Newton Small Leadership Styles

The Speaker of the House is mandated by the Constitution. The Speaker is chosen by the majority party, which has both formal and informal powers, and is second in line to triumph to the presidency should that office become available. The Speaker is in charge of his party and the entire House. He or she also serves as the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House fulfills quite a few roles, including representing constituents as a member of Congress, acting as executive head of the House, making committee assignments, appointing the party’s legislative leaders and party leadership a staff, and serving as leader of the majority political party in the House. The current Speaker of the House is John Boehner from

The increasing power of the presidency in the domestic realm is evident in the growing ability of the president to set the policy agenda and use public opinion to control legislative outcomes. Going public is a strategy that is used by the president to promote his policies by appealing directly to the voters to pressure members of Congress to pass his legislative agenda or risk a contested primary. “Going public undermines the legitimacy of other politicians. It usurps

As leader of the House of Representatives, Boehner is responsible for managing his party members, responding to their concerns as well as making committee assignments and assigning bills etc. However, with the current lack of party unity(agreement among party members) among Republicans and divided government (Republicans are the majority in Congress, but there is a Democratic president.) he has not been able to adequately fulfill these responsibilities and lead his chamber Of Congress effectively. While Republican members of the House pressed him to make more “aggressive policy changes” and decrease funding , Boehner faced opposition from the Democratic presidency which made it nearly impossible to fulfill the demands of those members. Disagreement within the Republican party also prevents the development of a favorable agenda among Republican House members. Simply put, Boehner could not properly respond to party member’s concerns due to the divided government nor could he manage those members due to the lack of unity and agreement among them.This article serves to inform readers of Boehner’s resignation and of the reasons for it , but it also provides one explanation of why policy making is hindered. While this article is not particularly biased against Boehner or his opposers, it seems to be slightly sympathetic toward Boehner noting his emotions and depicting him as a victim of political conflict.

With the end of World War Two and the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the United States emerged on the global stage as one of the planet's great economic and military powers. It is safe to say that with America's change in status, and in conjunction with profound industrial and technological change, that presidential leadership would necessarily have to transform yet again to meet a new era; nowhere could two different styles of leadership to meet the age be seen than in the Cold War administrations of Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. Both men would exhibit a unique style of leadership suited to the personality of each, and each style could be considered to characterize the administration of each president, but nevertheless, both men would also use very similar leadership styles when necessary in order to attain certain policy goals.

In addressing the importance of relationships in politics, Matthews writes “[n]o president can carry out a program if the Congress refuses to pass it in the first place or if the bureaucracy refuses to support its vigorous execution” (35). In my opinion, this is a basic political tenet which many people seem to have forgotten. To some people, the President is the only one responsible for any success and failures that may arise as the result of a certain legislative measure while the other branch members are absolved of any responsibility. However, in order to truly understand how politics work, we need to understand that each member of the government, not just the president, should be praised for the success and held accountable for the

When elected, each President enters office with the goal of aligning public policy with his objectives and most often also with the goals of his party. The starting point is the understanding of Neustadt’s observation that our government is by the design of the Founding Fathers “separate institutions sharing powers” and therefore, the President must be willing to work with Congress in order to accomplish his (or her) goals. It is often said that no man is an island—that certainly includes the

Governing the U.S. is a hard endeavor, and thus the founding fathers aw fit to establish the constitution in such a way that divides the powers of governing into three branches. Of these three branches it can be argued that either congressional power or executive power is appropriate for governing the nation, however it is my opinion that the executive branch is the best choice of leadership. The central thesis for this paper is, do to the “separate intuitions, and sharing powers” portion of the constitution, the president is best suited to leadership do to his abilities to negotiate and in turn implement good strategies. The structure of congress and the president is largely different, where congress is governed by multiple individuals

Building a coalition with Congress is vitally important. Presidents want to leave a legacy with essential legislation. Public policy legislation is especially important to the president because they want “ground breaking” policy. Presidents cannot manage the nation by themselves. It is necessary for Presidents to partner with Congress, even though it is frequently very difficult. The legislative and executive branches are responsible for compromises that consist of passing laws, adopting budgets, treaties,

