Leadership Styles

Obama vs. Clinton: Leadership Styles
His approach of visionary leadership is appealing but risky. Her health-care reform
managerialism already has been proven ineffective
The virtual dead heat in the Super Tuesday Democratic primary is being attributed by the
punditocracy to the absence of any significant policy differences separating candidates
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The two nonetheless have drawn clear distinctions
between the ways in which they each propose to govern the nation, and those differences
sound a lot like a rehashing of past debates about opposing styles of corporate leadership.
Senator Clinton (D-N.Y.) argues that the role of the President is not only to provide
visionary leadership outward from the Oval Office to the nation and the world but also to
control and direct the federal bureaucracy downward to ensure that policies are carried out
faithfully and effectively.
In sharp contrast, Senator Obama (D-Ill.) declares he will do the chief executive's job by
focusing completely on providing leadership vision, judgment, and inspiration. As for
controlling the agencies that would report to him, he says he will delegate that
responsibility. He pledges to stay above the managerial fray and, instead, hold agency
heads fully accountable for the performance of the bureaucracies in their charge.
On one level, these visions seem to reflect a Carteresque tendency to micromanage
(Clinton) and a Reaganesque organizational nonchalance (Obama). But each candidate is
actually putting forth a well-reasoned philosophy of leadership, and their distinct
approaches have implications for their respective abilities to deliver on the changes the
majority of the nation seems to desire. From the vantage point of a business school
professor, what is particularly striking is that the two candidates clearly articulate
competing theories of leadership that have been the focus of much scholarly research over
the last several decades; what I'll refer to as the "managerial" and "transformational"
approaches.
Micromanagement Misfires
As attractive as it once may have seemed to put the best and brightest technocrats in the
corporate driver's seat, managerialist approaches seldom worked well in practice. In
particular, top-down efforts to micromanage corporate change have proved almost totally
ineffective. An impressive body of research and well-documented case studies of large

corporations reveal few instances in which a CEO successfully transformed an organization
by preparing detailed blueprints for change and then directing the implementation of those
plans downward through the ranks.
Instead, when successful transformations have occurred, it has almost always been the
result of leaders who offer inspiring visions and values, identify clear goals, and then
provide the context and opportunity for those below them to participate in the design and
implementation of the actual business of change. That's why, in general, leaders of large
corporations have moved away from top-down "planned change," and, instead, adopted a
values-based, decentralized approach to organizational transformation.
And that brings us to the kind of President that candidate Obama proposes to be. As a
student of U.S. Constitutional history, the senator's philosophy seems to have been
influenced by some of the few words the founders ever wrote with specific regard to
leadership. Significantly, they confined their remarks to the task of visionary leadership
and were silent on the issue of management.
In The Federalist, James Madison wrote that the nation's leaders need to listen intently to
the expressed desires of the public, but should not be prisoners to the public's literal
demands. Instead, leaders in a democracy should "discern the true interests" and common
needs of the people and then "refine the public view" in a way that transcends the surface
noise of pettiness, contradiction, and self-interest.
Common Values
To appreciate what that means in practice, it is worth reading Theodore Roosevelt's 1910
"New Nationalism" speech. Delivered in a Kansas cornfield, T.R. addressed the specific
and legitimate interests and needs of industrialists, farmers, financiers, laborers, small
business owners, and conservationists, showing equal respect for each of their competing
values and claims.
But he didn't stop there. Roosevelt then elevated the discussion by offering a transcendent
vision of a good society that encompassed those conflicting values in a way that each group
alone was unable to articulate from their narrower perspectives. He thus showed the nation
the way forward by identifying the overarching values the disparate, warring special
interests had in common, creating a compelling vision of a better future than one that could

be achieved by continuing conflict.
What Roosevelt did not do is spell out the particulars of how that would be done. Instead,
he outlined the basic conditions under which it could be done. He realized the key to
implementation was the involvement and participation of all the relevant constituencies.
This values-based approach to leadership is particularly appropriate when followers are
deeply divided by ideology, religion, and ethnic backgrounds, as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson
Mandela, and Vaclav Havel each demonstrated in complex situations during troubled times
in their respective homelands. Corporate leaders have also discovered that this approach is
the most effective way to lead complex organizations in turbulent environments.
What kind of national leadership does the U.S. need in the next four years? That is what
voters must ultimately decide in the remaining primaries and in the final test in November.
On the one hand, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she has experience using the
managerialist approach. On the other, it is uncertain whether Barack Obama is capable of
transformational leadership because it is not something that can be practiced in a
deliberative body like the Senate. And all history tells us is that occupants of the Oval
Office either rise to the challenge or they don't. It is never known in advance if an untested
President will turn out to be a Roosevelt or a Harding.
Hence, betting on a candidate's ability to provide transformational leadership entails an
element of risk. Yet, judging from what we've seen in both the national and corporate
arenas, there's a relatively high degree of certainty that managerialist leadership is unlikely
to achieve the deep changes for which the nation's voters are calling.
James O'Toole is Distinguished Professor at the Daniels College of Business, University of
Denver, and author of Leading Change and The Executive's Compass. He was formerly
executive director of the Leadership Institute at the University of Southern California, and
executive vice-president of the Aspen Institute.