The reading was interesting in that it used such an abstract notion as
Charisma to try and define the leadership qualities of leaders by
authority, US Presidents, and tried to analyze the impact of charisma
and influence on the public. However by reducing leadership to the
notion of charisma it occluded other factors which might play a role in
the popularity of presidents. It did on the other side try to include
some other aspects of the presidents' popularity such as the economic
state of the country but is it really sufficient to analyze the true
impact of a president?
1) As for many things with Jobs it depends on your
perspective but I would support that Jobs’ charisma or his “reality distortion
field” allowed his collaborators to perform better than they would imagine
possible. This changed the level of involvement and commitment towards Jobs and
allowed his teams to make inconceivable deadlines and advance the industry.
2) These speeches, although aimed
towards the public, shouldn’t if we follow Edwards reasoning influence in any
way the public opinion. The real question will be who will do the best job and
not who is the more decent human being. Neither of them should gain more
partisan except people who were already followers.
3) Today, one of the most
critical issues in foreign policy is the issue of Syria and its’ now called civil
war. It is possible to imagine that with an inspirational and charismatic
leader the rebels could organize behind this figure and may be able to organize
and federate a possible rising democracy. As of now, with no main figure to follow the
rebels are too unorganized for outside sources to help them.
No comments:
Post a Comment