EFFECTS OF U.S. PRESIDENTS LEADERSHIP ROLES ON GLOBAL SECURITY A CASE OF CARTER AND BUSH

EFFECTS OF U.S. PRESIDENTS’ LEADERSHIP ROLES ON GLOBAL

SECURITY: A CASE OF CARTER AND BUSH

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The United States has had considerable influence on the global security of the

modern world. The global influence, wielded through military interventions and

humanitarian missions around the globe (The G7/G8 and global security, 2003; Falk,

2004), characterizes a nation referred to as the sole superpower of the world (Galbraith,

2004; Wireman, 2001, p. 495). In spite of terrorist attacks on U.S. interests in various

parts of the world (Carens, 2003; Galbraith; Lindsay, 2003b), the probability of the

United States losing its high degree of influence in the near future was considered low in

this current research. This expressed notion of insecurity dilemma and security burden

felt from incidences of international terrorism since the collapse of the Soviet Union and

the end of the Cold War have provoked serious arguments regarding security policy goals

of U.S. presidents. For example, Falk described the policy goals in international military

interventions that were to control human hazards around the globe, whereas Kuperman

(2004) questioned the legality and legitimacy of such policies around the globe within the

purview of global security.

Taking into consideration the above perspectives and the ability of the U.S.

citizenry to change leadership and political parties every 4 years, a study that would

explore the leadership impact of the U.S. presidency on global security was very

important. This current exploration selected two U.S. presidents, James Earl Carter, Jr.

(hereafter referred to as Jimmy Carter) and George Walker Bush (hereafter referred to as

G. W. Bush), for a qualitative historical case study that used a systems approach to

explore how the presidents envisioned the presidency and set preferences for leadership

functions that affected global security. An in-depth examination of the two presidents’

roles and approaches to policy formulations and implementations, and the policies

considered as "important tools of statecraft” (McEvoy-Levy, 2001, p.6), revealed the

emerging leadership patterns of the presidents. The pattern detected in the presidents’

leadership actions toward security and safety matters of concern to U.S. citizens and

interests were similar to Kuhn’s (1996) description about scientific revolution. Those

actions evolved with time.

Problem Statement

The United States, the sole remaining superpower since the end of the Cold War

(Joyner, 2003; Wireman, 2001), is also a prominent terrorist target. Tucker (1999) noted,

“Terrorist outrages against U.S. targets often represented a lashing-out against America’s

predominant military, economic, and political influence” (pp. 32-39). These activities

have incurred the wrath of countries and groups that resent America’s power and

tendency toward unilateral action and democratic values (Anderson, 2004; Galbraith,

2004). Cannistaro (1995), Joyner (2003), and Stender (1998) contended that exploring the

leadership roles and styles of past presidents, and their approaches to immigration and

security policies, could help elucidate the efficacy of global security.

This qualitative historical case study investigated the effects of the leadership

roles of two U.S. presidents, which are former President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) and

the incumbent President G. W. Bush (2001- term) on national security outcomes. The

archival files examined were those relating to security policies and similar situations that

affected the United States during these two presidencies for patterns of security policy

decisions and leadership roles.

Background

The security of U.S. citizens and of U.S. interests around the globe is a broad

phenomenon and an issue of increasing concern (Foster & Wise, 1999; Levashov, 2002;

Moss, 2003/2004). This phenomenon, a reflection of a global system of security,

transcends concepts of state borders (Crotty, 2004; Deng, 2001; Levashov). This

historical case study modeled security to include factors that had direct links to or offered

any assurance for the safety of U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad. In the face

of mounting evidence of violence and threats of attack on U.S. citizenry and U.S.

interests around the world (Carens, 2003; Crotty; Deng; The G7/G8 and global security,

2003; Hagel, 2002), security concerns of U.S. citizens and U.S. interests at home and

abroad were deemed problematic. An examination of the effects that the roles and

leadership styles of the two U.S. presidents studied had on global security and the safety

of U.S. citizens and interests around the world strengthened the basis found for this

qualitative historical case study.

Some relational issues analyzed, such as immigration, were within this framework

of the empiricism (Creswell, 2002; Merriam, 1998). Empirical data were important

sources for determining the impact that U.S. immigration policies and immigration

violations had on terrorist threats and attacks in the United States and around the globe

(Carens, 2003; Crotty, 2004; Deng, 2001). Exploring the presidents’ various leadership

roles within the purview of security not only helped uncover how the presidents’

leadership roles affected security issues but also helped inform future leaders on better

ways to engage worthwhile leadership approaches and strategies (Hendrickson, 1996;

Senge, 1990). The outcomes of this qualitative historical case study might encourage

future leaders not to look only at the leader as the center of attention when pursuing

leadership excellence but also at the synergy of the whole consortium. The iterative

conception that was offered in this current study, which is the Zekoist Iterations

Triangulation concept (ZIT-c), was an attempt to simplify references to the

generalizations obtained in triangulating ideas advanced in the sources used. The three

references used in the Zekoist Iterations Triangulation concept were from Maslow (1971),

Senge (1990), and Capra (1976). Maslow’s (1971) hierarchy of needs, along with systems

thinking and systems theory, was used as a part of the triangulation concept. Senge’s

(1990) reiteration that “Our organizations work the way they work, ultimately, because of

how we think and how we interact” revealed that “Only by changing how we think can

we change deeply embedded policies and practices” (p. xiv). This logic provided for a

very strong argument for adopting the triangulation approach to the leadership conception

in this historical qualitative case study. Burns’ (1978) earlier lead by associating

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs concept with leadership activities provided for a solid

foundation to follow in this important exploration.

The outcomes of this research are considered important. As the sole remaining

superpower since the end of the Cold War (Joyner, 2003), the United States has become a

prominent terrorist target because of its global military presence (Carens, 2003;

Wireman, 2001); because of repeated interventions in distant conflicts (Hendrickson,

1996); and because of its prominent roles in global security and peacekeeping operations

(Tucker, 1999). These activities have incurred the wrath of countries and groups that

resent America’s power and tendency toward unilateral action and democratic values

(Anderson, 2004; Galbraith, 2004). Tucker noted, “Terrorist outrages against U.S. targets

often represented a lashing-out against America’s predominant military, economic, and

political influence” (pp. 32-39).

Accounts of international terrorist operations against U.S. interests go far beyond

the eras considered here in this qualitative study. In fact, a sampling of the emerging

phenomena observed here reflects an unpredictable geographical characterization. These

accounts in no way localized the identities of the terror perpetrators with any degree of

certainty. Recent accounts of terrorist operations included the 1985 Achille Lauro

hijacking; the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City; the

September 11, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as September 11); and the destruction of New

York City’s Twin Towers (Cannistaro, 1995; Galbraith, 2004). This dissertation did not

consider terrorism an isolated international phenomenon. For example, on April 29, 1995,

the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing by a natural-born American citizen

(Weisenberger, 2005) redefined terrorism for many, citizens or non-citizens.

Concerns are increasing that sponsored terrorist organizations could smuggle

unconventional weapons into the United States in suitcases or small crates and bring a

fatal attack to Main Street America by attacking civilian targets. The concern reflects that

terrorist groups would resort to these techniques rather than employing long-range

ballistic missiles (Crotty, 2004; Galbraith, 2004). The concerns raised demonstrate for

this current study that insecurity perceptions were increasingly apparent. There was also a

sustained argument that attacks against domestic targets in the United States could

constrain U.S. military operations abroad by creating a major political crisis at home

(Anderson, 2004; Galbraith). The alternative is that terrorist threats elsewhere might be

used for political blackmail to compel the United States into withdrawing its forces from

abroad.

The ability of the leadership to minimize terrorist threats and attacks depends to

some degree on the effectiveness of intelligence gathering and intelligence iterations

(Capra, 1996; Galbraith, 2004; Maslow, 1971; Senge, 1990). As further illustrated, this

current study generalized from prior studies that a more security-focused leadership role

by a U.S. president could potentially control terrorist threats and attacks or, at least help

reduce incidences of threats and attacks. The ZIT-c is a concept derived from

triangulating ideas of other studies like Burns’ (1978), Johnson and Zenko’s (2002/2003),

Perl’s (2003), and Stender’s (1998) and to meet this objective. Burns associated

leadership with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs concept; whereas Johnson and Zenke

offered some definitions for leadership; and Stender explored the leadership conditions

and environment.

Security is one of the most important factors for the safety of U.S. citizens and

U.S. interests at home and abroad (Anderson, 2004; Crotty, 2004; Falk, 2004;

Morningstar & Blacker, 2004) in addition to leadership stability and effectiveness. A

concern that emerged during the current study was whether security caused the United

States to become a target for international terrorists or if international terrorists were

responsible for the security awareness level pursued in the United States (Anderson;

Galbraith, 2004).

