Leadership Style and Leaders

Leaders exist throughout the ages and play pivotal roles in how humanity grows and develops. Some leaders change a nation, while others set the stage for the future leaders to take the reign. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States of America. He transformed a country engulfed in slavery and brought about a new age of living to Americans. Indira Gandhi was one of the first female Prime Ministers of the world. She exerted dominance and charisma while attempting to progress India. Lincoln took on the transformational leadership style while Gandhi took on the charismatic leadership style. Both achieved the status of being noteworthy for their ability to inspire.

Public Leader Overview

According to modern leadership theory, Lincoln was a transformational leader thanks in part to his followers. They felt a sense of respect, loyalty, and trust towards Lincoln when he became president. Furthermore, Lincoln persevered amidst many obstacles and sacrificed a great deal to give American people a chance at life without slavery and a more unified republic. Not only was Lincoln was able to achieve and deliver more than he was expected to, but he also became the source of inspiration for many to go beyond themselves and aim for higher moral principles.

Indira Gandhi on the other hand, embraced a charismatic leadership style as India's first and only Prime Minister. She believed in herself and was able to demonstrate a charismatic quality that gained her many followers and popularity. However, because she had no clear vision, her leadership remained unproductive, thus keeping her from being a transformational leader. An example of this was her ineffectiveness at producing centralization of authority during her time as Prime Minister. This led to increased poverty rates in her country and her assassination. Indira Gandhi inspired people to believe in her, but failed to produce anything worthwhile.

Comparison and Contrast Leadership Styles

Charismatic leaders are like transformational leaders except they lack substance and ability to carry their objectives successfully. Charismatic leaders are often sensitive to followers' emotions. They are able to generate a high esteem and respect among their followers and motivate them to perform to their best of their ability (Wu, 2013). However, because many argue the charismatic leader uses power for their own personal benefit more than the organization, they do not appear to be the best leaders for positive change.

Transformational leaders on the other hand, pay attention to their followers' well-being (Wu, 2013). They communicate and persuade followers to commit to a goal and feel positive. They set out to change things and change their followers to ensure a positive outcome. Although both styles inspire devotion and show compassion for their followers, transformational relies on action rather than appearance.

Effectiveness of Public Leadership

Analyzing Abraham Lincoln from the perspective of the transformational leadership style, he suffered through a great deal to achieve his goals. But, in setting these goals, he inspired many to pursue a radical change in constitution, the abolition of slavery. Transformational leaders often set goals via transactional leadership, but then inspire followers through rewards (Humphrey, 2013). Lincoln explained that the abolition of slavery would generate a unified country and provided financial incentive to those in the Union to take up arms and fight.

This was seen via Greenback legislation. Lincoln's administration and Congress, authorized fifty million in Demand Notes and were used to pay customs duties. Although that was not enough to cover costs, Lincoln through the help of Colonel 'Dick' Taylor, generated and issued unbacked paper money. This led to one hundred and fifty million in United States Notes circulating during the Civil War.

Indira Gandhi was a charismatic leader because she exhibited traits that these leaders possess. Like transformational leaders, charismatic leaders give the appearance of caring and sacrificing for their cause, except without a clear vision, many do not achieve a desirable outcome. Being the first and only female Prime Minister of India, Gandhi inspired and generated awe in her followers, thus cementing her role as a leader. Although statistically she reduced poverty and improved literacy, the people of India saw the economic state of the country worsen under her rule and believed her ineffective in keeping her promises.

This stemmed from her interactions with the public. "In her relations with the public, Indira Gandhi's leadership style was extremely open. The Indian crowds seemed to energize her, and she felt a special bond with the Indian masses who loved the combination of her aristocratic background and her simple down-to-earth manner" (Steinberg, 2005, p. 779). Gandhi appealed to the Indian masses because of her birth into an aristocratic family and her personality. The combination of these two aspects of her image gained her the popularity she needed to achieve the job of Prime Minister of India. However, unlike Abraham Lincoln, who was qualified and understood what was needed to achieve his goals, Gandhi set out to perform her tasks without knowing or understanding what she needed to do to achieve the best result. This leads to a brief analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of both leaders.

Strength and Weakness

Indira had several strengths weaknesses that made her at times an effective leader and at other times an ineffective leader. One noteworthy accomplishment during her time as Prime Minister was the establishment of the state of Bangladesh in 1971 (Steinberg, 2014). Another before her time in political office was her marriage to Feroze in 1942. The marriage was not arranged and crossed religious lines with Feroze having been Parsee and Gandhi having practiced Hinduism. Going back to her time as Prime Minister, India launched a satellite into space, joining the international 'space race' showing her ability to innovate and progress India.

Her weaknesses lie in her lack of clear vision and bad choices. Her most notable error was in 1984 when she ordered the attack on Golden Temple. This led to her assassination by two Sikh bodyguards (Steinberg, 2014). Personality wise, she was also very controlling and dominating, expecting people to follow her ideology and requests without performing the necessary actions. Gandhi most notably, was not aware of the social problems in India and was intolerant of dissent. This was seen in her declaring a state of emergency for her 1971 illegal campaign practices.