Reflection

Reflection Post (Sorry about the lateness, i forgot to actually put it on blogger)

 The discussion we had in class about Arab Springs really made me think about the underuse of soft power in the USA. With such military strength and recognition, the USA is known for getting other countries to agree so they too can be stable. The USA promoting democracy can backlash since the audience the US is trying to appeal to, isnt keen on their support. Instead, the USA should rather look for advisory tips to give to them so they could form their own democracy with "aid when needed". This method (soft power) might make these people more attracted to the idea of a fair democracy.

Reflection Post

Reflection Post:

Today’s class was interesting and I was especially intrigued by the opening debate about American leadership during the Arab Spring. We confronted the issues that the President himself had encountered and I agree with most of the class that President Obama’s ‘hard power’ inducement for Mubarak to stand down was too public, too aggressive, and too rushed. In the New York Times article, Obama’s senior advisers criticized him for neglecting relationships with Arab leaders, and in my opinion creating and maintaining those types of relationships within the Arab region is crucial to remaining in alliance with countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Israel, and of course Egypt. President Obama cannot afford to have such impersonal relationships with other world leaders, because it will be harder to further the U.S.’s agenda and to accomplish what needs to be accomplished in the Arab region.

I also wanted to touch upon the lecture about transactional and transformational leadership and the question, “Can transactional leadership generate transformational change?” The answer is yes. Transactional leaders can use different modes of transactional style to achieve transformational objectives. Transactional leaders can use hard power to get what they want from followers, in order to achieve a greater good that would benefit both that leader and transformational objectives, as was the case with Lyndon B. Johnson and the ‘Great Society.’ Overall, it was a very interesting lecture, but the break was way too late in the class and my attention span was wavering…and, the slides were way too fast. 

Making Connections

So Nye's reading was all about the different uses of hard power and soft power and when each is appropriate, combining to form a brilliant combination called smart power. Since we were also just studying charismatic leadership, I was thinking which form of power would make the most use out of charisma?

Personally, I believe that soft power would be used for the best if the leader already had the advantage of his followers loving him. In this case, the leader would have no need to threaten or bribe them as he would already be respected and they would willingly obey. However, would he be exploiting his charisma by doing this? Would it be considered manipulation and cause his followers to turn on him at some point if they realize they are being taken for granted?

On the other hand, the use of hard power doesn't look as great either. If he already has people who will follow his commands, why would he waste the time and money to reward or punish them? He would be rewarding them for something they came to terms with on their own when they made the decision to support his charismatic style of leading.
That's the question I'm throwing out.

Side note from the reading: I thought it was very interesting that Nye referred to soft power as the feminine style of leadership and he said that is what we are drifting toward to. To counter that, I would like to remind others that there are exceptions to every rule because I would definitely say Margaret Thatcher utilized more hard power techniques than soft power techniques.

Reflection Post: Hard and Soft Power

Though are discussion digressed into an IR discussion at points, today’s class provided fruitful ideas. I was already fairly familiar with hard power; less so with soft power. Soft power is an interesting concept and requires a higher level of thought than hard power in that hard power is tangible. Additionally, it is applicable in many more situations than hard power.  On the international level, as the accessibility of technology continues to increase, hard is relegated to a tool used to heighten soft power capabilities resulting in what Nye calls “smart power.” The readings support my stance by noting the change in “operating systems” where people are motivated by a sense a purpose, intrinsic motivators, as opposed to self-interest, extrinsic motivators (Pink). People care less about ‘carrots’ and fear ‘sticks’ less. This is when high levels of soft power are essential to the success of leaders everywhere. Among the methods of exercising soft power, a combination of framing, moral authority, and agenda setting is most desirable but is not always achievable. Of the three agenda setting is the most aggressive and arguably the most effective. It most easily accomplished if one has moral authority which garners respect. A real world example of the use of soft power might present itself as follows: a lobbyist may use framing to influence a congressman to set the agenda in favor of the lobbyist’s proposal. The likelihood of success is improved if the proposal is backed by an individual with moral authority which attracts more followers.

Response_September 19

With all the recent events in the Middle East, some soft power responses that could be done (according to Nye) is to influence (and in a way manipulate others to see the US ideas as important) the Middle Eastern countries to see the American influence important to maintain stability and safety. Hard power such as threats might be inefficient in this issue as The US might lose support from its "good people" (quote from Nye). The United States  should attract others to reject the Anti-American movement by communication and persuasion of the people. The United States could still be exercising leadership by using soft power once they get the work done. It doesn't necessarily mean that hard power must be used in every situation (people will get sick and tired of being "pushed around." 
 

Reflection Post: Leadership with Dr. Philip Sharpe

First off, I would like to say I admire Dr. Sharpe’s decision to speak to as a class rather than utilize his status to draw a crowd. Dr. Sharpe presented several points which were to me as well as several ideas I had already formulated but he did so in novel ways. Amongst my favorite of his quotes was his directive to “think scientifically without being trapped by it.” Although this is a concept that has been a central component of my life for some time, I had never been able to put it into words. His remark is reminiscent of how Steve Jobs was described in his biography: at the crossroads of the humanities and science.

Far too often, I have see people and institutions fail because they don’t realize how limited, or “in the box” their thinking is. Dr. Sharpe expounded on this point saying “human interaction is spontaneous” and “people tend to oversimplify things.” I agree with Dr. Sharpe’s message and have studied it in my Cross Cultural Communications class where we read an article describing different thought processes. At one point the article stated, Far-Easterner wisdom is full of contradictions which Westerners all but despise. The relation to what Dr. Sharpe was presenting in a thought along the lines of: people like things to be simple, great people can accept the contradictions of life and succeed.

Additionally, I found most of his stories in the later parts of his speech interesting but they held little relevance for me and provided few takeaways. His advice on how to be a leader was much more fruitful. I appreciate his well-rounded approach to leaders citing a knowledge of the social sciences and history specifically biographies. Further, never had I heard a speaker make note of the importance of personal observation of leadership. Past speakers have always told me to look to the past for answers about leadership. If had to select one take away, that would be it.

Response to Edwards Reading

This weeks reading from Edwards shed some light on the correlation between charisma, personality, and effective leadership. The argument made about charisma not being a real measure of failure or success was interesting, but also essentially true, even when the case study is Steve Jobs. Nonetheless, charisma alone cannot determine an effective leader or his popularity standing.

As Edwards noted, personal characteristics, such as charisma are not alone successful in leading the public. In order for a leader to be successful does he have to popular or loved by all? Does he have to be exceptionally appealing and have a wonderful personality? On the one hand, Steve Jobs wasn’t loved for his warm personality and kind demeanor, but for his innovation in the field of technology and his outlandish ideas.  On the other, his charisma and his reality distortion field were what truly pushed his team to do their best, and to try even harder to reach impossible deadlines, especially while working on the Mac.

Isaacson’s biography on Steve Jobs gave a multitude of examples in which Jobs transcended even himself in terms of ambition, progress, innovation, and success. His personality and his charisma inevitably led to his power and control over everything he did, but it also led to his great leadership. So, YES, charisma can actually change the level of mobilization or coordination of a leader and a company, but is it the only factor that determines a leader’s success or popularity – no.