This historical case study considered international terrorism very important

because of the serious consequences on the safety of U.S. citizens and interests at home

and abroad. The ZIT-c (as demonstrated in Figure 1) illustrates interactivities and

iterations within the identified systems elements. As the current study directly focused on

former President Jimmy Carter and incumbent President G. W. Bush, investigations were

made of the impacts of the various leadership roles and influences identified with the

presidents against the policy approaches the presidents engaged.

Figure 1. Note: The data for the design of The Zekoist Iterations Triangulation conception

(ZIT-c) on hierarchies of needs in a democratic state (an exploded view) are from The

Web of Life, by F. Capra (1996); Motivation and Personality, by A. Maslow (1971) and

The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, by P. Senge

(1990).

The ZIT-c was motivated through generalizations obtained through triangulating

theories and prior concepts, including: systems theory, hierarchy of needs, and

organizations’ team learning. Some of these prior studies were influenced or pioneered by

Burns (1978), Capra (1996), Galbraith (2004), D. W. Johnson & Johnson (2000), and

Senge (1990).

This historical case study chose former President Jimmy Carter to underscore a

history of the impact of terrorism on global security and to limit the scope of the study.

Noting that global terrorism is not a newly emerged concern, this historical case study

investigated why, in spite of the lessons of the Iran hostage crisis that occurred during the

Carter administration, there should be any possibility of the more grievous and more

defiant attack on U.S. soil during President G. W. Bush’s first administration. This current

study was designed to collect policy data from both administrations and to use the data in

exploring why the greater terror experience more than a decade later occurred. The study

outcome provides information that could help enhance understanding of what appears to

be an increasing phenomenon, which is the increase global insecurity over time.

The Zekoist Iterations Triangulation conception (ZIT-c). Maslow’s hierarchy of

needs, systems theory, and systems thinking formed the basis for the germinal and

evolving Zekoist Iterations Triangulation conception (see Figure 2). The goal of this

historical case study was to find meaning (Simon & Francis, 2001, p. 42) from the data

collected. The hope here is that continued peer reviews and feedback could be received

from experts in the field of leadership and global security that would generate enough

discourse for continued exploration on the problem defined in the dissertation. The

objective of this qualitative historical case study was to help determine additional ways of

improving leadership approaches to policies and the effects on global security. This is

important, especially considering Simon’s (2006, p. 88) assertion that a mere rejection of

a hypothesis could not guarantee total absence of an alleged phenomenon. The hope is

that future research will use the triangulation conception advanced in this current study to

engage a more diverse selection of presidents to provide for further reliability. Scientific

and academic validations can help reveal more about the benefits of emphasizing

iterations in studying and explaining the concept of leadership.

Figure 2. Note: The data for creating The Zekoist Iterative Triangulation concept (ZIT-c)

are from The Web of Life, by F. Capra (1996); Motivation and Personality, by A. Maslow

(1971) and The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, by P.

Senge (1990).

As illustrated in Figure 2, the iterations concept articulated in ZIT-c was borne out

of thinking within three basic principles triangulated to find a meaning (Simon & Francis,

2001). ZIT-c identified three basic principles:

1. Maslow’s (1971) hierarchy of needs (selections and choice), where priorities were

placed on options and alternatives because of limited resources;

2. Systems theory (composition), where a system was theorized as the module of

elemental compositions or interrelated parts of the whole system (Capra, 1996;

Senge, 1990); and

3. Systems thinking (iterations), where the conception was that systems are

composed of elements that interacted within the confines of the system to produce

a butterfly effect or ripple effect at each and any change that occurred (Capra;

Senge).

This current study explored presidential leadership consortia considered for impact on

global security. Analyses focused on the iterations that occurred between the elements

that composed the systems studied for leadership effectiveness or lack thereof.

Greenstein’s (2004) catalog of presidential leadership profiling, among many others, was

consulted in this qualitative historical case study with reports of the findings presented in

Chapter 4. Verification involved triangulation of various sources and ideas.

This historical case study considered systems theory and thinking (Capra, 1996;

Senge, 1990) in mapping out the effect or synergism of the iterations that occurred

between the presidents’ chosen alternatives and those who made the choices. The focus of

the systems concept was on the effectiveness of interactivities (Burns, 1978; Irby, Brook,

Duffy & Trautman, 2002; Senge, 1990) and iterations (ZIT-c). The synergism evaluated

in the decisions the leaders made within the systems consortia was evaluated for the

effects of the presidents’ leadership styles and approaches. In triangulating for the

systems concept, the current study considered very seriously the presidents’ approaches to

making policy decisions when placing hierarchies on the security needs of the United

States. Analyses of these actions revealed the emerging leadership styles of two

presidents, which are Carter and Bush.

Burns’ (1978) study advanced Maslow’s (1971) concept of the hierarchy of needs

by linking the concept with leadership functions. This current study, in the same manner

as Burns, conceived that the many U.S. policies created or revised were attributable to

presidential leadership activities, and thus the iterations triangulation (Braziel, 2000;

Greenstein, 2004; Hunt, 2002; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2004, 2005). For

example, the September 11 terror attacks on the United States triggered a series of policy

actions and reactions that represented activity avenues and resources (Burns; Crotty,

2004; R. Johnson & Zenko, 2002/2003; Perl, 2003). Yet, notwithstanding the new and

emerging immigration and security policies, global and national safety and security

remained problematic (R. Johnson & Zenko; Perl).

Why Government Policies?

This qualitative case study considered the U.S. president the chief political actor

(Hunt, 2002) for the very important role in determining the leadership effectiveness of

each administration (Greenstein, 2004). Article II of the Constitution allowed the

president to exercise special privileges intended to strengthen this important role; and

over the years, U.S. presidents have exercised these powers by issuing executive

directives. Published in sequential editions, Title 3, Code of Federal Regulations bear

updates of these executive orders. Editors at the Office of the Federal Register maintain

disposition tables that remain updated at each presidential signing of the directives.

James D. Richardson’s cited an earlier account of efforts to compile presidential

directives in his book A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents.

Records showed that Richardson’s work was under the direction of the Congressional

Joint Committee on Printing and that President Lincoln signed the document

(Congressional Research Service, 2005). Extremely important to this qualitative study,

James D. Richardson’s historical effort was the premier of the practice of cataloging data

for secondary data banks. This current historical case study was strengthened largely

because of the availability of secondary data as the primary resources upon which the

study predicated. Stewart and Kamins (1993) underscored this significance by asserting

that:

A vast international information industry has come into being since the 1950s.

This industry obtains, stores, and even sells information in one form or another.

Today, with the advent of compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM) . . . these

recent information technologies [changes] have added great power to the capacity

of individuals and organizations to identify and use information. With secondary

data now so easily accessible, their use should only continue to expand . . . . The

source of information—whether it is obtained by secondary or primary research—

is not important as long as the information is trustworthy and answers the

question at hand. In fact, it will be less expensive and time-consuming to use

secondary sources. (pp. 2-4)

In a historic account of an exercise of the special executive presidential privilege

under Article II of the Constitution, President George Washington issued an Instrument of

Proclamation on October 3, 1789 recommending to the people of the United States a day

of public thanksgiving. Recent accounts showed that the incumbent President G. W.

Bush also exercised those privileges when he issued a controversial Military Order on

November 2001 directing the manner in which to handle alleged non-citizen terrorists

(Congressional Research Service, 2005).

This current study determined that government policies are highly sensitive to,

and contingent upon, such factors as the intelligence information gathered (Cannistaro,

1995; Galbraith, 2004; Hunt, 2002). For instance, the modified alert system presented in

Table 1 was the result of a presidential directive following the September 11, 2001 attacks

on the United States (Hunt; Maslow, 1971). The Department of Homeland Security,

which was the result from the president’s directive, devised the alert awareness system.

The system has codes of colors that indicate various levels of alertness, namely, red for

severe risk, orange for high risk, yellow for elevated risk, blue for guarded risk, and green

for low risk of terrorist attacks (Greenstein, 2004; Office of the Press

Secretary, 2002; The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004).

The rationale behind the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s alert system

was to create an avenue for better security awareness for the American populace and to

protect U.S. interests at home and abroad, managed through enhanced intelligence

gathering and warning mechanisms on security matters (Crotty, 2004; Galbraith, 2004;

Hunt, 2002). The intelligence policy that guided the design for the alert system reflected

upon the incumbent president’s leadership role/styles and especially his perception at the

time.

