Leadership of Turkish Founder Mustafa Kemal Atatrk - Assignment Example

Critical Analysis of the Leadership of Turkish founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (May 19, 1881 - October 30 1923) I. Leader’s Profile andBackground: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (May 19, 1881 - October 30 1923) Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is the founder of the Republic of Turkey after the old Ottoman Empire was dissolved when it sided with Germany and its allies who lost in the First World War. Ataturk was the Turkish Republic first President and served from October 30, 1923 and transformed Turkey from being a “sick man” of Europe to a secular, democratic and progressive state. The reform Ataturk instituted in Turkey was sweeping for he was able to transform the country from a religious state ruled by caliphs and sultans to a progressive secular state which is unique in the Middle East region. As a leader, Ataturk is an astute statesman who can adopts his leadership style contingent to the need of the situation. During the War of Independence, Ataturk employed a charismatic leadership and romanticized leadership to resist the Allied Forces. During his presidency, he was known to be a peacemaker and reformer with his slogan “Peace at Home, Peace in the World” and considered war as a crime unless it is carried out in national self defence whose survival depends on it. Turkey could have been a colony of the British or the French had it not been with the bold and daring leadership of Ataturk. When Germany lost to the allied forces of which the old Turkey allied itself with, allied forces occupied the whole of the country of which it nearly made a colony and its caliphs already considering on whose side it would make itself a colony. But Ataturk wanted independence in Turkey and left Istanbul on small boat Bandirma to Samsun on May 19, 1919 and begun the Turkish War of Independence. From then on, Ataturk became a charismatic leader of Turkey wading off invading allied forces against all odds. Finally, Ataturk became victorious ending the War of Independence with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923 where Turkey was recognized as an independent state. Ataturk became its President on October 30 1923 until his death on November 10, 1938 and immediately instituted sweeping reforms on all aspect of Turkish life from the political, social, legal, economic, and cultural spheres and laid down the foundation of a modern Turkey which is based on democracy and sovereignty. II. Analysis of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk Leadership In assessing the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, it is important that we have to contextualize his leadership to allow us to make an accurate analysis of his leadership. To put it in perspective, we have to consider that at the time when Ataturk led, Turkey was in a national crisis and was about to be colonized by allied forces. It was an extraordinary circumstance because it was not only their lives and their very existence that were at stake but also the future of their country which in effect, the future of every Turkish individual. When Ataturk led, “the Turks were on the ropes, with nationalist resistance owning few soldiers and no money” (Smith 2011). Putting the demarcation line between extraordinary circumstances with a relative peaceful atmosphere of a corporate environment is important because unlike in a corporate leadership where the motivation for efficacy is the overall health of an organization, the motivation of leadership in a state of war is a matter of survival and thus its contingency is different. Considering the circumstances of Ataturk when he exercised leadership, it would be accurate to conclude that the trait based perspective of leadership categorized Kemal as a natural leader that made him a charismatic leader whose leadership was romanticized to overcome the advances of the allied forces to transform the old Ottoman empire from the “sick man” of Europe to modern Turkey of today that is progressive, democratic and independent. a. Trait based perspective of leadership The trait based perspective of leadership posits that the innate and inherent qualities of an individual differentiate a leader from a non-leader (Zacarro 2007). Qualities such as accuracy in work, knowledge of human nature, and moral habits (Bird 1940), decisiveness in judgment, speech fluency, interpersonal skills, and administrative abilities makes stable leader qualities (Stogdill 1948). These qualities “foster consistent leadership effectiveness across a variety of group and organizational situations (Zaccaro et al 2004:104). Further research revealed that in addition to these inherent qualities, other variety of individual differences predicts leadership effectiveness that includes motives, values, cognitive abilities, problem solving skills and expertise (Yukl 2006). Trait based leadership theory explains why Ataturk was effective as a leader during the darkest hour of Turkey because he displayed such boldness and decisiveness to overcome the almost impossible. Take for example during his defence of the Dardanelles where the Allied Forces assault involved 200 ships that easily overwhelmed Turkey’s first line of defence. Ataturk, in his bold display of leadership rushed to the front line instead of retreating in an impending defeat to fix bayonets to make the defence a trenched warfare. Heavily outgunned, he knew that he cannot win against the advancing allied forces with superior logistics and armament because they were heavily outgunned and outnumbered. Instead, he turned it to a battle of will of dragging the war in trenches. To embolden the resolve of his men to stand their line, he ordered his troops “I do not expect you to attack; I order you to die!” (Smith 2011). They held out and dragged the defence for eight months until the Allied Forces gave up and withdrew. Clark even wrote that "Ataturk was incredibly determined, to the point of arrogance, and almost without personal regard for his popularity, safety or well-being in pursuit of his larger aims,"(Smith 2011). This resolve was consistent with the decisiveness in judgment, uprightness of motive and values of trait perspective that separates a leader from non-leader. Away from the battlefield, Ataturk was also known for his “diplomatic and oratory skills” and was known to be exceptionally brilliant finishing second from top when he graduated from the military school. These qualities of decisiveness and boldness to the point of disregard to personal safety were properly conveyed with his exceptional skill that also made him a charismatic leader that he can order his troops to die. b. Charismatic leader Charismatic leadership is not well regarded in the modern management that stresses participation and follower involvement which run counters to Ataturk’s leadership who singlehandedly emancipated