Leadership: In Turbulent Times
Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson all embodied a strong desire towards doing something that would lead them to achievement. In short, embodied ambition. “Every man is said to have his peculiar ambition (3).” “I rose like a rocket (21).” “No, call me Franklin (39).” “A steam engine in pants (68).” Not simply the opening tittles of the book’s chapters, but personal quotes of the four presidents discussed. Goodwin’s choice of these four quotes as titles for the opening four chapters is no coincidence. Goodwin demonstrates not only her vast study and knowledge however brilliantly simplifies what can arguably be said embodies their ambition, growth, and leadership styles.
Abraham Lincoln’s self-awareness, more important, altruistic nature, was the foundation towards his desire to achieve something grander than the Nation’s imagination. His self-awareness can be found in Lincoln’s childhood’s unquenchable thirst for knowledge, specifically academic. The ability and laborious time Lincoln invested in obtaining and committing to memory borrowed books is testimony that his ambition during his formative years was larger than the ambition of the average American adult of the time. Lincoln’s view on human ambition being peculiar not only demonstrates his progressive ideology, it subtly introduces his transformational leadership style. Although born and bred in in the utmost poverty, Lincoln marvelously countered and triumphed with his ability to retain information. Curiosity, reasoning and comprehension, obsessiveness to understand the meaning of anything heard, read, or taught, and the ability to share his knowledge learned with childhood friends placed Lincoln early on as a leader among his schoolmates. The motivation and willpower to study and master any wonder within his mind, was inspiring to his peers and further showed the bottomless depths of Lincoln’s ambition.
Theodore Roosevelt, vastly different from Lincoln, was fortunate to come from a wealthy family with seemingly endless means. Surviving various ailments, his father was economically willing and able to provide a private gymnasium, trainers, tutors, and give his son the finest and best of what interest Theodore. This luxury provided Theodore underlying sense of entitlement. Similar to Lincoln, Theodore had a grand memory and adoration for books. Aside from that commonality, Theodore entered politics more with the idea of it being his right as a citizen. Although Theodore rose like a rocket, it would take fall of that rocket to humble and allow Theodore to recognize the importance of empathy. One may conclude that acquiring the support from colleagues, and then losing the support, is reason for the difference in leadership style compared to Lincoln. Theodore learned the importance of negotiating in turn, adopting a transactional leadership style.
Franklin Roosevelt, also from a wealthy family, proved to be most unique in regard towards his ambition. What may be described as an almost dormant ambition, did not surface until well into adulthood. His formative years, as Goodwin describes, were most sheltered and did not display natural abilities such as memory, passion for reading, or distinguishable signs to set him apart as a natural or interest in leadership. Interesting enough he did not pursue or showed interest to pursue politics until he was asked approached to run for a Democratic seat. Franklin’s reply when approached captured what may very well be interpreted as the foundation for his Transactional Leadership style. “Just tell me what to do, where to go, whom to seek out (41).” Franklin’s self-esteem at this point in his life was remarkably secure and carried a sense of privilege. At twenty-eight years of age Franklin sincerely believed he was the center of the world, for various reasons. His parents provided a well-balanced home emotionally and in having the means as well as foresight to expose him to as much culture as possible. In turn, it is understood why a person of this caliber contained a key component of any leadership, adaptability. This asset would prove to be invaluable throughout his life.
Lyndon Johnson, remarkably intelligent, delivered his first political speech at the age of twenty-two. “A steam engine in pants (68)” Lyndon Johnson’s ambition was infectious to whomever he encountered. He learned to negotiate for his Mother’s affection, and bridge the gap between his Parent’s backgrounds. Such a subconscious ability as difficult as one may imagine, can be debated to help him remain determined, establish a quid pro quo mentality, and provide the ability to reach people from various backgrounds. Also, a precursor to his drive to support the underdog and develop a heroic conception for leadership. This (Lyndon’s) prairie dog lawyer relied more on passion and influence rather than knowledge of law. Via storytelling, Lyndon believed was the key to much success. Lyndon’s oratorical style was filled with enthusiasm, purpose, and sincerity. His unusual and gifted way to meet and address the public demonstrated to his colleagues that politics was indeed embedded in his blood. Rebuttals like: “Yes, but you’ve never had a teacher like me! (77)” demonstrate why his ambition would later be described as contagious. This grandiosity approach with ambition would prove to be a double-edged sword. Lyndon was well aware of this and Goodwin is keen by including Lyndon’s own words: “Ambition is an uncomfortable companion (75).” The need to continuously push forward may be positively correlated with Lyndon’s relationship with his parents. As a child, Goodwin informs us that if his expectations proved to be subpar, his mother withdrew love and affection. This insecurity would plague Lyndon for his entire life.