Table 1

Security Alert System

Alert level Characteristics Codes

Severe risk

Almost certain a terror attack will occur and the country readies

for attack (mostly preemptive as in G. W. Bush’s

administration’s response in the post-9/11 attacks.

Red

High risk

Suspicion of the possibility of a terrorist attack exists, but no

clarity exists as to the extent possible.

Orange

Elevated risk

Significant risk of a terrorist attack is suspected, with increasing

anxiety and societal uneasiness worldwide.

Yellow

Guarded risk

General risk of terror attacks associated with checks and

balances of available resources like oil and gas for sustenance in

case of an emergency.

Blue

Low risk Low risk of terror attacks suspected associated with conditions

similar to a Cold War atmosphere when allies are identified or

negotiated as seen during Carter and Reagan administrations.

Green

Note. Adapted from Homeland Security Presidential Directive—3. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 10, 2004, from ProQuest, from:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020312-5.html, Office of the Press

Secretary. (2002, March 12).

As was the case in the G. W. Bush administration regarding increased security

policy formulations at a crisis time, the Carter administration, when faced with the 1979

dilemma of a U.S. embassy hostage debacle in Iran (Cannistaro, 1995; McAlister, 2002)

set up policies of mediation to avert further terrorist escalation. The Carter administration

engaged in a strategy or policy of exhausting all other options through negotiations until

military intervention was unsuccessfully attempted—a failed reaction to media pressure

in an election year (Cannistaro; McAlister).

This current study investigated how the leadership approaches or roles and styles

of the presidents guided the direction of each administration’s policies and the effects

such impacts had on security issues. This point further underscored the question of

whether President G. W. Bush based the preemptive war in Iraq on security alertness or

intelligence gathered and fed through the democratic system or media influence (see

Figure 1).

Purpose

The purpose of this qualitative historical case study was to explore the leadership

roles of two U.S. presidents—former President Jimmy Carter and the incumbent

President G. W. Bush—and their approaches toward security policies and related issues.

Current events, secondary archival and historical documents were used to analyze the

leadership roles of these two U.S. presidents with regard to national security issues. The

investigation considered the leadership roles and decisions of these two presidents on

security policies and related issues such as immigration. Stender (1998) had contended

that exploring the leadership roles and styles of past presidents and the presidents’

approaches to immigration and security policies would help reveal and add new

knowledge to existing knowledge in the area of global security (Hunt, 2002; R. Johnson

& Zenko, 2002/2003). The issues considered in this current study, such as policies,

information or intelligence gathering, or leadership traits, emerged through a qualitative

research approach. This dissertation revealed how the presidents’ leadership styles

influenced policy formulations and implementations, which in turn influenced safety and

security issues.

Significance of the Study

That terrorism could ever have threatened the world’s sole superpower to the

heights of the September 11 experience (Crotty, 2004; Joyner, 2003; Wireman, 2001) was

once inconceivable. Similarly, business leaders usually do not anticipate the full extent of

leadership failures until anarchy and insurgencies malign, threaten or undermine the

vision of the organizations they lead (Senge, 1990). This qualitative historical case study

determined that under increasing threat, the unique nature of organizational safety and

security problems as well as the concerns raised, remained complex. This historical case

study, in context, considered presidential leadership as essential to the safety of the

United States and its interests at home and abroad (Joyner, 2003; Payne & Gray, 1984).

Threatening or sabotaging these safety interests puts the nation’s economy at risk and

therefore, the future of the nation (Cannistaro, 1995), the result of which would then

become a historical statistic that would count the United States as a once-known notable

country like the former Roman Empire (R. Johnson & Zenko, 2002/2003; Perl, 2003;

Stender, 1998). This dissertation took the threat to safety very seriously and hoped to

generate more interest for future research to help expand on the precedence set through

this critical study.

Cannistaro (1995), Joyner (2003), and Stender (1998) contended that exploring

the leadership roles and styles of past presidents and the presidents’ approaches to

immigration and security policies would help reveal and add new knowledge to the

knowledge base in the area of global security. These prior studies considered safety and

security as issues of immense importance to future leaders just as did this qualitative

historical case study. Especially important are the policy formulations and

implementations (Hunt, 2002; R. Johnson & Zenko, 2002/2003). While emphasizing the

importance of strategies in properly placing leadership-needs hierarchies in a systems

process, Senge (1990) discussed learning organizations. By inferring that organizations’

overall successes depended upon the tenacity and preparedness of the various parts of the

organizations to learn and adapt to changes, Senge essentially implied that changes were

transcendental and therefore, permeate all leadership endeavors.

Significance of the Study to Leadership

Leedy and Ormrod (2001) noted, “Qualitative researchers frequently used

triangulation to support the validity of their findings” (p. 102) by comparing multiple data

sources in search of common themes. Figure 1 demonstrates an illustration of the

triangulation concept advanced in the Zekoist iteration conception. The design of this

investigation was so that it would help to contribute to the body of knowledge in support

of leadership functions that would enhance security. The triangulation approach was

useful in yielding the Zekoist conception (ZIT-c) toward that objective by primarily using

a much broader concept of systems thinking and transposing the research findings to the

specifics of leadership concepts found in day-to-day organizations (Gephart, 2004; Senge,

1990). This current study maintained that exploring the leadership roles and strategies of

the two presidents—Jimmy Carter and G. W. Bush—provided for the valuable

information obtained on alternative forms of leadership styles and the additional

strategies identified for leaders on security issues. Applying the principles of systems

thinking (Capra, 1996; Senge) to the issues of security and safety facilitated the objective

effort made in this current study to provide new insights to leaders on the roles and

measures appropriate to enhance the security needs of the country at home and abroad.

Nature of the Study

This qualitative historical case study explored the effects of presidential

leadership roles on global security. A search was made of archival files on the

administrations of both Jimmy Carter and G. W. Bush relating to presidential leadership,

global security, and leadership theories and concepts. The annals of history and current

affairs and policy documents revealed the data coded, interpreted, and analyzed through

use of QSR’s NVivo 6.0 software program. The study presented the report (Luna-Reyes &

Anderson, 2003; Simon & Francis, 2001) in a content analytical paradigm.

The selection made to use a content model for analyses in this historical case

study was an appropriate choice. The justification for the choice used the rationale that in

an exploratory research (Creswell, 1998, 2002) such as this one, the phenomena of

leadership behavior (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977) and security (Cannistario, 1995; Crotty,

2004) were transcending to the traditional notion of analysis or outcomes of physical

quantities. Earlier studies have explained this type of approach to context as applicable

when the researcher is (a) concerned with process rather than products; (b) interested in

how people make sense of their lives, safety, or experiences; and (c) is the primary

instrument for data collection, analysis, or interpretation (Creswell, 1998, 2002; Merriam,

1998; Patton, 2000). Security consciousness and how the leadership role of a leader

influences the lives and experiences of others were considered important in this

dissertation and therefore, requires more attention than the little (Deng, 2001; Hagel,

2002) given in the earlier studies identified.

Prior studies concentrated mostly on military might and military interventions

(Hagel, 2002), peacekeeping (Grytsenko, 2006; Jung, 2006), and human rights,

democratization, and international economic globalization (Kuperman, 2004) at the

expense of the safety or security of Americans and American interests at home and abroad

(Cannistaro, 1995). For qualitative research, Patton (2000) posited,

Qualitative research is an effort to understand situations in their uniqueness as

part of a particular context and the interactions there. This understanding is an end

in itself, so that it is not attempting to predict what may happen in the future

necessarily, but to understand the nature of the setting—what it means to people

to be in that setting, what their lives are like, what is going on for them, what their

meanings are, what the world looks like in that particular setting—and in the

analysis to be able to communicate that faithfully to others who are interested in

the setting. . . . The analysis strives for depth of understanding. (p. 1)

A historical case study design was deemed suitable for research exploring a

certain entity or phenomenon bounded by time to gain insight into and understanding of

the phenomenon (Creswell, 1998, 2002; Gephart, 2004; Merriam, 1998). This dissertation

presented a method of investigating complex social units consisting of certain multiple

elements of potential importance in the understanding of a certain phenomenon. In line

with popular viewpoints, a case design such as this current investigation, deemed

anchored on real-time situations, provide for a rich and holistic exposition or account of a

phenomenon (Creswell, 1998, 2002; Leedy & Ormrod, 2001; Merriam; Vogt, 1999).

An appropriate historical case study is one where a case is the focus of the study

and its uniqueness or exceptional importance or qualities could promote understanding or

inform practice for a similar situation (Leedy & Ormrod). In this historical case study of

two U.S. presidents—Jimmy Carter and G. W. Bush—the exploration of the presidents’

leadership roles or behaviors and the effects on the security or safety of U.S. citizens and

U.S. interests were to inform leaders and would-be leaders of certain effective leadership

approaches and behaviors. Selecting a content design was appropriate for the study

because the investigation was interested in leadership processes and challenges. This

current qualitative research was exploratory and used primary and secondary data as well

as a literature review (Creswell, 2002; Gephart; Merriam) in the content designs.

