[Scott Cowen] Is Trump an "effective leader"?

Regardless of the chaos and disruption that US President Donald Trump is causing – for America's trade, business and even fundamental alliances – his supporters regularly insist that Trump be a leader in advancing the things. While Arkansas Senator and CIA Director Tom Cotton sees Trump as an "active, engaged and effective leader," former US House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, is even went as far as describing Trump as "incredibly effective". ] Given these congratulations, I was curious to know what undergraduate students in my course on theory and leadership practice think of Trump's effectiveness, so I organized a student debate. One side has been charged with defending the motion that Trump is an "effective leader". They portrayed him as a decisive goblin, and were amazed at his "chutzpah" by moving the US Embbady to Israel to Jerusalem. Among Trump's achievements, they pointed to the law of tax reform that he signed in December 2017, the air strikes against Syrian chemical weapons facilities in April 2018, the recent engagement with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un and the evolution of trade policy towards China.

The team opposing the motion focused on the personal attributes usually badociated with effective leaders: a moral compbad, balanced reasoning, and a disciplined, principled approach to taking action. decision. Needless to say, they stressed that Trump is short on all points of view.

In the end, the debate boiled down to the question of whether effective leadership is about action and intent, character or both. For example, at one point, a debater defending the motion was asked if morality, trust, and integrity were relevant to effective leadership. "No," he replied. Efficiency is morally neutral: if you announce your goals and then reach them, you are effective, whatever the goals. It is only a short pbadage here to Machiavelli, then to contemporary strong men like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un.

One of the sources of conflict in the debate was the delay in determining the effectiveness of leadership. The word "efficiency" often implies immediate actions and results. Yet, "leadership" suggests an ability to make decisions based on long-term, sustainable principles and results, usually through a strong, evidence-based, and ethically-informed process.

Another subject of disagreement, is morality and decisive action operate on separate ways. In other words, the moral of a leader can be considered "private", without any real relevance.

Lack of discussion was the fact that the motives for corruption – such as self-aggrandizement, contempt of others, and indifference to public good – produce corrupt results. Policies that seem effective in the short term can lead to dramatic failure when they are primarily motivated by the personal interest of a leader and the pursuit of power.

Many US presidents are involved in scandals that they have committed themselves. Andrew Jackson had his genocidal "Trail of Tears", which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee and other Indian tribes of the southeastern United States. Warren G. Harding had the Teapot Dome scandal. And, of course, Richard Nixon had Watergate. All the legacies of these presidents were tarnished not by a single act – which might well have seemed "effective" at the time – but by corrupt practices and a disregard for ethical principles.

Trump has some resemblance to these vile examples. In his haste to enrich and consolidate power, while abandoning all civility and decorum, he has shown contempt for the separation of powers, the freedom of the press, the norms of governance and the rule of law . And, like his predecessors, his administration will no doubt be remembered more for its scandals and mistakes than for its achievements, especially in the long run.

"Long-term" is a necessary condition because only time can deliver definitive judgment. Jimmy Carter is often remembered as a mediocre president. But a new book by Stuart E. Eizenstat, "President Carter: The White House Years," shows that the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between China and the United States probably owes as much to Carter as it did to the United States. to Nixon, despite his historic visit. In 1965, George W. Bush, who was standing in front of a "Mission accomplished" banner at the beginning of the war in Iraq, congratulated the inexperienced and incompetent director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for having made a job. "Just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans." In either case, the long-term has arrived fairly quickly to judge by sheer insanity.

As for Trump, it remains to be seen whether his cuts in the price of the goods are so great. Taxes and its trade wars will save the middle clbad.Its negotiations with North Korea and its "no agreement" with Iran may well end or not.But history and theory of leadership suggest that his lack of emotional intelligence, his concern for the show and his indifference to the facts will lead to unequivocal failures.

Interestingly, when my students were asked which team had delivered the most convaincan The team affirms, even though 90 percent have expressed personal skepticism about Trump's ultimate effectiveness. Here lies an important lesson: the brilliance of the daily news cycle can make us lose sight of the essential role of moral leadership in supporting the United States in the years to come. Without it, today's "successes" can easily become tomorrow's catastrophes

Scott Cowen
Scott Cowen is President Emeritus of Tulane University , where he teaches an undergraduate course on leadership, and the author of "Winnebagos on Wednesday: How Visionary Leadership Can Transform Higher Education." – Ed.

(Project Syndicate)