Josh Buckner

President Obama has recently declared that the United States is not a Christian nation at war with Islam. He also bowed to the Saudi King, shook hands Hugo Chavez, and promised the world that America would not torture. For this Obama has been criticized as showing weakness, a criticism most famously made by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Is Cheney right or wrong about Obama? How do you measure political strength, anyways? When I listen to the debate over the strength of Obama’s leadership, I notice that people seem to prefer either masculine or feminine leadership styles. So what is the difference between them?

Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.
- General George Patton

Masculine leadership is marked by power hierarchies and deference to authority. A masculine leader understands that his followers need strong and decisive leadership, so he is not afraid to exercise his authority through force and intimidation. Defy his leadership and face clear, merciless consequences. Preemptive aggression serves to solidify his dominant place in the pecking order. Masculine leaders have achieved positions of authority by winning battles in direct competition (politically or militarily). At its best, a masculine power structure provides clear lines of authority, accountability, and effective top-down communication. At its worst, masculine leadership is vulnerable to abuses of power and extremely adversarial relationships. You’re either with us or against us.

What does a strong masculine leader do when called upon as a third party to help negotiate a peace deal? His view is quite simple: don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

Bush received a lot of criticism when this video footage was released, however I believe this was actually a strong display of masculine leadership. Hezbollah challenged and therefore opened themselves to retribution. From Bush’s powerful position, the idea of doing something to end the conflict didn’t even warrant a pause in his meal. (It can be argued that Bush did not hold Israel accountable in the same way that he condemned the violence from Hezbollah, but that is beyond the scope of this article.)

Commentator Bill O’Reilly is a pretty accurate example of masculine-style dominance. Regardless of your opinion about him, the man is trained to detect any sign of weakness and pounce upon it. Listen to his interpretation of this exchange between Obama and Hugo Chavez.

Empathy is the biggest negotiation tool. I must try to understand where the other person’s coming from to make points for my side.
-Lee Ducat

Feminine leadership seeks group cohesion and actively builds consensus. A feminine leader recognizes the power of unity and inclusiveness, and her strong communication skills make her an attractive leader. In negotiations, she understands the other side and finds win-win solutions. Feminine leaders come to power by dissolving the competition as opposed to beating the competition. At its best, feminine leadership allows all parties to feel that their voices matter, and therefore have a shared investment in a common outcome. At its worst, feminine leadership is overly accommodating in its attempts to build alliances.

Now let’s contrast these leadership styles with the opposite end of the power spectrum, again through the masculine/feminine voices.

The masculine-submissive type has resigned to the fact that he is not in charge. He avoids conflict because he usually winds up on the losing end. He’s bitter that nice guys finish last, but finds some comfort in being the nice guy who always does what he’s told. He might advocate pacifism and world peace based on his fear of losing the conflict.

The feminine-submissive type seeks to reduce conflict and avoid confrontation by downplaying her own interests. If people are upset with her, she assumes it’s her fault and does what she can to appease them. This style can be summed up as blaming America first.

In light of these distinctions, what type of leadership do you think President Obama embodies? If you say that Obama is a weak leader, please explain what you mean. Do you believe that Obama’s feminine leadership qualities are ineffective, or are you saying that he fails at being a cowboy-style leader? It’s fair and helpful to debate the merits of masculine vs. feminine leadership, but don’t simply equate feminine leadership with weak leadership. Perhaps, as in love, the most effective leaders utilize the best of both worlds while minimizing the shortcomings of both.

The challenge of leadership is to be strong, but not rude; be kind, but not weak; be bold, but not bully; be thoughtful, but not lazy; be humble, but not timid; be proud, but not arrogant; have humor, but without folly.
-Jim Rohn

Posted in: Politics by Josh Buckner / Tags: Bush, Cheney, foreign policy, leadership, Obama, psychology