Why a Case of Carter and G. W. Bush?

The purpose of this dissertation was not for a mere comparison and contrast

exercise. Former President Jimmy Carter and incumbent President G. W. Bush were the

choice candidates for this current case study with a historical orientation; a historical case

study of the leadership roles of two U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter and G. W. Bush.

Explored were the presidents’ approaches toward security policies and related issues for

any impact on global security.

Table 2

How Major Theories compare with the Iterations Triangulation Conception

Theory

variables

Trait or great

person

Contingency or

situational

Maslow’s

hierarchy of

needs

perspective

Zekoist

iterations

triangulation

conception

Major tenet of

the theory

Inherently a

leader

As a matter of

course(s)

As a matter of

course(s)

Team or group

concept

Characteristics

or attributes

Visibly a leader

at the onset

Changes styles

to correspond

with the

conditions of

change

Changes styles

and approach as

the levels of

needs change

Nonlinear

Orientation and

concentration

or focus

Linear and

predictable

Linear Linear Nonlinear or

predictable

Use or exercise

of power

Practicality and

continuity

Discrete or share Discrete or share Discrete or

Note. Compiled from data obtained from Leadership by J. Burns (1978); The Web of Life,

F. Capra (1976); The World Philosophers and the War Economy (2004) by J. Galbraith;

Joining together; Group Theory and Group Skills (2000) by D. W. Johnson and F. P.

Johnson; and The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization by

P. Senge (1990).

The major underlining global concern at the time of this study was global

terrorism, and the area of greatest concern was the Middle East. Both presidents have

their presidencies, in part, defined by the way they dealt with Middle Eastern concerns.

Crotty, (2004) and Deng (2001), among many other researchers believed that terrorism is

a phenomenon that demonstrates a reflection of a global system of security that

transcends concepts of state borders.

The Iran hostage crisis during the Carter administration, and more than two

decades later, the September 11 experience in the G. W. Bush administration, helped

reveal the inferred reality and distinction about state borders in relation to global security.

In an effort to both obtain a historical characterization for this current study and diminish

any superficial perception of a study of comparison and contrast, former president Jimmy

Carter was chosen. Otherwise, the most qualified contending candidates would be either

former presidents Reagan or Clinton in contemporary accounts of presidential leadership.

The rationale in this choice was to conduct a study that would focus on framing research

questions on issues that would relate to discussions about whether the prevailing global

terrorism is attributable to leadership flaws or to policy inadequacies, or both.

The most important reason for choosing the two presidents was the noted

insecurity experience that was over two decades old being repeated on a much larger

scale on September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001 terrorists attacked U.S. citizens and

interests on U.S. soil despite the earlier experience, during the Carter administration, with

the Iran hostage crisis. The hope here in this dissertation was to generate enough interest

in the study of leadership roles of U.S. presidents on global security. The choice of Jimmy

Carter, rather than a more popular president like Clinton or Reagan, elevated the hope that

the stated objective to divert attention from any expectation for a popularity contest was

possible. A popularity contest would have otherwise defeated the primary goal of the

research, which was to add new knowledge to the knowledge base of scholarly research

of the concept of leadership.

The research effort made in this study explored the presidents’ emerging

leadership styles, while considering the existing concepts about systems iterations and

thinking for a closer examination. Yin (2003a) noted that this kind of a research was a

multiple case study. The design of the dissertation was not to test hypotheses, but rather to

generate them if such prompting should occur.

Defining Leadership for the Historical Case Study

Definitions and characterizations of leadership underscore this historical case

study. Various theories and concepts (Galbraith, 2004; D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2000;

Senge, 1990) have continued for decades with concerted efforts to simplify leadership

understanding and enhance outcomes in applications. Diverse explanations and

definitions have resulted from those various attempts. The idea on how one person

emerges from a group to dominate and influence that group’s direction on any given

project (Burns, 1978), can be viewed in theories such as Trait or “great man” theory;

contingency or situational theory; and the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs perspective (see

Table 2).

Other theories and concepts. The list presented in Table 2 only reflected the major

leadership theories and concepts; however, many other attempts made were subordinate

to these primary theories and concepts. For instance, triangulating prior studies and

scholarly discourses in this current study yielded an enhanced leadership concept. Those

earlier approaches associated with Burns (1978) and Senge (1990, p. 245) largely

influenced this current study. Burns’ study had emphasized on Maslow’s (1971) hierarchy

of needs concept, and Senge’s study strongly related to systems theory and systems

thinking.

In a 1996 study, Bardwick had articulated certain attributes that would make for a

successful wartime leader. That study emphasized interactivity. Bardwick (1996)

indicated that the attributes of a wartime leader would include: (a) define the business of

the business, (b) create a winning strategy, (c) communicate persuasively, (d) behave with

integrity, (e) respect others, and (f) act responsibly (p. 136). Another important and

significant approach was a post-modernist advocacy for a gender-neutral leadership

conception.

The “SLT”—Synergistic Leadership Theory (Irby et al, 2001, p. 304) was

advanced for this purpose in 1999 and has since obtained several validations “across

American ethnic cultures and geographic locations and is currently being validated

internationally” (p. 318). Irby et al. had presented four factors in SLT that they believed

would make for a successful leader. The authors sought to advance a framework for

describing interactions and dynamic tensions between four factors: (1) leadership

behavior; (2) organizational structure; (3) external forces; and (4) attitudes, beliefs, and

values (Irby et al., 2002, p. 312).

In one validation study for SLT, Bamberg (2004) reported that four of the five

female School Superintendents that were studied became successful when they severally

aligned themselves to these success determinant factors in SLT. Two other validation

studies for the SLT (Hernandez in 2004 and Trautman earlier in 2000) have also shared

the same inclination and attributed leadership successes to strong emphasis on

interactivity.

Transactional and Transformational Leadership Actions.

In 1978, Professor McGregor Burns reported on an earlier study that had

emphasized interaction. In this study, Burns (1978) affirmed that a leader’s proper

evaluation of scarce resources and making of concerted efforts to facilitate interactions

within the leadership systems consortium enhanced leadership outcomes. Burns explained

leadership in terms of adequate application of the ideas heralded in Maslow’s hierarchy of

needs concept, where the ideal leader helps the followers to attain full potentials in the

process. Additionally, Senge (1990) singularly, emphasized systems interactivity while

relying on the concept of synergism and built on social learning theory to explain

leadership concept.

As Naidoo (2003) reiterated, social learning involves “the leadership of

clarification, not exhortation” (p.1). Rewards and punishment characterize social

learning. A more concise qualitative approach to distinguishing between leadership

actions has persisted right through decades of varied debates on leadership as a concept.

As early as 1978, Professor McGregor Burns revealed certain distinctive attributes that he

had associated with transactional and transformational leader actions (Bryman, 2001,

p.280). Subsequent validation studies on Burns’ study included Bass in 1985, and Bass

and Avolio in 1990. At both times, Burns’ transformational and transactional leaderships

advanced a step further. Bass alleged that the ideal approach to leadership exhibits both

forms of leadership (Bryman, p. 281). Bryman’s validation study had listed for the

transformational leader, several leadership characteristics, which included charisma,

inspiration, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. For the

transactional leader, Bryman included contingent reward and management by exception

(pp. 281-282). This current study used Burns’ relational approach to evaluate the

leadership styles of the two presidents studied.

Flood, Hannan, Smith, Turner, West, and Dawnson (2000) simplistically implied

that Burns’ two leadership approaches—transformational and transactional—could be

positively and negatively associated. With this simplistic approach, this current

qualitative historical case study has defined the leadership behaviors of each of the two

presidents studied in terms of attributes of either transformational or transactional factors

and analyses. Various other studies have subsequently revisited Burns’ approach in

mutuality of agreement. The most significant generalization that emerged from

triangulating those earlier leadership theories and concepts was interaction.

The instance of obtaining, toward the end of the Carter administration, freedom

for the Americans held hostage in Iran (McAlister, 2002) delineated a payoff from long

and sustained negotiations. On the other hand, the May 1, 2003 premature assessment of

a mission accomplished given to the Iraq conflict (Kinzer, 2006) by the incumbent

President G. W. Bush was assessed a tradeoff for the integrity of national security and

U.S. intelligence as the war had since continued unabated (Kinzer). From generalizations

made of all the theories and concepts considered in this qualitative historical case study,

Carter’s action was transformational and G. W. Bush’s action was transactional.

