The importance of effective leadership in any institution

Effective Leadership

Introduction

The importance of effective leadership in any institution, organization or even country can never be gainsaid as far as the sustainability of that entity is concerned. Needless to say, it is one of the fundamental or basic hallmarks of the most successful entities in the 20th and 21st century, or rather in the contemporary world (Rozman, 2011). Every period comes with its own challenges and opportunities, most of which mark the defining moment for entities. The United States, being one of the most fundamental entities of the 20th and 21st century, has known its fair share of defining moments with the varied presidents in those times being marked as either ineffective or effective. This was especially in the mid-20th century in the middle of the cold war. President Eisenhower and J.F Kennedy are the presidents on the spot, as far as the effectiveness of their leadership is concerned.

President Eisenhower usually created the image of a passive president, thereby prompting the thought that he was ineffective in handling the presidency (Rozman, 2011). However, this may not be necessarily the case especially considering varied aspects of his leadership approach (Rozman, 2011). As a leader, the United States’ president comes as a symbol of unity, who is expected to double up as an uncontroversial representative of the nation. However, the president is also the chief political leader of the nation, in which case he has to take part in solving political problems. Nevertheless, the president of the United States is expected to exercise direct leadership especially considering that he commands attention from virtually everyone irrespective of political or ideological affiliations (Rozman, 2011).

One of the things that marked the effectiveness of Presidents J.F Kennedy and Eisenhower was the charisma and their artful use of words. Scholars note that the private communications of Eisenhower to close associates underline elements of analytic clarity and incorporate realistic and informed accounts of his political strategies (Tucker, 2009). Eisenhower was usually evasive and feigned ignorance of issues that he thought should not be discussed just yet. This was done in an idiomatic and homely manner that propped public confidence and affection for him. Charisma also defined President J.F Kennedy’s tenure. This was complemented by his ability to own up to mistakes as was the case in the Bay of Pigs invasion (Rozman, 2011).

Another thing that marked President J.F Kennedy’s leadership was his scheming capacity, or rather his ability to make decisions as seen during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He clearly understood the United States foreign policy and helped the country to evade a catastrophic nuclear war that could potentially have had devastating effects (Tucker, 2009). He had been advised to place air strikes against Cuba followed by a possible invasion. However, J.F Kennedy instead chose to install a blockade that saw the Soviet Union retreating and an agreement being reached to eliminate missiles from Cuba subject to the elimination of the United States’ missiles in Turkey 6 months later. Kennedy’s ability to make decisions and lead from the front made him an effective leader. This was the same case for Eisenhower. As much as he wanted to contain communism, he was extremely cautious about using nuclear power against communist forces in Vietnam in 1954 in Indochina (Tucker, 2009). This was repeated in 1956 when he declined to allow the use of force after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. In fact, he put pressure on the Israeli, French and British forces that had occupied the canal to withdraw from Egypt allowing it to retain control over the Suez Canal (Rozman, 2011).

References

Rozman, G. (2011). U.S. leadership, history, and bilateral relations in Northeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tucker, S. (2009). U.S. leadership in wartime: Clashes, controversy, and compromise. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.