American Political Leadership after 9/11
$49.95 $9.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
The paper discusses how the magnitude and nature of the challenges facing the United States after 9/11 resulted in a need for leadership that was both decentralized and integrated among the many and intercontinental agencies taking part in the fight against terrorism. The paper discusses President Bush's appointment of Tom Ridge as leader of the Department of Homeland Security and addresses his use of the situational and contingency leadership styles. The paper explores the need for collaborative leadership and finds that the main challenge remains collaborative and effective communication among countries that are allied against the mutual threat of terrorism. The paper concludes that in order to effectively implement the battle against this threat, it is important to engage in targeted collaboration that is based upon a mutual understanding of what the threat of terrorism means to the different parties involved in its mitigation.
From the Paper:"In terms of leadership, Secretary Ridge (2004) had very particular ideas on how his type of leadership was to occur. He for example favored a personal, individualized leadership style. This means that leadership is a choice for the leader involved, with consideration of the variety of challenges faced by the leader. Indeed, the leader is to match his or her own concerns and values with the challenges at hand. As such, Ridge was espousing a type of situational and contingency leadership style.
"According to Fox (2009, p. 50), situational leadership refers to a series of management assumptions and beliefs. There is a high concern for people and a low concern for production. In terms of the Homeland Security function then, the main concern is for human life - those that have been lost and those that are potentially lost as a result of the terrorist threat. Situational leadership is not only practical (Fox, 2009, p. 51), but also prescriptive. Leadership is subject to flexibility according to what the specific situation involved demands. This is an excellent leadership paradigm to handle the terrorist threat. Terrorism is not a uniform or consistent threat, being that it occurs across borders and that it flourishes upon the element of surprise. Optimally flexible leadership is therefore required to mitigate this threat."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Czerwinski, J. (2005, May). Maximizing NATO for the War on Terror: Presidential Leadership can Strengthen the Transatlantic Relationship by Defining and Pursuing Shared Homeland Security Interests. Center for the Study of the Presidency. Retrieved from http://www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/internapplication/Maximizing_NATO.pdf
- Conley, R.S. (2002, Nov.). The War on Terrorism and Homeland Security: Presidential and Congressional Challenges. Retrieved from http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rconley/homelandsecurity.PDF
- Fox, J.C. (2009) Analyzing Leadership Styles of Incident Commanders. Northcentral University. School of Business and Technology Management. Retrieved from http://www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/docs/Fox,%20Jeffrey%20-%20Analyzing%20Leadership%20Styles%20of%20Incident%20Commanders.pdf
- Gaufin, J. (2006). Key Principles for Effective Crisis Leadership. Great Basin Public Health Leadership Institute. Retrieved from http://health.utah.gov/ems/conferences/leadership/2006/gaufin_crisis_leadership.ppt
- Ridge, Tom. (2004, Feb 11). Remarks at Harvard Business School's Leadership and Values Forum. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/speech_0154.shtm?content=3174
Cite this Analytical Essay:
American Political Leadership after 9/11 (2013, April 21) Retrieved May 23, 2017, from http://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/american-political-leadership-after-9-11-152708/
"American Political Leadership after 9/11" 21 April 2013. Web. 23 May. 2017. <http://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/american-political-leadership-after-9-11-152708/>