In this qualitative historical case exploration, triangulating (Bamberg, 2004, p.

21; Simon, 2006, p.57) or factoring in systems theory and systems thinking (Capra, 1996;

Galbraith; Senge) enhanced the evaluation made of the phenomenon of global insecurity

as they were affected by U.S. presidential leadership roles. This triangulation effort

resulted in a concept that not only emphasized interaction, but also largely considered

systems iterations (see Figure 1).

The triangulation processes undertaken here in this current study for data

collection and data analyses were used to explain and derive the leadership styles of the

two presidents studied—Jimmy Carter and G. W. Bush. Because of the overwhelming

generalization for interaction obtained from the prior studies identified, this current

qualitative historical case study analyzed the presidents’ behaviors towards policies in

those terms. The only difference, however, was that systems iterations was found

extremely important in this current study and offered more to the clarity of the concept of

leadership than did the mere emphasis that was laid on interaction.

By emphasizing systems iterations, the ZIT-c was used to convey not only a

strong passion for the objectives sought severally in prior studies, but also to convey the

relevance for inviting further scholarly discourse on leadership within the purview of

systems thinking with special emphasis on systems iterations. The rationale here was to

minimize, through systems iterations, the impact of out-dated approaches to explaining

the concept of leadership. For instance, sexist terms like the strongman verbiage

(Bamberg, 2004; Irby, et al., 2002) that were used in the past to explain leadership

concepts can now begin to gain adequate scholarly attention through research and

applications and to attain a more universal meaning for the concept of leadership (see

Figure 1).

The Zekoist Iterations Triangulation concept (ZIT-c) was developed as a summary

conception that linked the basic concepts of systems theory, systems thinking and

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to add to the understanding and enhancement of leadership.

Table 2 demonstrates how the major leadership theories compared to ZIT-c. The concept

advanced in ZIT-c sought to serve a dual purpose: (a) to add to the list of existing

research supporting the SLT; and (b) to encourage future validation research for the

benefits associable to systems iteration when conceptualizing and discussing leadership in

a post-modern economy. Although the ZIT-c is currently germinal and evolving, it

embraced the interactive component of prior studies and visualized certain possible

benefits from laying special emphasis on systems iterations. An inexhaustible list of some

of these expected benefits triangulated into ZIT-c include:

1. Increased participation and Reduced Error. The focus of ZIT-c was iteration.

Iterations were generalized from prior studies as essential to allowing a wider

range of input from sources that would in turn lead to reduced probabilities of

errors in judgment. Damgard and Pfitzmann’s (1997) earlier study strove to find

how the “behavior of interactive arguments under sequential iteration affects the

error probability” (p. 2). The study confirmed that iterations of arguments “with at

most three rounds does reduce the error in the way one might expect: it goes

down exponentially until it becomes negligible” (p. 2).

This approach of increased participation could help reduce the chances for

outdated leadership philosophy approaches from any school of thought to

dominate, for a protracted and unreasonable time, the concept without due review

or discourse. In the instance for reduction in error probability, ZIT-c had coined

the phrase iterative nodes to describe apolitical resources that can be used by

political institutions as support avenues in policymaking. The rationale here arose

from the generalization made of democratically elected officials. Officials are not

routinely elected based upon their efficacies in the diverse social issues and

professions. The social issues, which usually range from psychological to medical

and to economic matters, can gain support from the apolitical iterative nodes.

The ZIT-c posits that a leadership system can be better served when available

resources are properly placed in the hierarchical arrangements. Adequate use of

the idea of iterative nodes in evaluating actions can also help leadership in

managing pressure from special interest groups and to avoid any compromise of

integrity. (Almuhammadi, 2005)

2. Communication. ZIT-c emphasizes that although proper time management is

essential to successful leadership, at the same time it strongly believes that

rushing to judgment without first exhausting adequate consultations could cause

disastrous outcomes. Enhanced communication helps in easily identifying and

resolving problems. Crutcher (2002. p. 1) conducted an action research where

working in cohorts or advisory groups helped participants in “trajectory of

growth” and “dialogue reduced the amount of conflict.” (p. 3)

3. Respect. As in Bardwick’s (1996) study, ZIT-c considered systems participants as

sovereigns entitled to mutual respect. This is an important factor in the flow of

information in a system as cooperation between interacting systems elements are

enhanced. Bardwick’s (1996, p. 136) study had suggested that respect for others

(p. 136) could enhance leadership in a wartime leader. In this instance, the

analysis held in this dissertation is that motivation and commitment to

organization mission is enhanced when adequate attention and consideration are

given to systems elements. Skolnik (1997) found that “social relationships of

individual boundary spanners and their respective organizations appeared to have

an impact on the formation, process and outcomes of collaborative efforts. (p. i)

4. Organizational survival. Chances for organizational survival can increase with

reasonable emphasis laid on “business-orientation and person-oriented skills,

knowledge, and abilities.” (Hudak, Brook, Finstuen, & Riley, 1993, p. 4)

Enhanced iterative processes can improve organization chances of survival.

This qualitative case study chose former President Jimmy Carter and incumbent

President G. W. Bush as the cases for which a historical orientation was given. The

research effort made in this qualitative historical case study explored the presidents’

emerging leadership styles, while considering the existing concepts about systems

iterations and thinking for a closer examination. Yin (2003a) noted that this kind of a

research was a multiple case study. The dissertation design was not to test hypotheses, but

rather to generate them if such prompting should have occurred.

Obtaining the Data

The data for this historical case study derived from books, referenced journal

articles, historical data, public records, and narrative interpretations of events.

Triangulating the data obtained from the multiple sources (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001,

Simon & Francis, 2001) helped ascertain the validity of the data. Policies pursued by the

two presidents and the events (attacks and threats) that characterize the presidents’ policy

approaches were the input data for this historical qualitative study. With a computeraided

qualitative analysis program and methodology, the researcher systematically and

scientifically coded and managed the data. As Leedy and Ormrod (2001) noted,

identifying the context of a historical case study assists the researcher and audience in

drawing conclusions about other situations to which the findings might be generalizable.

The evolving nature of this study offered a unique characterization to the efforts

made to pursue a study such as this qualitative historical case study at this critical time.

The study design allowed for adapting the study processes to new and evolving situations

as additional information continues to drive the question and theories about the problem

explored. This historical case study methodology was a reliable tool for conducting the

qualitative research because quantitative methods rely on hypothesis testing and statistical

manipulation (Benz & Newman, 1998). Other related research studies and reports such as

those contained in Greenstein’s (2004) collection, The 9/11 Commission Report (2004),

and Clarke’s (2004) report on intelligence were critically considered and evaluated to

obtain external validity for the study.

Research Questions

The research phenomenon focused on in this study was what were the effects of

the leadership roles of two U.S. presidents—former President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)

and the incumbent President G. W. Bush (2001-term)—on national security outcomes.

More specifically, the following research questions guided this study:

1. What impact, if any, did the leadership roles of the two presidents studied have on

national security outcomes?

2. What impact, if any, did the leadership roles of the two presidents have on global

security through the policies that guided each president’s administration?

3. What are the lessons from the other questions that would enhance the leadership

practiced in other facets of leadership operations, including both large and small

corporations?

Theoretical Framework

Security matters in one part of the world could have a relative ripple effect and

repercussions in other parts of the world (Capra, 1996; Senge, 1990). Through the

systems approach, and with holistic thinking and practice, the world can appear as an

interconnected set of factors (Capra; Senge). Expanding on this concept, Capra noted,

“Minute changes in the system’s initial state will lead over time to large-scale

consequences” (p. 134), a phenomenon he called the butterfly effect. As in Capra’s ripple

effect assertion, this current qualitative study generalized recent accounts as reflective of

large-scale consequences with references to terror-related catastrophes. These terror

records included, but did not limit the records to the September 11 experience; the 1993

bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City; the April 29, 1995, bombing of the

Oklahoma City Federal Building (Weisenberger, 2005); and the 1985 Achille Lauro ship

hijacking (Cannistaro, 1995; Crotty, 2004). In this current investigation, the examples

cited of terrorist attacks were not considered exceptions to the ripple effect phenomenon,

but were given critical analytical considerations to nonetheless help establish the main

concern in the research (Creswell, 2002; Merriam, 1998), which is the concern for global

security because of terrorism.

This precedence-setting research would encourage future research in the area of

safety and security for the United States and its interests. The results would lend credence

to the intended objective of the qualitative historical study, which was to inform future

leaders on safety and security issues concerning everyday employees at the workplace

(Gephart, 2004, Merriam, 1998). Global security is the duty of all factions within the

leadership consortium or organization, herein considered a system of functions.

