Recently, but not uncommonly, we’ve been hearing of all these conflicts fuming out of Washington. As Brandon mentioned in an earlier post, when running for office, President Obama symbolically ran on the promise of change. Though there has definitely been plenty of conflict, many of us feel that there hasn’t been enough change. Now, looking at this from Bolman and Deal’s political structure perspective, we know that when there are various parties with diverse values and beliefs, aiming towards different results, there is inevitably going to be conflict there. Especially since there has been a shift of power (change) first in the Senate (2006), then in the White House with a new party president and most recently with a somewhat smaller shift in the Senate again (Nov. 2010). The federal government in this aspect, is still an organization, a public organization and therefore, I believe, change cannot come solely from the top leader/official. The opposite of his predecessor, I believe President Obama has a much more lenient leadership style; he commonly practices lateral coordination. Through meetings, taskforces and open communication; his style seems the total opposite of how the former President Bush dealt power while in office. Which is more effective? I supposed that all depends on ones’ definition of effective. If effective means accomplishing ones’ agenda at all cost, lacking in support and respect of majority, than yes, one can be effective at that. Most of us can agree, regardless of what our political or moral beliefs, that the former President Bush has accomplished much of his set agenda. Should than President Obama tackle the conflict that has been plaguing our Congress and our nation by abandoning his ways of lenient and open leadership and following in the footsteps of his predecessor..? Perhaps, in order to be an effective, transformational leader, that’s exactly what he needs to do.
Gabriela J.
No comments:
Post a Comment