Comparing the leadership styles of Saddam Hussein and Sheikh Zayed

Leadership Analysis

Historical context

Saddam Hussein short biography

Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Alnahyan short biography

Leadership analysis of the two former Arab leaders

General leadership analysis

Leadership analysis according to Andrew J. DuBrin's theories..

s present an analysis between the leadership styles of Saddam Hussein of Iraq on the one hand, and Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Alnahyan of the United Arab Emirates on the other hand.

The two leaders are completely opposite. Saddam exerted an autocratic leadership style, while Zayed exerted a democratic style.

They present similar innate characteristics that helped hem gain leadership of two important Arab regions.

Their leadership styles are based on different values: Saddam was focusing on strategy, while Zayed was focusing on communication and human aspiration.

However, both of them managed to inspire people, to persuade them, to attract them on their side, and to make them commit to their causes. Zayed, given his positive actions, is admired even now, after his death, and is considered to be a model for those to come. Saddam, although very contested by most, had his share of admirers also.

Introduction

Leadership is the process through which a person, or group of persons, establishes an objective or a direction for other persons to follow and determines them to act together with competency and full dedication in order to accomplish the established objectives.

Leadership is entirely based on team spirit that has a great pragmatic importance. Basically, team spirit is defined as the state that reflects people's desire for thinking, feeling and acting in harmony with other leaders of the group they are part of, in order to attain a common goal.

Leadership's approach has suffered several modifications during the past decades. In the first half of the XX century leadership was considered to be an attribute that some people were born with. This was the time when leadership was associated to great personalities. After the 1950s leadership theoretical concepts and pragmatic approaches have significantly changed. Therefore, it was considered that, although leadership requires certain innate qualities, adequate education may ensure the accomplishment of competent leadership.

Leadership's content, way of manifestation and effectiveness are the result of several major or determinant factors. Three of these factors are determinant: leader's innate qualities, his education or training, and the situation where the leader stands.

First of all, among the most important innate qualities that any leader must have are intelligence and charisma. Innate intelligence consists in the leader's ability to formulate efficient and attractive objectives, the ability to establish mobilizing methods for attracting other persons into accomplishing the objectives, the ability to observe the most adequate arguments that, once they are presented, attract and persuade others to get involved in certain activities. Another essential quality is charisma, the leader's ability to inspire and to amplify other person's involvement in certain activities. Charisma may be positive or negative, in accordance with the positive or negative effects on those following the leader. Other important qualities are ambition, determination, persistence and acerbity.

Second of all, another determinant factor for leadership is the leader's education or training. General education represents the basis for the leader's general behavior, both individual and social, and has important effects on the communicational level. Special training in technical, economic, military or other fields, ensures personal competency and prestige of great importance in relationships with others.

And third of all, leadership is significantly determined by the situation the leader stands in. The past three decades' researches grant great attention to this factor. The situation in which the leader acts determines in multiple ways the type of leadership that should be practiced. As a matter of fact, one can distinguish a double leadership conditioning: the general contextual conditioning (that reflects the basic characteristics of the leader's organization: quality of human resources, their specific culture, the existing and possible resources, strategy, the compatibility between the leader's personality and approach and the organizational context) and the situational conditioning (the roles that the leader must assume).

Historical context

Saddam Hussein, Iraq's last president, and Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Alnahyan, United Arab Emirates' last president, are two of the greatest modern world leaders. Their leadership, that had positive effects on some and negative effects on others, have altered the course of history forever.

2. Leadership analysis of the two former Arab leaders

Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Alnahyan and Saddam Hussein were two great Arab leaders that significantly influenced the Arab world, but there is very little resemblance in their leadership styles. As a manner of manifestation, the two had very distinct leadership styles, although their objective was somewhat common: the prosperity and unity of the Arab world.

2.1. General leadership analysis

The two Arab leaders had similar objectives, the unification of the Arab world, but different leadership styles, almost opposite.

Saddam Hussein exerted an autocratic leadership style that consisted in the strict surveillance of his subordinates, informational flows directed mostly up-down, inspiring fear to his subordinates, using fear as a way of control.

In opposition, Sheikh Zayed exerted a democratic leadership style, having as most main traits: sociability, flexibility, cooperation, communication, open spirit and friendly environment. The democratic leadership style is the most complex of all four styles.

Saddam's and Zayed's leadership outlook was completely different. Saddam's leadership was based on strategy, while Zayed's was centered on human aspirations.

These two great leaders' distinct styles of leadership are determined by different factors. Both of them present similar innate characteristics, that they apply completely different. The first important determinant factor is heir upbringing and education. Saddam was raised in a severe environment, he was confronted with difficult, sometimes violent, relationships since he was a child. He followed a military education, that influenced him a great deal. He was surrounded by people that supported nationalism, which determined him to do the same thing. On the other hand, Zayed was raised in a completely different environment. He received a religious education, which influenced his further actions in a positive way.

Another determinant factor is the contextual general situation the two leaders found themselves in. Therefore, Nasser's wave of revolutions determined Saddam to follow his steps and to engage in belligerent activities. Zayed was influenced by a very religious environment, that needed unity.

