Introduction
Most leaders have one thing in common; they tend to transform their styles of leadership in the office, although traces of their campaign styles keep with them. America in particular has had many presidents, most of which have had great challenges in their pursuit of the White house. Among the questions they have had to deal with, is how to balance between the public and the party that supported him, whether republicans or democrats. These have impacted greatly on their styles of leadership which has consistently transformed with each step. Consequently, most Presidents have found themselves losing touch with their campaign objectives and styles. An example is Former president Bush, whose campaign was tough. His style during the campaign was rather passive; he rarely addressed the public during the first eight months of his term, but immediately after the terror attack, he became more aggressive and went on with the policies he had not promised during campaigns (Hermann, 1994, p.363). This paper will try to investigate the relationship between the leadership styles of a president and his/her campaign styles.
Discussion
Whenever an American president is elected, he/she faces various policy dilemmas. This is mainly brought by the fact that the powers are divided between the constitution and the bureaucracy that they increasingly face. In exercising their styles several questions arise on how to control policymaking, shape it in event of restructuring for expected problems. This has led to presidents involving more staff in policy-making especially the inner-circle staff (Hermann, 1994, p.363). It is rare to find a president who keeps or completely changes his style in the campaign when in office; it always finds its way in the office. For instance, Bush started at a rather low pace in his life as a president, rarely talking and whenever he did, it was unconvincing, but he changed, became more relevant and eloquent, and in effect started pursuing other policies as opposed to the ones he had promised during his campaign (Greenstein, 2007, p.1).
Looking into his styles we would find a very emotionally intelligent bush, throughout his campaign and his time in office; he was usually calm and controlled even when things were tough. This is a true president’s quality and he kept with it even in the office. After the fall of Bagdad, Brokaw of NBS anchored Bush and like his style, never boasted of the win but remained good-humored and very thoughtful. Another leadership style he showed was cognitive, it is almost certain that this style caused him a lot in his management of the country (Greenstein, 2007, p.1). It made him rely so much on his staff in structuring his resolutions; an example is during the press conference with the former British PM, Blair on March 27, 2007; when asked about how long he would continue with the war in Iraq, he said it would go on however long, being shallow and laconic than his counterpart who was very analytical. Bush was a visionary man and this could be observed in his office and campaigns, although the results remain questionable, like the war in Iraq and cutting of tax meant to stimulate the economy. Public communication is an area he did not flourish in but came out well after September 11, 2001. His organizational capacity was tremendous, successful at rallying his subordinates and this was evident even in his time at Yale University. Another president is Obama who has gone back to his leadership style during the campaign. Currently, there is a new policy of countering every misconception by the Whitehouse blog. This is a style he used during the campaign (Greenstein, 2007, p.1).
Conclusion
It is quite evident that there is a relationship between the styles during the campaign and in office. However, response to the public seems a great determinant of it. Whichever party comes in the office, there is always this relation.
Reference List
Greenstein, I. F. (2007). The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush. Princeton University Press.
Hermann, G. M. (1994).Presidential Leadership Style, Advisory systems, and Policy Making: Bill Clinton’s Administration after Seven Months. International Society of politicalpsychology.