Over the years, many Presidents have acted to carry out agendas by issuing Executive Orders, neglecting to work in concert with Congress and angering critics in the process. An example of this would be when in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama made a vow to the American people that he would step up and act on his own if Congress did not do its part to follow through in a timely manner with his cabinet’s current agenda. As a result of such actions, some critics feel the President holds too much power, his abilities thereby

Since 2001 till 2006, , John was the House Committee’s chairperson on Education as well as the Workforce where he reformed the private schools in issues that had been difficult to address (Advameg). In the 2006 elections, Boehner became the House Majority Leader after the majority managed to enhance the first change in transparency and accountability of the fiscal plans (Brown 49). Boehner became the Speaker-designate of the assembly in 2010 when he was turning 60, and later in 2011 January he was sworn in to the 112th Congress as the House’s 53rd Speaker (Williams13). The post became maintainable for him in 2013 within the 113th Congress as no other individual opposed his

n national finance he said, “Unless we can overcome this narrow disposition, and learn to estimate measures by their general tendency, we shall never be a great or happy people, if we remain a people at all.” (D, 116) He would do “whatever it takes to get my plan on the Congress floor… I wanted what I got. When you got skin in the game, you stay in the game, but you don’t get a win unless you play in the game.”

George W. Bush prided himself on his decisiveness. Bush’s management style was structured around a desire to preserve the time of the president and produce swift action. Bush’s management style was a product of his past experiences as a former governor of Texas and business executive and his business school education. His life experiences had taught him to delegate and trust the abilities of his immediate subordinates. (Allen & Broder, 2004) Joe Allbaugh, a top aide and 2000 campaign director, described Bush as the “best one-minute manager” and a “fantastic delegator.” (Public Broadcasting Service, 2004) President Bush once described his own decision making style by stating “I’m not a textbook player. I am a gut player.” (Pfiffner 2011, 249) This preference was reflected in the way his White House organized his access to information.

James MacGregor Burns’ theory of transactional leadership is built on the premise that calculated leadership, not conscientious leadership, drives effective governance. According to Burns, “for the marketplace is just that—a mart. It is a place of quick connections and quick fixes. The moods and styles are quick; they assure reciprocity, flexibility, substitutability of buyers and sellers, volatility of relationships. Relationships are dominated by quick calculations of cost-benefits." Political expediency drives politics. In this view, politics becomes a zero-sum game. Decision-making is based on winning votes, appealing to constituents, and building party alliances. However, a tension arises within this framework of opinion-based transactional leadership. Which mode of leadership should a statesman strive for? Should a statesman

Incrementalism is a theory of the national budgetary process which dominated the mainstream of American budgeting since mid 1960s. This theory is outlined in two landmark works: The Politics of the Budgetary Process (1964) by Aaron Wildavsky and The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress (1966) by Richard Fenno. Incrementalism is a description of how budget decisions are made given an open political system with dispersed power and a complex mix of values, purposes, and interests. According to this theory, decision making depends on calculation of alternatives. Wildavsky explains that a major clue toward understanding budgeting is the huge complexity of the calculations involved. Decision makers of budgeting treat their overwhelming burden by getting aids to calculations. The most important aid they get to make easier their calculation is the incremental method. They make budgeting incremental, not comprehensive. The budgets are prepared on the base of last year’s budgets “with special attention given to a narrow range of increases or decreases”, rather than reviewed as a whole every year. The process is quite predictable, and stable in their whole system.

The federal budget process is a lengthy and complex process that involves monitoring, adjusting, and reporting on the current year’s budget. The budget process is put in place to ensure there is enough funds for many things such as “wage war, provide housing, and maintain streets” (Rubin 2014). Some of the actors are Bureau Chiefs, The Executive Budget Office, and Chief Executive Office. It all begins with the Federal Budget Process and the President’s proposed budget, while directly involving the execution process. The budget execution process aims to reduce the risk of overspending, but when the budget is nearing completion, and it seems overspending will occur, budget sequestration comes into play. However, if not used correctly, sequestration could do more harm than good to our economy and cost important programs their funding. Misuse could also lead to the waste of time and money, which does not benefit the warfighter or the taxpayers.