Definitions

This section defines operative terms and words in relation to the context of the

current study. The section expanded continuously as the research progressed, because the

definitions evolved with time just as the situations they described had evolved. In fact, the

security and safety conditions of the United States, the U.S. presidency and its effects on

global security, continued to evolve throughout the current study. For ease of access and

simplicity, these evolving terms were presented here in an alphabetical order and were

revised for updates as time demanded.

Alert awareness system: The Department of Homeland Security devised the alert

awareness system right after the September 11 attacks on U.S. soil. This was in response

to the president’s directives to find ways of alerting the public regarding the level of

security risks that loom from the perceived potential for terrorist attacks (Crotty, 2004;

Office of the Press Secretary, (2002, March 12), Homeland Security Presidential

Directive—3.

Archival data: In this study, archival data is composed of information gathered

through research on prior studies in areas of safety and global security and that supports

explanations about emerging leadership styles and roles (Creswell, 2002; Leedy and

Ormrod, 2001). For instance, the presidential directives were obtained from the annals of

history.

Content analysis: Content analysis emphasizes reading between the lines of a text.

The research methodology chosen for this study, best fit for qualitative analysis, was

meant to enhance the interpretation of the data collected and from there a theory or

theories were expected to emerge in the validation process for the case study. This

methodology has proven efficient in handling information such that persons of different

backgrounds may be able to communicate by using certain common words and phrases

not commonly used by others (Creswell, 2002; Leedy and Ormrod, 2001).

Contingency leadership theory: Contingency leadership theory has a varied

explanation for influences that drive leadership effectiveness, including the concept that

an environment has a great deal to do with the effectiveness of an incumbent leader (D.

W. Johnson and Johnson, 2000).

Gatekeepers: Hunt (2002) defined politicians as gatekeepers of the policies and

regulations of the nation by way of their legislative and regulatory functions. The

presidents studied were part of the system of gatekeepers.

Hierarchy of needs: Maslow (1971) suggested a socioeconomic concept centered

on hierarchies of needs to explain levels of importance that people place on events and

resources at certain times and places. Self-actualizations from placing hierarchies on

those needs climaxed those priorities or expectations. In this study, those actualizations

relate to policy priorities and leadership ideas advanced and the results obtained that

enhanced security. Within this study, Burns’ (1978) and Senge’s (1990, p. 245) premier

approaches were followed to link Maslow’s theory with leadership, only that this new

generalization effort added another dimension—emphasizing iterations through the

systems approach.

Immigration Act of 1990: The Congress often makes public laws that amend the

immigration law. In 1990, the Congress instituted the Immigration Act of 1990 to amend

certain portions of the law. Other examples include the Immigration Reform Act of 1986

and the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000. Public laws are usually given

names that reflect the situation addressed and are associated with the years of enactment.

Intended immigrant: In processing alien applications for non-immigrant visas, the

U.S. Department of State often denies applicants their requests for visas. Most often, this

denial action stems from the State Department official considering the applicant as not

showing enough proof of an intention to return to the home of origin after the brief visit

(United States Committee of the Judiciary, 2005).

International terrorism: Expanding global anarchism involving the destruction of

human life and property to advance the agenda of a group of persons, often extremists,

such as Al Qaeda members with suspected sponsorship attributed to Osama bin Laden

(Lindsay, 2003b).

Iterations: Iterations represent the conceived exchanges that take place between

the various components described in the triangulation system’s iterative leadership

conception. The iterations concept designed for purposes of this research used the

hierarchy of needs concept (Maslow, 1971) and the systems approach to leadership

principles and ideas. The emphasis is on iterations, where one elemental change in the

system produces a ripple effect phenomenon (Burns, 1978; Capra, 1996; Galbraith, 2004;

Maslow), and that repetitions sought for validation tend to help reduce error probabilities

in judgements or policies.

Iterative Nodes. This was a phrase the researcher had coined to describe the

conceived idea of an iterative approach to leadership. The Zekoist Iterative Triangulation

(ZIT-c) advocates for organized apolitical specialty units for iterations with policymakers,

especially in such specialized areas as medicine, economics, psychology, and psychiatry.

The rationale here being to help towards reducing error probabilities in policy

development processes through iterations (Damgard, 1997), and in effect enhance

security. Contemporary examples include the 9/11 Commission and The Iraq War

Commission.

Leadership roles and styles: The preeminence of identified characteristics of a

model or models with the expectation to gain valuable acceptance that would work

together in, and through, a medium of rules and regulations to optimize the utility of

limited resources. D. W. Johnson and Johnson (2000) offered a myriad of such definitions

as represented in Table 2. In this study, the presidential decrees, for instance, partly

characterized these roles, leading up to the leadership styles of the presidents.

Learning organizations: Senge (1990) defined an organization as a system of

parts that learns how to better adapt to change and whose collective sophistication to do

this (through the learning process) grants the whole organization the benefit of synergy.

Each of the administrations studied represented a learning organization.

Negotiations: In the context of this research, negotiations refer to the behavior of

engaging an opponent for finding an amicable solution to a conflict or disagreement, as

former President Jimmy Carter demonstrated through his actions during the 1979 Iranian

hostage crisis (Cannistaro, 1995; McAlister, 2002).

National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS): NSEERS requires

males who are 16 years of age and older, and who are citizens and nationals of identified

countries, to comply with special registration requirements when entering and departing

the United States.

Political actors: Hunt (2002) defined those persons who are closest to political

powers, such as the Congress and the president, as political actors. Both presidents

studied represented political actors.

Preemptive strikes or attacks: Preemptive strikes or attacks define the direct

opposite of negotiations. In preemptive strikes and attacks, a leader attempts to ward off

or silence an intruder by striking first with the ultimate goal of intimidating the opponent

into a withdrawal posture (Cannistaro, 1995; Crotty, 2004). The Bush administration’s

preemptive attack on Iraq serves as a prime example. The G. W. Bush administration

attacked Baghdad following the September 11 attack on U.S. soil, hoping to find weapons

of mass destruction, but later found none in Iraq.

Security concerns: These are fears triggered by invasions arising from such

actions as international terrorism that may become a localized phenomenon as the

September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil (Crotty, 2004; Lindsay, 2003b).

Security consciousness: Interchangeable with security-focused.

Security-focused: Leaders are security-focused when, in reacting to the iterations

triangulation conception effect, they choose to arrange priorities alongside the options

available to them. In this historical case study, the president is security-focused when

most of the president’s attention focuses to meeting the challenges of the prevailing level

of threat to the safety of the populace (Galbraith, 2004; Maslow, 1971).

Signing Statements: Presidential signing statements are pronouncements issued by

the president at the time of signing a congressional enactment. Through this instrument,

the president states, in addition to providing general commentary on the bills, also

identifies provisions of the legislation with which the president has concerns. The signing

statement (1) provides the president’s interpretation of the language of the law, (2)

announces constitutional limits on the interpretation of some of its provisions, or (3)

indicates directions to executive branch officials as to how to administer the new law in

an acceptable manner (Cooper, 2005, pp. 516-517).

Systems theory and thinking: This is describing a holistic approach to elements

and events in an environment wherein each element affects the others in one way or

another (Capra, 1996; Senge, 1990).

The 9/11 Commission Report: Report from the commission President G. W. Bush

created following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, mostly as a

result of pressure from surviving family members of the victims of the attack (Crotty,

2004; The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004).

USA PATRIOT Act: This is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by

Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

Initially enacted shortly after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the USA PATRIOT

Act targeted strengthening the investigative and surveillance activities of designated U.S.

authorities to prevent any repeats of such attacks (The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004)

Zekoist iterations triangulation conception effect: Holistic effect of the elements

defined within the Zekoist iterations triangulation conception, where, for example, one

element is seen as affecting other elements and thus causes an apparent ripple effect—

Capra’s (1996) butterfly effect. The Zekoist iterations triangulation conception was based

primarily on extending Burns’ (1978) and Senge’s (1990, p. 245) association of Maslow’s

(1971) hierarchy of needs concept with leadership activities—a linear approach—to the

hierarchy of needs and systems, but here associated with systems theory and thinking

(Burns; Capra; Hunt, 2002; D. W. Johnson and Johnson, 2000;

Maslow; Senge). The main emphasis goes beyond interaction to include iterations.

