James M. Kouzes (2003, p.1) said “Leadership matters more in times of uncertainty”. Uncertainty translates into change (which is what the people of the United States voted for this past mid-term election with regard to this war with Iraq ) and change is what leadership is all about, but can Bush deliver change? Leadership behavior guides us through these changes and uncertain times. Development of self is an important aspect of leadership behavior. Leaders develop self by making the most of their strengths and downplaying their weaknesses in the critical evaluation of opportunities and threats posed professionally and personally. Thus far I have seen precious little of this inside the Bush Administration and need to see a lot more of it soon!

 

Credibility is the backbone of leadership in practice, as are-ethics, morality, honesty, character, and discipline. A leader’s actions often speak more than their words. Consistency feeds credibility. Circumstances and situations can shape leadership activities and behavior. Leaders historically have been judged by how they act or react (biology and body) to critical incidents as well as how successful they are at converting vision into action (implementation) on behalf of these followers.

 

According to Bateman (2003, p.374) styles of leadership fall into four broad categories. Those categories are; participatory, autocratic, democratic, and laisse faire.  Take for instance, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. Via democratic process he was elected president of the people in Iran . President Ahmadinejad had to get involved with the people of Iran in order to make this dream a reality. Getting involved meant participating (building trust and confidence) with the people who could get him elected. The people of Iran ’s opinions and votes were shaped and cast largely by the enthusiasm and persuasion (actions and words) of President Ahmadinejad.

 

Conversely, George W. Bush took the office of President of the United States under less than perfect circumstances and amidst a lot of controversy regarding the electoral processes of various states, both in 2000 and again in 2004. Trust and confidence under such circumstances is hard to garner. The 2006 mid-terms cast shadows of doubt on this presidents ability to lead by voting largely for change.

 

Since taking office, President Ahmadinejad shared his vision (“…wanted a system where ALL people could benefit economically...”.) and strategy for achieving that vision with the people of Iran . Fulfilling this vision required a change in direction. If the proposed changes worked Iran would reap the rewards of these changes in the areas of competition, revenues, and innovation of new sciences and technologies that could act as a showcase for other emerging countries in that region of the world.

 

President Ahmadinejad counted on the three R’s; resources, relationships, and results, (Coghlan and McKee, 2000) to induce his followers to come out of their (and Iran ’s) comfort zone and into the global generation. President Ahmadinejad set the stage (direction) by telling the people of Iran his vision, then showing them how they as a country could benefit from these changes. Changes proposed hinged on spearheading new discoveries (research/development/innovation) in the areas of nuclear power reactors/resources. Benefits from this change meant that Iran could sell their oil reserves in the world market (Increasing their nations GDP/forging new economic relationships/producing positive results) along with other oil rich nations, and move toward cleaner(and hopefully cheaper/end result) nuclear type energy. In implementing the proposed changes for Iran Ahmadinejad built a coalition of like minded people who shared his visions and inspired them by lighting passion for his cause.

 

Since taking office in 2000 President Bush has done precious little to elevate the level of trust and confidence in the American public. President Bush fabricated intelligence data to support his war with Iraq and when that was exposed he pretended that Saddam had WMD’s and when that proved to be just as erroneous Bush said that he had to remove a tyrannical dictator and free the people of Iraq. So much for trust and confidence!

 

President Ahmadinejad used the five strategic management competencies and exuded emotional intelligence in his relationships with others/self (Bergmann, 1999) to keep him on track and moving in the desired direction toward change and innovation; creation of a brighter future, letting his country help drive this change, involving everyone, managing horizontally, and building credibility for his efforts by showing how everyone could benefit from these changes.

 

Author, Amuzegar (2006, p.1) writes about how Iran joined the “nuclear club” this past April because scientists there have been able to successfully enrich uranium for nuclear fuel for power plants. Iran began this process back in the 1950’s. This relationship was renewed during Ford’s presidency when relationships with Iran were favorable. Over the course of time, the United States gave Iran (and other countries) several hundred nuclear reactors to further pursue the enrichment of uranium in hope that they would not look elsewhere (and also as a means for controlling certain behaviors/transactional leadership approach). According to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association) estimates in order to produce weapons grade uranium Iran would need thousands of reactors.

 

This (Bush) Administration contends, despite official estimates from the IAEA to the contrary, that Iran is pursuing a dangerous nuclear weapon capability while Iran espouses their enrichment of uranium is for peaceful power purposes. President Bush wishes to impose sanctions/severe penalties (transactional leadership) for this potential breach in order that Iran may comply/conform. Gee (2006, p.1) said that during President Ahmadinejad’s visit to Indonesia (May 26, 2006) his speeches were met with warm enthusiasm and standing ovations, these people trusted him and took him at his word, which was in stark contract to how Ahmadinejad was received in the West. As an end result, Ahmadinejad and the various other leaders cemented their relationships (relationship-oriented where trust is found in the relationship context), alliances, and friendships in these uncertain times.

