Leadership is one of the basic social institutions that drive change and contribute to the emergence of significant alterations in peoples lives. In modern society, this phenomenon preserves its topicality and impacts individuals. Moreover, the unique importance of this aspect of interpersonal relations results in the appearance of numerous theories describing diverse types of leadership and models of behavior a person could explore to manage people and make them accept particular suggestions or solutions. The significance of leadership could also be evidenced by its role in management, business, healthcare, and policy. The last domain has always been associated with the phenomena as the ability to persuade individuals and make them follow a leader is central to politics. However, the success of these actions depends on the correct choice of the leadership style. This assumption could be analyzed using the suggested article and analyzing the behaviors of its main participants.
Nevertheless, the article revolves around the attempts to introduce crucial alterations to the budget and debates between the Republicans and Democrats. The primary aim of this discussion, also known as the Grand Bargain, was to achieve historic cuts in the federal government and increase in federal taxes (Newton-Small, 2011). However, negotiations were unsuccessful and failed. Delving into the article, we could find several leadership theories implied by it and arising from the context. First, it is the contingency theory stating that every leadership style should be based on unique peculiarities of settings. The fact is that all leaders found in the paper (Obama, Boehner, and Cantor) acted differently depending on the situation and the current context. Another theory relevant for the article is the transactional one emphasizing the importance of beneficial relations between all parties. Finally, signs of the transformational model could be found in Obamas attempts to transform his opponents visions and attain success.
As has already been stated, there are three leaders presented in the article. Boehner is the first one. He believes that the suggested tax reform will be essential to any grand bargain (Newton-Small, 2011). It means that his primary aim in these negotiations is to come to the agreement and accept the new approach. Being the representative of the Republican party, he had limited opportunities to impact the final result as there are also other agents (the Democratic Party, and the President) who might introduce alterations to the agreement. Trying to gain his point, Boehner refused to accept the idea of rising 50% more revenue which complicated negotiations (Newton-Small, 2011). Analyzing his behavior and the whole situation the democratic leadership approach could be recommended. It implies sharing the decision-making process with other participants of the process with the primary aim to make a compromise and find the most appropriate solution. As the Republicans were engaged in the process and demanded specific conditions to agree on the tax, Boehner, as their representative, should yield a point to achieve the final goal.
Cantors role in the negotiations should also be emphasized. Being of the key figures of the process, he has an opportunity to impact its results and promote a particular decision. Another representative of the Republican party, he was interested in making a compromise (Newton-Small, 2011). For this reason, a transformational leadership style could be recommended. The primary goal of this approach is to change followers particular needs to achieve a certain goal. Applying this knowledge to the context, Cantor should communicate with Boehner and other party members to emphasize the necessity of compromise and promote a decrease in their demands. It would help to satisfy the Democrats and gather their support to alter the existing taxation policy. Additionally, the use of this style could help to lower tension between parties which has always been high.
Finally, being the President of the USA, Obama has diverse opportunities to impact the process. Under these conditions, the paternalistic style of leadership seems the best choice. It implies complete concern for all followers (the Democrats and the Republicans) and consideration of their primary needs with the central aim to make a compromise and ensure that the negotiations would be successful. In this regard, Obama should consult with representatives of both parties to understand their claims and cultivate a new agreement that would be appropriate for both parties.
Altogether, the given article perfectly demonstrates the unique importance of leadership and its significant role in modern policy. The leaders inability to chose an appropriate style and make a compromise resulted in the emergence of the problematic situation and the Grand bargain failure. The use of styles recommended in the paper could help to attain success and resolve the conflict as their implementation is aimed at achieving positive results and consideration of the basic needs of all opponents and followers. The example also proves that the development of the state to a much extent depends on its leaders ability to communicate and find appropriate solutions. That is why leadership and different behavioral styles should be given much attention by managers, politicians, and common people.
References
Newton-Small, J. (2011). The inside story of Obama and Boehner’s second failed grand bargain. Time. Web.