Saddam Hussein vs. Richard Branson: Leadership Styles Compared

Introduction

Comparing two very different leaders makes it possible to discern the key qualities and actions that make someone either an effective or an ineffective leader. The paths that Saddam Hussein and Richard Branson took to elevate themselves to positions of high authority will be examined here, with attention to the methods each used, and the advantages and disadvantages those methods provided. A head-to-head comparison of their leadership styles, ethical frameworks, and leadership theory classifications follows.

Saddam Hussein: Rise, Rule, and Ruin

Born in Tikrit, Iraq in 1937, Saddam Hussein endured a humble existence and a difficult childhood. Nevertheless, the secularist Hussein was a political animal who rose through the ranks of the Ba'ath Party, learning his leadership methods by studying Josef Stalin (Hickman, 2003). In 1968, a bloodless coup by the Ba'ath Party resulted in the presidency of Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, and Hussein was appointed to the high government position of Deputy. As Deputy, Hussein proved advanced, successful, and ruthless — modernizing Iraq's infrastructure, economy, oil industry, education, and healthcare systems, while simultaneously establishing a cruel security apparatus that regularly used torture, rape, and murder to protect the government against coups and to eliminate political rivals (MacFarquhar, 2006). The citizenry of Iraq justifiably feared Hussein's brutal methods, dubbing him "The Butcher of Baghdad" (Siemaszko, 2015).

In 1979, Hussein forced al-Bakr's resignation and became President of Iraq. Under his presidency, Iraq invaded the oil-rich region of Khuzestan, Iran in 1980, setting off an eight-year war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Fearing Islamic radicalism, Western countries backed Hussein, turning a blind eye to his internationally illegal invasion of Iran, his development of chemical and nuclear weapons, and his near-genocide of Iraqi Kurds. A ceasefire was reached in 1988, but the war had severely damaged Iraq's economy. In 1990, Hussein invaded the oil-rich country of Kuwait and ignored a 1991 withdrawal deadline imposed by the UN Security Council. In response, UN forces led by the United States attacked Iraq and temporarily subdued Hussein's government. In 2002, after the United States declared that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, it launched a new war against Iraq, toppling Hussein's government and sending him into hiding. Hussein was captured in 2003, tried in 2004 for crimes against humanity, found guilty, and hanged on December 30, 2006.

Saddam Hussein was an odd dichotomy. He deftly rose through the political ranks to a position of supreme authority and radically modernized Iraq in several key areas. However, he was ultimately a deeply flawed leader in at least four respects, discussed here in no particular order of importance.

First, he cavalierly and widely executed Iraqi citizens — sometimes for offenses no more serious than publicly joking about him or criticizing him — and constricted Iraq into a deadly police state that habitually imprisoned, tortured, and lethally gassed its own citizens (MacFarquhar, 2006). Second, Hussein possessed a delusional, egotistical belief that he was ordained by God to rule and "save" Iraq, resulting in the mandatory placement of his statue at the entrance to every Iraqi village and his portrait in every government office and home. Even while in captivity from 2003 to 2006, he still regarded himself as Iraq's rightful president (MacFarquhar, 2006). Third, nepotism rose to an art form during his presidency. He filled the highest ranks of government with his own relatives, leading to incompetent leadership and bloody family feuds that crippled rather than strengthened Iraqi governance (MacFarquhar, 2006). Fourth, he subjected his nation to wars that drained Iraq's resources. His decisions to invade neighboring Iran and Kuwait resulted in severe economic sanctions from the West and a citizenry decimated by years of conflict (MacFarquhar, 2006). Rather than building up and securing his country's economy, Hussein's aggression caused Iraq to suffer terribly, negating much of the progress he had made through modernization. In the final analysis, Hussein was a terrible leader whose execution of his own citizens, delusional egoism, nepotism, and costly foreign aggression nearly destroyed his own nation.

Richard Branson: Entrepreneurial Vision and People-Centered Leadership

Born in 1950 in Surrey, England, Richard Branson was a struggling student — at least partly due to his dyslexia — and dropped out of school at the age of 16. In that same year, 1966, Branson launched a youth culture magazine called Student. The modest success of Student spurred him to create a mail-order record company named Virgin. That success led him to open a record shop in London, which in turn prompted him to open a recording studio in 1972. In 1973, one of the studio's aspiring artists, Mike Oldfield, recorded "Tubular Bells," which became a massive hit and remained on the UK charts for 247 weeks. The success of "Tubular Bells" gave Branson the momentum to sign many other artists, including established acts such as The Rolling Stones. Again and again, Branson has used his successes — and even his occasional failures — to establish and expand Virgin Group, which now encompasses more than 200 businesses in 30 countries. In 2009, Branson was listed in Forbes as a self-made billionaire with an estimated net worth of $2.5 billion (Biography.com editors, n.d.).