and transformed Turkey from the old Ottoman ruin, to a modern and progressive Turkey that it is today. Charismatic leadership is relegated to as leader-centric that relies too heavily on the “the influence of leader characteristics and behaviours in producing followers’ motivation, attitudes, and behaviours” (Howell and Shamir 200:96). It is stereotyped as “heroic leadership” (Beyer 1999) where followers are almost non-entities in achieving a goal because the merit goes to the leader to have singlehandedly determined the success of groups or organizations. This perspective about charismatic leadership might be true in a stable and peaceful society where conflict is absent and the situation does not need any extra ordinary action to resolve any impending leadership issue. In a state of conflict however, especially when a state such as Turkey is overwhelmed by the allied forces that many of its leaders fell into resignation with its caliphs and sultans were even collaborating with the Allied Forces in acceptance to its defeat, an extraordinary and charismatic leader is needed to make its follower believe that they can resist and defeat a much stronger force. In the situation of Turkey, the subordinates are already resigned to the foreign power. Its caliphs are even collaborating with the Allied Forces as an act of consummated defeat. Making the Turkish people believe again that they can be independent calls for a charismatic leader to restore their faith. For the Turkish people to be convinced towards a common, unified and dangerous path towards the struggle of independence calls for charismatic leadership. Any other type of leadership will not work such as participatory leadership because the situation calls for decisiveness, boldness that would make the subordinates believe that they can achieve a goal that is bigger than them. Tannenbaum and Schmidt argued that leadership style should be variable to make it effective and should not be contingent in only one pattern alone (1958) and this is what exactly Ataturk did because it was the necessary leadership during a conflict. House (1971), supported this changing of leadership pattern of Ataturk as effective in his path-goal theory by arguing that factors such as necessity of a situation influences the appropriateness of a leadership style (1977). c. Romanticized leadership Considering that Turkey was against the most powerful forces in the world, without money and few soldiers, it has to believe that it is greater than itself to achieve the almost impossible. Thus, to instil faith and belief among the Turkish people that it can resist and overcome a superior force, it is necessary to downplay any negative aspects for them to be decisive. This romanticized leadership worked in Turkey’s favour when Ataturk was defending Dardanelle with a force twice its number and equipped with military hardware that is far more superior than them that includes a powerful navy. Ataturk romanticized heroism by ordering his men not just to follow orders but to die in order to hold their defensive position against a more powerful force. So when the battle was reduced to the trenches, it became a battle of will where the much more superior force gave up. Had Ataturk’s capabilities were not exaggerated and the mortality of the situation was exposed, Turkish troops would have hesitated and retreated. Romanticized leadership may have an ill consequence when a leader overestimates its performance (Meindl 1995). This may lead to an inaccurate assessment of its environment that could lead to the organization’s failure. This may be true however in the atmosphere of normalcy where conflict is absent and one’s very being is not at risk. But when conflict is necessary that mortal harm is a reality to achieve a goal such as independence, the leader may have to downplay the ill effect of harm and make injury socially desirable so that its subordinate will be ready to sacrifice in order to achieve its bigger objective (Gray and Densten 2007). d. Transformational leadership Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s legendary leadership which is characteristic of a statesman manifested when he retired his uniform after winning the War of Independence. He changed his leadership style in accordance with the situation that calls for rebuilding and reform of Turkey. The General who ordered his troop not just to follow orders but to die adopted a different stance during his presidency with a slogan “Peace in Turkey, Peace in the World” and transformed Turkey from its expansionist tendency during its Ottoman era to the retraction of its border to make it compact and progressive. He adopted a transformational leadership where subordinates expect much from themselves and are motivated not by exchange or reward but by a belief towards a common goal and objective (Ismail et al., 2010). The former Ataturk who was fierce in the battlefield displayed tremendous importance of desirable inter-relationship by giving women their full rights and universal education. At some point, he even taught the new Turkish language (a variation of the Latin language that is one of the language reform Ataturk instituted abolishing the old Arabic script which was difficult to understand) to the illiterate which is a categorical display of transformational leadership to better the welfare of its followers to become better and contribute to the greater good (Bass 1990). Instead of glorifying his victories, Ataturk also paid more attention the welfare of others. He was so admired and loved that the idealized influence component of transformational leadership touched almost all sphere of Turkish life that busts, photos and statues of him are still ubiquitous in Turkey until today. Bibliography Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, (Winter): 19-31. Beyer, J. M. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 307–330. Bird, C. (1940). Social psychology. New York: Appleton-Century. Corona, M. A. (2010). The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership: A Hispanic American Examination. The Business Journal of Hispanic Research, 4(1): 22-34. Gray, J. H. & Densten, I. L. (2007). How Leaders Woo Followers in the Romance of Leadership. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(4): 558-581. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 321–339. Howell, J. M., Shamir, Boas (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 96-112. Ismail, Azman; Mohamad, Mohd Hamran; Mohamed, Hassan Al-Banna; Rafiuddin, Nurhana Mohamad; Zhen, Karen Woon Pei (2010). Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles as a Predictor of Individual Outcomes. Theoretical & Applied Economics, 17(6):89-104. Meindl, J.R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 329–341. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership (1st ed.) New York: Free Press. Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1): 6-16.  Read More