Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, January 14, 1994 TAG: 9401260014
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JUDY B. ROSENER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
I propose we look at his leadership style - one that I have labeled ``interactive.''
Clinton's is the leadership model of the future. He operates well in an environment where hierarchy is replaced with networks, lines of authority go in all directions, traditional information and power relationships are in flux and the only certainty is uncertainty.
In many ways, his exercise of leadership may well determine how Clinton's presidency is ultimately judged. Interestingly, the style he has chosen - that of the facilitator rather than the commander - is exactly the approach that management experts such as Warren Bennis, Peter Drucker, Tom Peters and others suggest business executives adopt.
Yet this new leadership style generates confusion and discomfort because it is inconsistent with the more familiar ``John Wayne'' command-and-control model.
That model - the one used in past White Houses and in many large corporations today - is patterned after the military and the church. Decisions are top-down. Power relationships are based on clear lines of authority. Information and expertise are assumed to belong to those who sit atop the organizational pyramid.
The traditional approach may have made sense in the past for the United States and its corporations; having the only gun in town freed us to act like the sheriff.
But with the diffusion of economic power, business and government leaders began to assess the prevailing management model.
On the one hand, command-and-control leaders - think of President Reagan or former Chrysler CEO Lee A. Iacocca - communicate a sense of security. They tend to be motivated by a well-articulated philosophy or ideology that frames their decisions. Their actions telegraph that they are in control. They see work and family as separate spheres - consistent with their tendency to compartmentalize issues, tasks and responsibilities.
The downside to this style is its inflexibility. It rewards compliance rather than innovation and risk-taking. It devalues and underutilizes people who don't look, think and act like those at the top. It assumes that the future, for the most part, can be approached with leadership tools of the past.
Interactive leaders, on the other hand, communicate a sense of compassion and caring rather than control. They are comfortable with ambiguity.
They believe that process and outcome are inexorably linked. They acknowledge that participatory management is time-consuming and messy, but think the resulting decisions will be better. They feel that work and family are not mutually exclusive.
The shortcoming of such leaders is the confusion and lack of direction they convey. There is a sense that interactive leaders are not in control, that they ask questions because they lack knowledge, conviction or self-confidence, that they want too much to be loved. For this reason, interactive leaders are perceived to be weak.
On its own, neither model is perfect; most of us would like our leaders to be compassionate and decisive. And hardly anyone is solely one kind of leader or the other.
While few business leaders would classify themselves as interactive, some - such as General Electric CEO Jack Welch - profess to be moving in that direction. Clinton, on the other hand, clearly belongs at the interactive end of the spectrum.
That explains a good part of the discomfort with his leadership. But it also explains his accomplishments.
Clinton did not veto a single bill in his first year - yet major, controversial legislation was passed. Important initiatives were launched in the areas of trade relations, budget cutting, health reform, criminal justice, environmental protection, defense conversion, workplace benefits and public service. And large numbers of Americans were included in the development of policy positions.
Admittedly, much of this has not been recognized amid the administration's occasional misjudgments, poor decisions and confusing statements. And some of the discomfort with Clinton's style stems from the nature of his relationship with his wife: Their marriage is non-hierarchical, and the first lady has a more traditional management style.
But the president shows signs of learning the value of melding interactive and command-and-control leadership skills. He has learned the hard way that there are times to consult - and times to act.
It is too soon to assess the success of his initiatives. But his managerial evolution may be worth noting for business executives who - like the president - find themselves in a rapidly changing, complex world.
\ Judy B. Rosener is a professor in the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Irvine. She is co-author of ``Workforce America! Managing Employee Diversity as a Vital Resource.''
Los Angeles Times
by CNB