Branson considers himself a rule breaker who never learned the conventional rules of leadership in the first place. Rather than following a standard formula for business success, Virgin Group prides itself on doing things differently (Schawbel, 2014). Branson's top ten rules for being a great leader are: follow your passions, do good, believe in your business, have fun, don't give up, listen more and talk less, make room for personal time through delegation, meet people, communicate across all levels of your company, and be happy (Feloni, 2015). People are drawn to work for Branson because of several distinctive qualities: his genuine interest in people; his generous use of praise and rewards; his creation of a family bond in the workplace; and his unusually high valuation of employees — even placing their well-being above that of customers (McDonald, n.d.).

There are at least four reasons for Richard Branson's continued success, discussed here in no particular order of importance. First, as his biography demonstrates, Branson consistently builds on each victory — or even each failure — to create a new success. He expanded from a small student newspaper to a mail-order record company, then to a record store, a recording studio, and onward until Virgin Group comprised more than 200 companies in more than 30 countries (Biography.com editors, n.d.). He is a forward-thinking leader constantly looking to expand and diversify his ventures.

Second, Branson always "protects the downside" (Feloni, 2015). He does not enter a business venture that could utterly destroy his enterprise if it fails; instead, he takes deliberate steps to hedge his bets and sidestep the worst possible outcome. For example, he attracted investors in Virgin Airlines by securing Boeing's promise to take back Virgin's single 747 jet if the business did not perform as intended (Feloni, 2015). As a result, even Branson's failures cannot destroy his broader business interests.

Third, he values his employees so specifically and so highly that working for him is a stimulating, positive experience. This generosity of spirit allows him to attract and retain exceptional talent — one of the major ongoing challenges of any business — while significantly reducing turnover and disengagement (McDonald, n.d.). Fourth, Branson cultivates open communication throughout his organization. Rather than rigidly enforcing only standard channels, his employees are encouraged to circulate and communicate with one another regardless of department or level. That cross-organizational communication fosters a sense that employees are valued and heard, while also enabling the companies to generate creative ideas for new or improved ventures (Feloni, 2015). Branson's talent for building on both success and failure, his protection of the downside, his distinctively high valuation of employees, and the open communication he cultivates all contribute to his continued global success.

Conclusion

Both Saddam Hussein and Richard Branson can be considered successes in their own right; however, their paths and qualities are vastly different. Hussein had humble beginnings and a rough childhood in the Middle East. A driven political animal, he rose to power by being calculating, modernizing, and ruthlessly brutal — the "Butcher of Baghdad" — following the example of Josef Stalin. He retained power through those same methods but ultimately ended his life deposed, convicted of crimes against humanity, and hanged. He was a deeply flawed leader in at least four respects: the cavalier and widespread execution of Iraqi citizens; a delusional, egotistical belief that he was ordained by God to rule; rampant nepotism; and subjecting his nation to ruinous wars that drained Iraq's resources.

Richard Branson rose from middle-class British life, dropping out of school at 16 but starting his first business at that same age and relentlessly building and expanding through both successes and failures. His Virgin Group now comprises more than 200 businesses in more than 30 countries. Branson's continued success stems from: consistently building on victories and failures alike to generate new success; always protecting the downside so that no single venture can destroy his enterprise; exceptionally valuing his employees, which attracts and retains top talent; and cultivating open communication throughout his organization. Through his inimitable style, Branson is a widely acknowledged success.

Head-to-head comparisons of Branson and Hussein across Theory X and Theory Y leadership styles, ethics, and leadership theory reveal that they were nearly diametrically opposed. Branson is a Theory Y leader with a positive, optimistic, and trusting attitude toward workers, while Hussein was a Theory X leader — distrustful and pessimistic — who used coercive and autocratic methods to control people and extract production. In terms of ethics, Branson operates at the postconventional level of moral development, striving for a vision of service and a higher good and empowering his workers to do the same, while Hussein operated at the preconventional level, using autocratic authority to serve his own interests and focused on personal reward and the avoidance of punishment rather than any higher good. Finally, according to leadership theory, Branson is a Team Leader who values people's well-being just as highly as he values production, while Hussein was an Authority Compliance Leader who devalued people and saw them as expendable pawns or tools in the pursuit of his goals. Both men could be considered successful by certain narrow standards, but their goals, methods, and attitudes toward people were as different as night and day.