2.2. Leadership analysis according to Andrew J. DuBrin's theories

Leadership is the ability to support and inspire the people who are needed to achieve organizational goals," as Andrew J. DuBrin describes it in his book. The author also mentions that leadership is only part of management, dealing with change, inspiration, motivation and influence. Other than this, a leader must also plan organize and control. DuBrin states that "management deals more with maintaining equilibrium and the status quo. An important current development is to regard leadership as a long-term relationship, or partnership, between leaders and group members." This definition totally applies to Sheikh Zayed's leadership style, fact proven by his long reign. Unlike Saddam, he was a nonviolent leader, oriented towards peaceful relationships with his neighbors. He was very preoccupied with building a solid, prosper and peaceful nation, and everything he did was oriented in this direction, which is why he is considered to be the father of the nation. This characteristic is shown by the way he managed the tribes, through consultation and consensus, by cooperating with his tribal neighbors, by establishing closer relationships with other emirates and by playing a significant role in forming the United Arab Emirates. He ensured the status quo politically and socially across the United Arab Emirates. This might be due to his religious education, oriented towards peace.

In contrast, Saddam Hussein's entire leadership period is connected to several violent episodes, the most significant being the massacre of 148 people a few decades ago, for which he was trialed and found guilty. His violent nature might be related to his military education, his uncle's and Nasser's strong nationalist influence.

According to DuBrin's complexity theory, that leader have very little influence on changing the organizational system's course. But both Saddam Hussein and Sheikh Zayed prove this theory to be wrong. Not only did they change their organizations' development, but they changed history's course. The difference between the two is that Sheikh Zayed changed the course of history in a beneficial, positive way, while Saddam Hussein had a negative impact on history's course.

Regarding leaders' personal characteristics and skills, DuBrin and other authors agree upon the following: self-confidence, humility, trustworthiness, extraversion, assertiveness, emotional stability, enthusiasm, sense of humor, warmth, passion for the work and the people, emotional intelligence, flexibility and adaptability, courage. One may observe that Saddam Hussein presents very few of these characteristics and personal traits. Saddam's leadership effectiveness relies on the motives related to task accomplishment, especially the power motive, the drive and achievement motive, and tenacity and resilience. He was a very powerful leader, driven by nationalism. His objectives, the unification of the Arab world, needed great tenacity from a leader.

A very important quality for any leader is charisma. But DuBrin, unlike other authors, considers charisma to be an entirely positive characteristic. Others consider that charisma may be either positive or negative, in accordance to the effects it has on people.

Although many people do not consider Saddam Hussein to have had any charisma, like Hitler had, it is obvious that he could not have won so many people on his side without any charisma. His negative charisma attracted many people around him, persuaded them into following his actions, and won their consideration and admiration. Although contested by most, Saddam had his share of admirers.

On the other hand, Sheikh Zayed is an example of positive charisma, proven by the way he managed to unite his tribal neighbors and to surpass the differences between them. His great ability to inspire trust made him the President of the United Arab Emirates and helped him have an important role in the Gulf Cooperation Council.

However, these two leaders are not entirely different as they present certain common characteristics. Both of them were adaptable to the situation, direction setting, high performance standards, and risk taking. Unlike Saddam, Sheikh Zayed had other characteristics, especially relationship-oriented attitudes and behaviors, like: aligning people, creating inspiration and visibility, giving emotional support and encouragement, and promoting principles and values.

Regarding organizational politics, DuBrin's theory is that "carried to extremes, organizational politics can hurt an organization and its members." Saddam Hussein's extreme politics is the best example for this theory.

Another common feature for both leaders is influence, as both of them had the ability to affect other's behaviors in certain directions. The difference is in the manner they exerted their influence. On the one hand, Saddam Hussein used power, cruelty, and violence to influence others in the direction he wanted. On the other hand, Sheikh Zayed exerted his influence through communication. The results they obtain are in Zayed's favor.

Regarding the motivation of the people they worked with, their manner of handling things is different here as well. Saddam used negative, coercive motivation, while Zayed motivated people by setting himself as an example that others followed. Since he is considered the father of the nation, it seems that his methods was most appropriate than Saddam's.

Conclusions

The analysis above revealed that Saddam Hussein and Sheikh Zayed were two opposite leaders, with contrasting leadership styles. Their objectives, however, were similar: both of them desired a united Arab world, free of the Western influence. But the manner they exerted their leadership styles was completely different. Saddam's leadership was based on fear, terror actually, while Zayed's was based on communication, peace, and understanding. One might say the Saddam was the negative leader and Zayed was the positive one. The differences between them are due to several factors: their upbringing and education was completely different and influenced their actions in a significant manner. Also, they had to deal with different situations and different environments, that affect the leadership style.

Reference List

Saddam Hussein (2007). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved March 25, 2007 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Secular_leadership.

DuBrin, Andrew J. (2005). Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills. Fifth Edition. Chapter 1: The Nature and Importance of Leadership. Retrieved March 25, 2007 at http://college.hmco.com/business/dubrin/leadership/5e/chapters/chapter1.html.

DuBrin, Andrew J. (2005). Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills. Fifth Edition. Chapter 2: Traits, Motives, and Characteristics of Leaders. Retrieved March 25, 2007 at http://college.hmco.com/business/dubrin/leadership/5e/chapters/chapter2.html.

DuBrin, Andrew J. (2005). Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills. Fifth Edition. Chapter 7: Power, Politics, and Leadership. Retrieved March 25, 2007 at http://college.hmco.com/business/dubrin/leadership/5e/chapters/chapter7.html.