Assumptions

This qualitative historical case study formulated four assumptions around the research

questions posed. The rationale behind these assumptions was that the researcher was

conducting an ongoing investigation concerning global security to determine what

impact, if any that the U.S. president made through the policy approaches of each

president in the examined leadership consortia. These assumptions were that:

1. There was no significant safety or security risk in preemptive attacks on

insurgency as opposed to prolonged negotiations;

2. There was no significant relationship between immigration violations and U.S.

immigration policies;

3. There was a significant relationship between U.S. immigration policies and

security and safety concerns; and

4. There was no significant relationship between the leadership styles of U.S.

presidents and the incidences of immigration fraud and U.S. security indices.

Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations

This was a historical case study of the leadership styles and roles of two of the 43

U.S. presidents, which are Jimmy Carter and G. W. Bush. Analysis done to determine the

effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the presidents’ leadership roles and styles focused on the

policies created and implemented in those two administrations. This current study

considered that the policies, the strength of the security and safety conditions of U.S.

citizenry and interests at home and abroad depended on the policies made. As a

qualitative historical research study, validity was very important, and because of the

limited scope of the investigation, the research was limited to only two presidents. The

goal of the iterations triangulation conception and the propositions made here in this

current study was to conduct a more intense critical study that would excite interests for

continued exploration on the issues raised. This approach based the triangulation and

validation on Simon’s (2006, p. 88) warning that merely rejecting a hypothesis does not

necessarily mean that the association sought with the hypothesis was completely absent.

Given the high security alert level at the time of this current study, neither of the

two presidents under study was easily reachable for personal interviews. This difficulty in

reaching the subjects of study precluded obtaining personal information that could have

otherwise further enhanced the validity of the study through such personal contributions

(Creswell, 2002; Gephart, 2004, Merriam, 1998). As more studies begin to engage this

critical area of security and safety, the hope is to expect including more presidents for a

more critical view of the triangulation concept on the systems iterations and perhaps

conduct personal interviews for historical references. The limitations that this limited

selection method may have imposed were compensated for by this early research

undertaking.

Because this historical case study bounded by time and activity (Leedy and

Ormrod, 2001), the research results will help inform leaders and research scholars

(Krippendorf, 2004; Patton, 2000; Vogt, 1999) that content analysis not only is a logical

method (Miles and Huberman, 1994) but also is a stand-alone design in the development

of constructs from the contextual data. This is important because the purpose of the

research was to describe and explain, explore and interpret, or build a theoretical

assumption that would help to enhance meaningful decisions and actions of leaders.

Therefore, the choice of the two presidents for study was intentional to reflect a

characterization of a historical perspective within a span of two decades of interface

between U.S. presidential leadership and global security concerns.

This current study chose only two U.S. presidents because of the limited nature of

the study. The main objective of bringing this important study to the forefront of scientific

studies sooner rather than later was critically important. Further study in the area of

concern would open up more opportunities that may extend to personal interviews of the

cases studied. The choice of the two presidents met the criteria for the study in that in

spite of the experience over two decades earlier in the Carter administration with the

Iran hostage crisis, a more serious event occurred on September 11, 2001. On this fateful

September 11 day, terrorists hijacked airplanes and turned them into weapons of mass

destruction in the United States. This historical case study attempted to find out why that

was the case and what organizational leaders could learn from the study outcome.

Chapter Summary

A leader’s role in policymaking as well as the leadership style, could determine

the level of security and safety that people may have or perceive. In terms of systems

theory and thinking, the elemental factors of leadership in policymaking and

implementation, especially regarding immigration and global security and safety, proved

to be of critical importance in the influence or assurance of safety and the security of U.S.

interests (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; Hunt, 2002).

Chapter 1 identified the problem for study; the purpose was constructed; and the

nature of the study decided. Stender (1998) contended that exploring the leadership roles

and styles of past presidents and the presidents’ approaches to immigration and security

policies would help reveal and add new knowledge to existing knowledge base in the area

of global security (Hunt, 2002; R. Johnson and Zenko, 2002/2003). The impact of the

U.S. presidents’ leadership roles on U.S. policy processes and the incidence of global

insecurity (Cannistaro, 1995; Joyner, 2003; Lindsay, 2003a; Perl, 2003) formed the basis

of the current research.

Chapter 2 presents an extensive literature review relating to the current study. The

research methodology map can be viewed in Appendix A. Chapter 3 explained the

methodology of the research, which includes collecting the data for analysis. The study

examined and analyzed the intervening factors established in the research in Chapter 4.

Finally, in Chapter 5, the study further discussed information gained from the data

analysis with recommendations regarding how to address the problem.

Conclusion

The next chapter presents an extensive review of related literatures on safety and

security. Because it was important that the review of the pertinent literature be exhaustive

(Creswell, 1998; Leedy and Ormrod, 2001), the current study was progressive and

continued until conclusion, analyses, and made recommendations in the final chapter. A

strong expectation was that further research would intensify in this area of study, which is

safety and security relative to presidential leadership roles (and styles) and their

approaches to policy issues.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In Chapter 2, the dissertation presented theoretical literature on U.S. policies,

especially immigration and global security policies, in relation to the U.S. president’s

leadership roles (and the emerging leadership styles). Beginning with a historical review

of studies on immigration policies, security, and other related areas, the historical case

study examined the significance attached to those policies during the administrations

headed by former President Jimmy Carter and the incumbent President G. W. Bush. The

study explored what affects the policies had on global security and the concerns of the

United States. This qualitative case study, through systems thinking, examined how each

president managed the perceived security concerns by placing hierarchies on those needs.

The choice of the two presidents for this historical case study was not in a mere

comparison and contrast exercise, but in an effort to underscore a common problem, that

has spanned over two decades.

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals

Historical data relating to global security and presidential leadership effects were

sought through academic databases, including ProQuest. Related studies from previous

research such as Greenstein’s (2004) extensive study on each U.S. president’s leadership

style were also reviewed. The study examined and analyzed the emerging leadership

styles, triangulated from the practical consequences of each of the two selected

Presidents’ (Jimmy Carter’s and G. W. Bush’s) policy formulations. The policy

implementations, as influenced by changes in the presidential administrations were also

examined thoroughly. Documentation showed changes in presidential administrations

contributed to significant changes in public policy (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). This

was important because, as Hunt (2002) observed, “The American political system tends

toward establishing stable networks of institutions that generate stable policy outcomes

through the leadership styles of their leaders (p. 23). Given the design adopted in this

current study, literature searches from sources within the past 5 years (2001-2006) that

related to current issues surrounding security and safety formed a majority of the

referenced materials.

Hunt (2002) referred to political leaders as gatekeepers in the U.S. policy domain,

where immigration policy cannot be excluded. These leaders exercise control that is only

within the reach of a handful of such political actors (p. 5), who often controls policies

through the leadership roles that characterized the leadership styles each president

exuded. That is, politicians, at times, yield greater influence on policy issues based upon

the majority of their opinions, which reflect mostly the feedback they receive from their

constituencies. This iteration, or commingling of activities, was highlighted in the Zekoist

Iterations Triangulation conception as shown in Figure 1. Baumgartner and Jones (1993)

maintained that stability or change within policy formulation and implementation

domains involve the interplay between policy decisions and the way an issue was

understood, an argument that underscores the iterations concept held in the Zekoist

conception.

The approach to policy implementation in this current study took into account the

importance of factors, both internal and external, that influenced the leadership styles the

presidents adopted, perfected through the presidents’ roles. As the policy domain of

immigration in the United States is dynamic, the leaderships of former President Jimmy

Carter and the incumbent President G. W. Bush tended to draw from information and

intelligence within U.S. society, which were also dynamic (Hunt, 2002). Dynamic, as

used in this context, connotes the interplay of issues and feedback thereto (see Figure 1).

The feedback process may result in the emergence of new issues or a new understanding

of old ones, which may challenge old practices or invoke new leadership roles.

The Need for Leadership Styles

The quality of leadership roles in a democratic system matters because of the

inherent feature to influence both the internal and the external factors in the system of

policymaking. The policies may either reinforce intended outcomes or facilitate the

unintended ones (The G7/G8 and Global Security, 2003; D. W. Johnson and Johnson,

2002). The policy outcomes are often accompanied by pressure to find solutions, which

may trigger new problems at times, but the hope has always been to ameliorate the

desperation felt and expressed. This current qualitative study explored and analyzed

iterations between perceived risks, pressure to act immediately, and noted payoffs in each

administration. Such payoffs were triangulated from times when peace was apparently

attained and sustained, and tradeoffs when peace could only be factored as an illusion.

For instance, the resolution that was obtained toward the end of the Carter administration

to free the Americans held hostage in Iran (McAlister, 2002) delineated a payoff from

long and sustained negotiations. On the other hand, the May 1, 2003 premature

assessment of a mission accomplished given to the Iraq conflict (Kinzer, 2006) by the

incumbent President G. W. Bush was at the tradeoff or expense of the integrity of national

security and U.S. intelligence as the war had since continued unabated (Kinzer).

