser. The Competitive, in this system, the president purposely seeks to promote conflict and competition among presidential adviser. And the last, the Collegial model, collegial model system more priority teamwork and group problem solving are sought, with the president acting like the hub of wheel with spokes connecting to individual advisers and agency heads.
What approach a president chooses the system and how it operates in practice wil be shaped by the president personality: by his or her cognitive style analogues to his world view, sense of efficacy, and competence, and general orientation to political conflict influenced by their experience and invironment so that president will think hard to find the best solution and minimize problem and negative impact to the society and country. Another way to asses and explanate the impact of individual’ idiosyncratic characteristic on their foreign policy behaviour is to investigate Foreign policy belief associated with different personality traits.
Here is the personality traits that can be known in the literature book american foreign policy that has been written by Charles and Eugene;
1. The Nationalist
Nationalism is state of mind gives primary loyalty to one-nation-state to the exclussion of other possible object of affection.
2. The Militarist
It defines the individual attitude toward aggression
3. The Conservative
It is as a psychologycal concept, conservatism denotes a cluster of interrelated personality characteristic rather than a political philoshopy.
4. The Pragmatist
It is interestedin what work; their prime criterion of value is succes. It is the very definition of pragmatism to turn away from a belief in fixed principles toward the thruth of concrete result (miroff 1976)
5. The paranoid
It is psychoneurotic disorder characterized by excessive suspicion, fear, and distrust of others. Paranoids believe that people are out to get them, and their expectation becomes the driving force behind their behavior.
6. The Machiavellian
Deriving its name from the philosopher/adviser to the prince of florence in renaissance in Italy, It is a personality syndrome emphasizing strategy and manipulation over principle and sentiment.
7. The true believer
True believer is fanatic ideolgy stereotyped more to the terrorist, crusader and another believer that too much in his view to the world and another people, religion, and Etc.
8. The authoritarian
It is constellation of predisposition that includes adherence to conventional values and condemnation of those who reject them. Authoritarian crave authority, obeying leaders submissively and uncritically while abusing the right of subordinates. Authoritarian think in stereotypes; they see themselves as a victims, are cynical about other people’s motives, and value force and order. (adorno et al. 1950)
9. The antiautharitarian
Refers to a partially integrated attitude syndrome exhibited by introspective people uncomfortable with order and power. Antiauthoritarians impulsively embrace left-wing political views emphasizing idealism, optimism, and a preference for change (kreml 1977).
10. The dogmatist
The personality trait of dogmatism is characterized by a closed mind. Dogmatis prisoners of past attitudes form opinion and refuse to modify them despite contrari evidence. Unreceptve to forming new images, they are intolerant of ambiguity and incosistent information. Perceptual inflexibility is particular, as is passionate attachment to authority figures. Established doctrines are important to the dogmatist; hence, dogmatism is equated with rigidity (rokeach 1960).
According to Patrick J. Montana and Bruce H. Charnov, the ability to attain these unique powers is what enables leadership to influence subordinates and peers by controlling organizational resources. The successful leader effectively uses these power(s) to influence employees, and it is important for the leader to understand the uses of power to strengthen the leadership functioning. The authors distinguish the following types of organizational power:
· Legitimate Power refers to the different types of professional positions within an organization structure that inherit such power (e.g. Manager, Vice President, Director, Supervisor, etc.). These levels of power correspond to the hierarchical executive levels within the organization itself. The higher position such as President of the company has a higher power than the rest of professional positions in the hierarchical executive levels.
· Reward Power is the power given to managers that attain administrative power over a range of rewards. Employees who work for managers desire the reward from the manager and will be influenced by receiving it as a result of work performance. The rewards may be pay raisse or promotions.
· Coercive Power is the manager's ability to punish an employee. Punishment can be a mild punishment such as a suspension or a serious punishment such as termination.
· Expert Power is attained by the manager due to his or her own talents such as skills, knowledge, abilities, or previous experience. A manager which has this power within the organization may be a very valuable and important manager in the company.
· Charisma Power A manager who has charisma will have a positive influence on workers, and create the opportunity for interpersonal influence. A person has charisma, and this will confer great power as a manager.
· Referent Power a power that is gained by association. A person who has power by association is often referred to assistant or deputy.
· Information Power a person who has possession of important information at an important time when such information is needed to organizational functioning. Someone who has this information knowledge has genuine power. For example, a manager's secretary would be in a powerful position if the secretary has information power.
This is a simple exploration about individual characteristic that happened in American foreign Policy System that occurs in American Society. Still many other evidences that we can’t explain much about it where those all can explain clearly that foreign policy system in America is one of the fact unique over there that interested to be studied by Scholar of American studies.
Conclusion
We find that the people who make American foreign policy are not that different from one another after all. Only certain types of people seek position of power, and top leader are recruited from similiar backgrounds and rise to the top in similiar ways; consequently. They share many attitudes and personality characteristic. Morever, once in office, their behaviors are shaped by the position they occupy; they tipically see their options differently from within the system than they did outside it. Often they conform their belief to the beliefs of their peers and predecessors. The pressure impossed by the office and decision making setting elicit similar policy responses from diverse personalities. The result: different individuals often pursue their predecessor’ policies and respond to international event consistently. American policy makers thus routinely display a propensity for incremental change, perpetuation of establisehed routines of thought and action, preservation of established policies.
This reasoning invites the conclusion that, even though the president and his or her immediate circle of advisers constitute one of the powerfull institution in the world, and even though, in principle, they have the resources to bring about prompt and immediate change by the decision they make, those powers are in fact seldom excercised. In today’s complex world, it is difficult for great leader to emerge, and momentous decisions are rare. Personal characteristics influence the style with which decision are reached, but the overall thrust of America foreign policy remained highly patterned and fixated on the past. As Ole Holsti (1973) puts it, “Names and faces may change, interest policies do not”, thus Henry Kissinger’s comment in 1976, as the nation prepared to elect a new president, remains a timeless and telling observation: “the essential outline of U.S. Policy will remain the same no matter who wins the U.S. Presidential Election ”
References
W. Kegley, jr., Charles, and Eugene R. Wittkopf (1996) American Foreign Policy pattern and Process, Fifth Edition. New York
P. J. Montana and B. H. Charnov, 2008 Ch. "Leadership: Theory and Practice", p. 253
Batang-Batang 18 Juni 2011