“Transformational leaders inspire followers to identify with something larger than themselves- the organization, the community, the region, the country- and finally, to the more abstract identification with the ideals of that country. Such leaders call for sacrifice in the pursuit of moral principles and higher goals, validating such altruism by looking beyond the present moment to frame a future worth striving for (235).” “Transactional leaders operate pragmatically. They appeal to the self-interest of their followers, using quid pro quos, bargains, trades, and rewards to solicit support and influence the behavior of their followers (234-235).” “Transactional, by far the more common (234).”
Transformational requires more imagination. Forward-thinking of a large ‘picture.’ It also requires stamina, patience, persistence, and acceptance of the possibility that the objective or goal may not be reached. This latter part is arguably the most difficult. However, if a leader is not prepared for failure being a possible outcome, new/original ideas will never be obtained. To transform something, better stated, to attempt a transformation, that leader must understand that there’s a real possibility it may not be achieved for various reasons. People seem to be more infatuated with the idea of change rather than actual change. This is because people are creatures of habit. To swim against the current for a greater good requires a very specific skillset. Whether this skillset is innate or can be coached/learned is an issue for debate.
Transactional is more common. My contention is that it is more common because requires less if any imagination. Transactional approach is linear versus transformational which can be entwined. It is also not surprising to be more common. In a National Time that caters to single person portions and disposable products, one might argue that our Society has been conditioned to think more individually versus what used to be a family or group school of thought. To say which is better or worse can be debated indefinitely the way nature versus nurture has and continues to be debated. What seems to hold true is the more effective leaders are familiar with both leadership styles, more importantly know when, where, and how to apply them situationally.
Abraham Lincoln exhibited the greater transformational skill set. Lincoln entered his presidency essentially simultaneously with the start of the American Civil War, when Confederates attacked Fort Sumpter. This situation Lincoln understood needed to be remedied by transforming the status quo. To attempt a transactional, via a quid pro quo approach, Lincoln knew and understood was not an option. It would require dismissing imperative parts of the Nation’s Constitution. Lincoln knew the importance of assuming full responsibility. He was active and approachable not simply because it was his nature, Lincoln understood to effectively call for sacrifice of the Union, he had to be among them at all levels. He exhaustingly traveled and made appearance to lead by example and maintain morale among the Nation. He sacrificed more than his personal time. Most importantly, Lincoln was able to maintain perspective while under the most scrutiny and praise simultaneously. Only a ‘true’ transformational leader can achieve this. It requires not only ignoring the negative, it requires not letting the positive give rise to ego, Lincoln truly led in a transformational, altruistic fashion.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be the more skilled transactional leader. The Great Depression, August 1929 (economic recession) and Wall Street Crash in October 1929 was similar to the Civil War in that it created a great divide within the Nation. The difference would be in how to remedy the situation. One may argue that a form of transforming was needed. However, the economic problem Franklin understood required phases or steps. These would be achieved by Franklin initiating various transactions, using transactional leadership. “Panic was in the air (275).” “…terminal stage of the Great Depression (275).” Franklin understood that there was a need for change, but to calm and regain the Nation’s faith, an agreement between the Nation’s government and Nation’s citizens was necessary. Quid pro quo, would be the ‘solution.’ Franklin’s plan which in no coincidence was termed, “New Deal,” serves as testimony to his transactional approach. Franklin also implemented straight forward, or pragmatic, stages. This was important to ensure the Nation understood and not further confused by the government. Where Franklin brilliantly demonstrated transactional leadership was by telling the people what they can expect, and what was expected of them.
Book review by: unpublishedjack.com
unpublishedjack.com 