The Need for Systems Thinking

In this current research, systems theory and thinking on leadership functions

(Burns, 1978; Capra, 1996; Senge, 1990) formed the basic framework used in analyzing

data and information. In line with Greenstein’s (2004) germane research report on the

various U.S. presidents’ use of contingency theory, the theory was equally applied in this

study wherever appropriate in examining the impact each of the two presidents had on

global security through the presidents’ leadership roles.

In the face of mounting evidence of violence and threats of attacks on the U.S.

citizenry and U.S. interests around the world (Carens, 2003; Crotty, 2004; Deng, 2001;

Hagel, 2002), the effects of U.S. presidents’ leadership roles on global security formed

the basis for this study. As a historical case study, the research explored the effects of the

leadership roles of two U.S. presidents—Carter and Bush—using Maslow’s (1971)

hierarchy of needs model in conjunction with systems theory and systems thinking. This

exploration resulted in a holistic triangulation conception of Maslow’s model—the

systems iteration triangulation conception of systems thinking (Burns, 1978; Capra, 1996;

Galbraith, 2004; Senge, 1990). The presidents’ evolving leadership styles, approaches,

and traits formed the basis of the investigation. Within this framework, empirical data on

relational issues, such as terrorist threats and attacks, and institutional reports, such as the

9/11 Commission Report (2004) were collected, analyzed and reported. The objective was

to strengthen future leader functions in assessing leaders’ impacts on safety and security.

Table 3

Statistical Spread on Public Laws Reforming U.S. Immigration Laws and Acts

Years Number of laws in the period

*2001-2007

*1997-2001 46

1981-1996 23

1961-1980 34

1941-1960 34

1901-1940 28

1790-1900 22

Note. Compiled from the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics by U.S. Department of

Homeland Security (2005).

U.S. immigration policymaking activities can be characterized as experimental

and evolutionary. This characterization is similar to Kuhn’s (1996) illustration of

processes and evolution with the arguments made in “Aristotle’s Physica, Ptolemy’s

Almagest, and Newton’s Principia and Opticks” (p. 10). The processes evaluated and

frequencies of occurrence lead to the introduction of new policies and some revisions of

older ones. The intentions of these iterations usually predicated upon the objective of

addressing pressing national and international security needs of the nation (The G7/G8

and Global Security, 2003; Hunt, 2002; Maslow, 1971). The pressing needs of the United

States have caused U.S. policy makers to become creative over time in dealing with the

continued changes in the interest of the nation’s security needs (Crotty, 2004; Hunt).

Moreover, the pressure brought about by the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World

Trade Center and the Pentagon, heightened by the unfortunate consequence of thousands

of innocent lives lost necessitated far greater drive for effective security and safety

policies (Crotty; The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004).

In the pre-September 11 era of history of immigration law promulgations, from

1790 until 2001, 187 public laws were formulated and enacted to amend U.S.

immigration laws; that was 212 years. In the short time since the September 11 attacks,

over 49 laws were added and recorded for this current study (see Table 3). Some of these

new and amending public laws included: the controversial USA PATRIOT (Uniting and

Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and

Obstruct Terrorism) Act; the international Student and Exchange Visitor Information

System (SEVIS); and the special requirement under the NSEERS (National Security

Entry Exit Registration System) to register foreign nationals coming from certain

designated foreign countries. These legislative efforts were all for enhanced control of

immigration in the United States for the sole purpose of enhancing the safety and security

of the nation and its interests. The brief mention here of some immigration safety policies

and programs only highlights the many attempts made to protect the interests of the

United States at home and abroad. Despite these many new policies and procedures, the

problems of insecurity have persisted (Carens, 2003; Deng, 2001; Hagel, 2002). This

unexpected outcome has created an unprecedented urgency for a study that would seek to

determine the missing link that has prevented the United States from achieving its goal of

safety and security.

Without effective presidential leadership approaches and styles, the United States

cannot enforce effective control of terrorist threats and attacks or provide adequate

security for its citizens nationally and internationally; its position as the sole superpower

of the world today, notwithstanding (Cannistaro, 1995; Lindsay, 2003a; Wireman, 2001).

Rather than putting terrorism under control, ineffective leadership styles and approaches

would further advance terrorism and global insecurity. As the sole superpower, U.S.

leadership styles and approaches cannot be left unexplored, especially in an era of

mounting international terrorist outrages against the United States and its interests

(Crotty, 2004; Joyner, 2003).

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Leader Motivation

Maslow (1971) developed the concept of a hierarchy of needs rationalizing that

people would place priorities on needs based upon perceptions of the immediacy of those

needs. The hierarchy of needs theory or concept has been considered in many studies,

including this qualitative historical case study, where needs and reactions about

necessities were also considered. Just as Burns’ (1978) and Senge’s (1990, p. 245) earlier

studies did in relating leadership with Maslow’s needs concept, this current study has

associated this needs concept with the leadership functions being explored. By factoring

in the systems concept as highly important, this placed high importance to the holistic

approach that characterizes systems thinking, and with a strong emphasis on iterations

(Burns; Capra, 1996; Galbraith, 2004; Senge).

Maslow’s (1971) concept was a goal-orientated approach toward selfactualization

as the peak of success. This is an emotional and intellectual arrangement of needs based

upon immediacy of one’s needs and life’s iterative challenges. These needs can range

from the most basic physiological needs, to higher levels of safety, love, esteem, and

climax to levels of one’s self-actualization. For this current study, systems elements

considered the media, a modified approach to intelligence gathering efforts, world

alliances, feedback, levels of action or reaction, safety and security alertness and

awareness activated, intelligence gathered, and leadership styles. For instance, in this

current study, the actions of two U.S. presidents formed significant timelines.

The actions of former President Carter during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis

(Cannistaro, 1995; McAlister, 2002) and Bush during the September 11 terrorist attacks

(Crotty, 2004; The 9/11 Commissions Report, 2004) revealed more on the systems

iteration concept and offered the hierarchy of needs as an essential theory for use within a

systems framework (Capra; Galbraith; Senge). The hope was that by exploring the effects

of the leadership roles and styles of the two presidents on global security and safety of

U.S. citizens and U.S. interests, the outcome of this qualitative case study would add to

the existing knowledge base of leadership. The belief was that linking policies on

immigration, security, and safety with leadership roles and styles would provide for a

meaningful dialogue and information sharing that would provide a meaningful guide for

smaller organizations such as companies and corporations to focus on effective leadership

roles and styles in an organizations’ leadership consortium.

The Significance of the Hierarchy of Needs and Leader Motivation

Maslow’s (1971) concept generalized that prevailing circumstances at any given

time could define one’s level of needs, and the main need identified in this current study

included the security concerns of the United States. Figure 1 illustrates the systematic

effects of this need, depending on the leadership styles of the U.S. president. The terrorist

attacks on the United States, for instance, changed the whole needs dimension for the

majority of the U.S. citizenry. The G. W. Bush administration, for instance, responded to

the September 11 attacks by accelerating numerous policies into effect seeking to enhance

protection of the citizenry. Former President Jimmy Carter and the incumbent President

G. W. Bush were the choices as central focus for discussions that pertained to the policies

and measures. In recent accounts, these issues have included such policies as the

controversial USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the international students SEVIS program, and

the NSEERS immigration security program (Clarke, 2004; Crotty, 2004; Falk, 2004;

Morningstar and Blacker, 2004).

The policies surrounding the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, as contained in U.S.

Public Law 107-56, for example, had evolved from a perceived need for more scrutiny of

persons identified with suspicious activities or with possible inclinations to fund activities

aimed at doing harm to the security of the United States and its interests. The Bush

administration created the USA PATRIOT Act to strengthen the investigative arms of the

intelligence-gathering communities. The (USA PATRIOT) Act gave more power to

specific agencies to search suspected vessels and habitations for evidence sponsoring

terrorism. The intention was to help prevent any future terrorist attacks, especially of the

magnitude of the September 11 experience (Crotty, 2004; The 9/11 Commission Report,

2004).

The NSEERS program, another example of a pre-September 11 security policy,

was designed to help capture detailed information about foreign nationals who enter or

were residing in the United States on nonimmigrant visas. The NSEERS program was

created to help monitor those persons who travel from countries believed to have

harbored or are suspected of harboring and promoting terrorism against the United States

and its interests (Carens, 2003; Crotty, 2004; Lindsay, 2003a).

The Implications of Including Hierarchy Dynamics in the Study

Policy issues such as immigration, security and safety, were of consideration just

as important to the U.S. government and its citizenry as they are to the rest of the world

(Carens, 2003; