Leadership styles in China vs in the United States - Essay Example

28 April Leadership Styles in China vs. in the United s Leaders define the of a nation. In this democratic world, it is true that people have been bestowed the power to choose. The power to elect and the power to decide. Moreover, in countries where leaders are not elected or chosen by the people, there has been signs of a social uprising against oppressive leaders. However, what has been evident is the response these leaders have exhibited in the face of such uprisings. For now, the paper does not seek to focus on the social aspect of leadership.

The paper seeks to evaluate on two types of leaderships on the basis of two different cultures in two different nations. The nations are China and the United States of America. The cultures included here are collectivism and individualism. In the evaluation of the pros and cons of the two approaches, the paper will determine if one is better than the other based on the pros; however, it will elucidate a neutral conclusion. Singer and Millage (45) talk of the leadership advantage. Even if their talk is not based on a country point of view, the same can be extrapolated to apply to countries all over the world.

Hence, in their note, they indicate that organizations in this case countries, are always trying to be a step ahead. However, in their words, they question if there are adequate leaders to control the present challenges of the present word that is faced by all. Hence, their assertion is that an appropriate style of leadership strongly determines the direction and success of an organization, put country. Most conspicuously is the fact that each of the two countries, China and USA have different leaders with different styles of leadership.

Based on the focus of this paper, transformational and transactional leadership will form a huge part of the argument. On the one hand, Rosca and Stanescu (481) note that transformational leadership is founded on change. As such, according to the authors, transformational leaders change the mentality of a nation. For example, if a country had a government to create the employment mentality, the leader comes in and changes that mentality to the government to provide the necessary environment for employment seekers to be job creators.

Hence, such a leader transforms an entire nation to actualize the potential of the citizens no matter how minimal the margins of gain are. On the other hand, transactional leadership is based on rewards and goals. Thus, a national leader will set goals and aims that the followers will have to achieve in order to attain rewards. He or she is not so much about change, but the achievement of the set goals or vision if it is for a country. For the USA, the current leader is Barrack Obama. When President Barack Obama took over presidency during his first term, his victory was largely based on the idea of hope with the much-acclaimed slogan, “yes we can.

” It was a short slogan; however, the slogan moved multitudes across the country. At the time the country was grappling with a high rate of unemployment that had led to a very discontent population. However, the leader changed this discontentment to optimism and hope. Moreover, stating that, “yes we can,” the leader touched on the aspect of the individual. It is well known that capitalism is based on a culture of the individual. Jogulu (706) notes that culture and the leadership style cannot be underestimated or assumed.

As per the leadership style of the USA exhibited by its current leader, culture plays a huge role. In fact, the speeches given by the leader have always sought to motivate the individual. The understanding been that motivating the individual citizen will in return create a cohesive nation full of patriots. The leadership shown in the USA is a transformational one. However, the shortcoming of this type of leadership is that it exhibits a long process in expediting decisions. The reason being that the leader does not seek to take the praise for himself, but wants it to go to his followers.

Doing so means following the constitutional orders enshrined in the constitution of the USA, which was voted in by the people, or his followers. The case is different in China. The country follows a communist culture where citizens are taught that everything that is done is for the sake of the country and not the individual. Moreover, the country follows a form of leadership where citizens do not elect their leaders, but their leaders are chosen from a cream at the helm of the Communist party.

The leaders do not work to change the Chinese people, they lead to ensure that the set aims and goals of the Communist party are attained. Hence, the whole nation, in spite of the situation it is in, the values presented in the manifesto of the Communist party determine the leadership exhibited by the leader at the helm. Needless to say that, even though this form of leadership, transactional in nature, allows for faster decision-making, it is not as good as the transformational leadership exhibited in the USA.

For one, the citizens are treated as liabilities who have to work to ensure the country is on the path of achieving the set aims. The plight of the citizens is not taken into consideration. In addition, the citizens are taught to value the country more than they value themselves. Then, how wise is it to neglect the individual for the sake of the country? The individual citizen makes up the nation. In addition, the transactional leadership style exhibited in China under the influence of communism allows for the concentration of the national wealth among a select crop of leaders and families, while millions suffer in poverty considering the large Chinese population.

In conclusion, comparing the two styles of leadership based on the national leaders in the two countries, USA and China, it is evident that each one of them has its merits and demerits. However, in spite of these differences, the application of the transformational and transactional leadership styles in the varying cultures be it individualistic or collectivism can be undertaken to benefit, not only the leader, followers, but also the nation as a whole. Thus, depending on the application, the two styles offer benefits that cannot be assumed.

Works Cited Jogulu, Uma, D. "Culturally-linked leadership styles." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31.8 (2010): 705-719. Rosca, Catalina, Andra and Dan, Florin Stanescu. "The Influence of Values on the Leadership Style." Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy 2.2014 (2014): 480-491. Web. Singer, Luke and Phil Millage. "The interaction of leadership and personality among Chinese and American nascent entrepreneurs." Journal of Technology Management in China 8.1 (2013): 44-54. Web.