 

President Ahmadinejad has been effective in soliciting/eliciting support for his endeavor partly because he comes at this issue from a point of maturity (responsibility, accountability and equality for all countries is his platform). Ahmadinejad and his supporters believe that all countries in this world should have the same capabilities and/or opportunities (fair and equitable without double standards). Countries that share this idea (Gee, 2006, p.2) believe that the United States and their allies want to hold the monopoly on advanced technologies and science allowing them alone to financially (or militarily) benefit from what these technologies and scientific innovations can deliver.

 

Conclusions can be drawn from numerous sources on this topic. Debate seems to be centered around this question; Is this merely a stand-off between East against West or is there something deeper at issue here? Not just a standoff to the degree that some might assume (according to most research), but deeper inquiry necessitates this; Principles and ideals may be in conflict, but the very crux of this issues stems from the varying stances (U.S., U.N., England, and rest of the world which typify transactional measures/styles as with sanctions, etc.) as to how much uranium enrichment can be allowed to powers other than the United States (or perhaps their special and selective allies). Ahmadinejad suggests that what criteria is good for one should be applied evenly and fairly for all.

 

From a leadership standpoint Kouzes and Posner (1999, p.77) say it best when they say that leaders look for opportunities to be innovative, grow, and improve (transformational). Ahmadinejad appears to be spreading his wings (and engaging the ire of many along the way) in the areas of innovation, growth, and improvement in the arena of renewable energy for his country. Doing so may require that President Ahmadinejad experiment, take some measured risks, and even fail in some circumstances. However, time, methods, ideologies, and diplomacy will be the ultimate determinants here.

 

References:

Gheissari, Ali and Nasr, Vali (Summer 2005) “The conservative consolidation in Iran ” Vol.47(2), p.175-90(16), retrieved from EbscoHost on October 3, 2006

Kouzes, James M. (2003) “Business Leadership” A Jossey-Bass Reader (First Edition) San Francisco , CA

Christian, Sena and Bunyan, Chris (May-June 2004) “ Iran ; women attacked at rally” Off Our Backs, 5(1), retrieved from Thompson Gale Powersearch on October 4, 2006

Amuzegar, Jahangir (Summer 2006) “Nuclear Iran; perils and prospects” Middle East Policy, 13(2), 90(23), retrieved from Thompson Gale Powersearch on October 4, 2006

Bateman-Snell, et.al. (2003) “Management; The New Competitive Landscape” (6^th Edition), Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River , NJ , MGT 500 Text, University Of Phoenix Online

Coghlan, D. and McKee, R.K. (Fall 2000) “Aligning grid organizational development and interlevel dynamics for systematic change” Organizational Development Journal, 18(3), 37-48(11), Week 3 articles for LDR 711, University Of Phoenix Online

Bergmann, H. (October-December 1999) “Introducing a grass roots model of leadership” Strategy and Leadership, 27(6), 150, Week 3 articles for LDR 711, University Of Phoenix Online

www.countrywatch.com, retrieved from University Of Phoenix Apollo Library on 10/6.06

Anonymous (Winter 2006) “ Iran ’s Ahmadinejad; Crazy or Crazy Like a Fox”, International Economy, 20(1), pgs.6-7(2), retrieved from ProQuest 10/8/06

Gee, John (August 2006) “Behind Indonesia’s Warm Welcome of Iranian President Ahmadinejad”, The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, Washington, DC, 25(6), 38(2), retrieved from ProQuest 10/8/06

Anonymous (Winter 2006) “Today vs. 1935; Hyperbole or Prescience?”, The International Economy, Washington , D.C. , 20(1), 1(8), retrieved from ProQuest 10/8/06

Dabney, Virginius (October 2004) “The South Looks Abroad” Foreign Affairs, Washington , D.C. , 19(1), p.171-78(8), retrieved from EBSCOhost on 10/10/2006

Kodama, Mitsuru (September/October 2002) “Strategic Community; Foundation of Knowledge Creation”, Research Technical Management, Washington , D.C. , 49(5), 49(10), retrieved from ProQuest on 10/10/2006 

Volkmann, Ross (2005) “Assessing executive leadership; an integral approach”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Bradford , 18(3), 289(14), retrieved from ProQuest on 10/10/2006

Liao, Yao-Sheng (March 2006) “The effect of the life-cycle stage of an organization on the relationship between corporate control and product innovation”, International Journal of Management, Taiwan , 23(1), p.167-75(9), retrieved from EBSCOhost on 10/10/2006

Banjeri, P. and Krishnan, V.R. (2000) “Ethical Preferences of Transformational Leaders; A Empirical Investigation”, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(8), 405, Week 4 articles, LDR 711, University of Phoenix On Line