This blog was designed for us to discuss the good, bad or ugly leaders. But what happens when the leader is all of the above? As we discussed in class one of them was Rudy Guiliani. At the time he was elected Mayor of New York City, the city was thought to be "ungovernable." When he took over as Mayor, he did not take the usual leadership approach of soft, he used the same approach as he did as a lawyer. He took a hard approach and worked on big and small issues.
September 11, 2001 is one of the days where everyone remembers what they were doing at the exact moment the tragedy happened. At a time where most people would stay in their office and direct people from there, Guiliani went to the streets and was right where the action took place. He could be sympathetic one moment and then strict the very next. Rudy Guiliani responded as a transformational leader. This leadership theory involves emotions, values, ethics, and standards which were all present during and after Sept. 11 2001.
Before Sept. 11 Guilinani was not always liked. He did reduce crime, but he was also looked at as being hypocritical. He was accused of having a police department who were racially profiling people such as african americans. He was also accused of being too distracted by marital and health problems to be effective at his job.
However, after the attacks many people changed their view on his leadership abilities. He was no longer seen as a mayor who went after petty instances, but he was seen as this great leader that people needed in a time of despair. He was strict and stern, but he was also sympathetic and helping when he needed to be.
Transformational leadership can be defined as a process of engaging with others to create a connection that increases motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower. Guiliani demonstrated this ability at this time of need. He was charismatic and he had the trust of his followers which is important when you are a leader.
Even though this situation made Guiliani more of an emergent leader, it shows that he truly was a great leader and that sometimes situations bring out the true leadership in people. His leadership skills go along with the strengths of this theory. The leadership shown was shown as a process. Articles were published on an on-going basis during the following weeks/months of the attack. He did not just chose a time and make a decision, it took alot of decisions and time to prove his ability. He had to communicate with his followers and he had to realize the situation and what everyone was going through in order to effectively say what he wanted to.
I agree with you 100%. I believe sometimes when something so critical happens in an instant, and somebody can react quickly in leading it can change the perspective people take on him/her. Take for example, George W. Bush, too. I don't think many people hated him as much until after 9/11. I think a lot of people were upset with how we went right to war after and blamed it all on him.
ReplyDeleteExactly. The public view on George W. Bush was changed after they saw him react so quickly. The view on the war is just like the view changing right after Sept 11. He reacted quickly like he did after the attacks, but the publics view on the war was the opposite of the public's view from the attacks. Instead of thinking he is a great leader after the attacks, he was seen as a bad leader for going straight into the war.
ReplyDeleteTo go along with what you both said about George W. Bush I think people really stood by him during and after 9/11. I think that you could even argue that people really stood by him during the first few months of the war. I think that as people started to see that there was no real agenda or no real plan for U.S. troops in The Middle East, his popularity started to decrease.
ReplyDelete