Clintons Style of Management - Assignment Example

Clinton’s Style of Management   Introduction: Where the modern theories of leadership are concerned, especially in the light of the political frames, one of the most important contributions comes from a certain Nicolo Machiavelli. His work has commonly been identified with a type of realist theory of leadership that completely separates questions concerning the use of political power from any and all moral considerations, according to his reading, Machiavelli advocates the use of any means no matter how immoral or evil, to ensure the acquisition and retention of power (Holliday, 2000). He found the desire to acquire and claim as being normal and natural. Background William Clinton better known the world over as President Clinton was one of the most prolific leaders of the USA that the contemporary times has seen-charismatic, intelligent and awe-inspiring, Clinton was great simply because he defeated the proposition put forward by Machiavelli, his leadership was successful because of its manifestations not because of the fact that he managed to get power and to stay in power. Bill Clinton was elected as the President of the US twice-the most allowed or the post- in 1992, in 1996. he was also the first Democrat who was able to get elected to a second term for in almost six decades. Under his leadership, the United States enjoyed the strongest economy in a generation and the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. President Clinton’s core values of building community, creating opportunity, and demanding responsibility resulted in unprecedented progress for America, including moving the nation from record deficits to record surpluses; the creation of over 22 million jobs—more than any other administration; low levels of unemployment, poverty and crime; and the highest homeownership and college enrollment rates in history. President Clinton’s accomplishments in the White House include increasing investment in education, providing tax relief for working families, helping millions of Americans move from welfare to work, expanding access to technology, encouraging investment in underserved communities, protecting the environment, countering the threat of terrorism and promoting peace and strengthening democracy around the world. His Administration’s economic policies fostered the largest peacetime economic expansion in history. President Clinton previously served as the Governor of Arkansas, chairman of the National Governors’ Association and Attorney General of Arkansas. As former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, he is one of the original architects and leading advocates of the Third Way movement. Clinton is one of the most successful presidents in the history of USA. He has been credited with the creation of over a billion jobs and an economic force that brought USA into the IT age. Not just this, his foreign policy agenda and implementation of foreign policy decisions have been among the best strategized in contemporary world history. It would therefore be interesting to study his style of management, leadership and decision making in some detail.  One can call it a manifestation of Clinton’s confidence in his abilities or his notions of naiveté but in 1992, much to many people’s surprise, he came up with a book, “Putting people First”. The book was also perceived by some to be the platform that Clinton contested the elections on (Weisberg, 1994). The basic manifesto he put forward consisted of five pronged goal attainment. These, by order of importance, were the economy, the work and welfare requirements of the American citizen, healthcare and government reform. He promised that he would get the economy out of the slumber in which it had been put due to the recession of 1991-92, and work toward the creation of 8 million jobs, in part by achieving the reduction of the fiscal deficit. He promised to transform the welfare by obliging recipient’s or work after two years on the dole. He also proposed health sector reform wherein the cost of healthcare would be brought under control and for guaranteeing a basic benefits package to every American. He declared support for an education-and-training agenda be called lifetime learning. Last, he pledged to make the process of governance smarter chepae and ore efficient.   One of his most important achievements undoubtedly would be the boom phase of the economy that characterized much of his presidency and began in fact soon after his assumption of office in 1992. During his tenure of eight years, the American economy was able to overcome not just the brief but deep hurting scars of the recession of 1991-92 but also was able to grow by as much as fifty per cent in tangible terms, meaning that he more than fulfilled his prophesized target of reduction of deficit. In fact by the time he vacated the White House, America had a gross national product of $10,000bn to show for Bill Clinton’s efforts-almost a quarter of the entire world economic output (BBC Report, 2001). The fact that the economy saw a phase of booming robust health like it did had manifestations in terms of positive impacts on the entire spectrum of the economic situation. The rate of unemployment dropped by half, to 4 per cent which was a record 40-year low, while it created jobs to the tune of almost 15 million. The stock market grew even faster - by more than three times - creating thousands of millionaires among middle class stockholders, and employees of fast-growing companies like Microsoft - before the high tech index, the NASDAQ, fell back sharply this year.   Clinton took office at a time when the political landscape at home and abroad seemed ripe for reworking. The conclusion of the cold war had brought an end to a bipartisan consensus undergirding American foreign policy for more than forty years and the US was poised to undertake a new role in world affairs (Brinkley and Dair, 2004). At home, the nation was coming out of a deep recession and the electorate was demanding change-a theme not just embraced by Clinton in his campaign for election bit also embodied in the strong independent candidacy of H Perot. Clinton took office promising to move the Democratic Party to the vital center of the electorate by combining the party’s traditional concern for disadvantaged people with a new emphasis on smaller government, fiscal conservation and reliance on market forces. When he came to power, he seemed to be positioned to craft an enduring political alignment especially in light of the fact that he likeable, well educated, and articulate. He had been the elected Governor of Arkansas four times and hence was an experienced public executive. As a politician he possessed an uncanny knack for overcoming adversity and escaping crises. He was ambitious and brought with himself the youth, energy and optimism of a new generation of political leaders to the White House.   Clinton’s style of Leadership and the mantras for success Clinton’s style of leadership is what was known as a blend of the collegiate and the competitive style of decision making and man management, developed during his stint as Arkansas governor (Harris, 2005). The focus of this particular style of decision making is an organizational style that is a lot less hierarchical (Cottam, 2004). The collegial style of management and decision making focuses on working as a team, sharing responsibility and consensus building with in interest in the generation of options openness to information and reaching a doable, as well as best decision. This had an impact on the manner in which Clinton made decisions on domestic policy agenda. For example, one of the most successful of his policy choices was the 1993 Economic Plan wherein he cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers (The Clinton record). This was an idea that emanated from a team that was well connected with the requirements of the economy. Leaders organizing their advisers around the collegial style want to be involved in the policy making process and are usually uncomfortable when they are not in the middle of things. The competitive style on the other hand, centers on confrontation, with the leader setting up an organization with overlapping areas of authority to maximize the availability of information and differing perspectives. This was utilized in his dealing with foreign policy issues. The Kyoto protocol and the issue of West Asia and the relative resolution of problems were just some his better known successes. The emphasis in this case is on competitive systems-a culture of debate and advocacy with the leader playing the role of the final arbiter.   If one surveys the literature on the Clinton administration, it is evident that Clinton’s advisory structure was collegial and he exercised low centralization over the policy making process (Mitchell, 2005). In fact there is some consensus that he has a collegial advisory structure. It has for example been argued that he preferred an informal setting while shaping policy which is compatible with the collegiate style. The idea therefore is that Clinton exercised a low level of control over the actual nitty gritties of the decision making process but made sure that ultimate accountability was maintained. This would therefore explain his preference for welfare reforms and crime control. The childhood immunization scheme, Clinton-Gore Deficit Reduction Plan, Motor Voter Registration were some the decisions that have a clear mark of the collegiate style of leadership and decision making (Clinton Presidency: Eight years of peace). Clinton’s freewheeling staff system without clear lines of authority indicates the degree of control that he maintained over his team. He ensued that he would always be in control by establishing a system of decision making that was impromptu and had no clear lines of authority. Despite the low levels of centralization in obvious manners, he was well known for his penchant of immerse himself in the details of policy, while at the same time demonstrating a willingness to listen to the views of those around him.   One would have to understand the fact that Clinton’s presidency was not without fault or problems. Keeping the personal issues of his life apart, and concentrating purely on the professional aspects of it is not an option, especially given the nature of the American union and the role that the perception of leaders plays in the determination of the success and failures of political careers. One of the manifestations of the media vendetta against the man was a 13, 000 word cover story by Michael Kelly that appeared in the New York Times magazine, in Clinton’s four year of his first White House tenure. The article had the finesse of a bullet being fired at a wounded man and argued that Clinton was an allegedly idealistic person who had been corrupted by politics to the point where he like Nixon, had no sense of right or wrong. It was further stated that there was hollowness to the Clinton presidency, a sense that it lacked a center because the man at its center lacked one of his own. The problem with Clinton the writer argued that he was not just a failed leader but a failed human being, with the essential character flaw being not so much dishonesty as a-honesty. The humor was sarcastic when it stated that it isn’t that Clinton means to say things that are not true or that he cannot make true but that everything is true for him when he says it because he says it.     Despite all his apparent problems with fidelity, the fact that Hillary Clinton seemed to be making a fortune off commodity exchanges and that the Haiti refugees were crying foul over their treatment along with the problems at Rwanda, where things ultimately escalated to the level of a genocide, Clinton I believe was one of the most charismatic effective and successful political leaders that the contemporary world has seen and arguably the most successful American President within the last century if not ever. The reasons for this are simple. There can be no leader without his flaws or his critics, the ability of the leader’s effectiveness should be judged by his the trust that his followers are able to manifest in his abilities, the ability of the leader himself to live up gauge the needs of the people that are his followers, to come up with promises top deal with the requirements and to fulfill the promises thus made.   The outcomes and the evaluations: Bill Clinton conducted a serious, substantive presidency. His domestic policy achievements were not inconsiderable and were accomplished against great odds. He had rescued the Democratic party from irrelevance and pursued a novel philosophy of governance that made public sector activism plausible once again even in a time of national apathy and skepticism, moreover, he performed the most important service that a leader could provide. He saw the world clearly and reacted prudently to the challenges facing him; he explained a complicated economic transformation to the American public and brought them to the edge of the new era…he might be remembered as the President who served before history resumed its contentitious dance, before life got serious again (Klien, 2002). His empathetic perspective with respect to healthcare reform earned America’s landmark legislation in the form of the Ryan Act where full funding was passed. There was also the creation of a task force to deal with AIDS and drug abuse issues. The reform of the education sector has been spoken about- with the arrival of the new millionaires and hence the new philanthropists the administration was able to fill gaps in the federal funding on education and hence money was found for school reform. The administration instilled the concept of higher education for all children, while also seeking align federal programs with state reform and alignment plans thereby enhancing the ideals of the federal-state partnership (Lunenberg and Ornstein, 2007). The reforms were reflective of the national consensus or demand to increase the national role in education. The economic strength to which his presidency piloted the US was heretofore unseen. One of the biggest problems with charismatic leaders like Clinton is the fact that the leadership is at times defined by an over expression of charismatic skills causing stigma and a lack of other leadership skills that could be catastrophic. The President Clinton and his alleged affair with an intern named Monica Lewinski was a cause of problem.  As a graduate of Georgetown University and a Rhodes Scholar, then President Clinton claims he misunderstood the definition of term that many of us have no problem understanding.  Given the fact that the modern books on leadership outline factors of integrity, decisiveness, competence and vision belies the importance of a leader that is true to himself and his followers. A good leader is one that is honest tro hwat is expected of him. Clinton in this context therefore comes across as a failed leader. In conclusion one could reiterate the fact that Clinton’s greatness in leadership capacity stems from the fact that he was essentially a peacetime leader, with no defined set of roles for his policy, especially in the light of the fact that American foreign policy for almost five decades had been defined by the Cold War. The fact that he was able to streamline a set of goals for himself and the nation and come up with the goods he promised is what makes him great, he left behind a legacy of an economy that was richer than the state he had found it in. despite the trend of complete antipathy taking over the nation, he tried to live up to his duty as the leader of the single world hegemon and played the role of mediator in West Asia and even Rwanda-he tasted success at one instance and failure at another. Finally, the social reforms at home and the complete support of his family and the American public he enjoyed despite his indiscretions are proof of the fact that he indeed was a great leader, a loved politician and an incomparable strategist.   Reference: Weisberg, J., (1994). Why is Bill Clinton a great American President. NO really. New York magazine. Pp17-25    BBC Report, (2001). Bill Clinton's economic legacy. Retrieved March 29, 2010,   Brinkley. A., and Dyer, D., (2004). The American presidency. Kogan page. Pp499-501 Mitchell D, 2005, Making foreign Policy: President management of the decision making process, pub, Ashgate Publishing, pp141-142  Cottam M L, 2004, Introduction to Political Psychology, pub, Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers, pp98-100  Harris P, 2005, The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House, pub, Barnes and Noble, pp244-250  The Clinton record, accessed October 3, 2009,   Clinton Presidency: Eight years of peace, accessed October 3, 2009, Holliday, V. L., (2000). Classical and modern narratives of leadership. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. Pp45-47 Klien, J., (2002). The Natural: The misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton. DoubleDay-Division of Random House. Pp216-217 Lunenberg, F., and Ornstein, A., C., (2007). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices, Volume 13. Cengage Brain. pp228-230 Read More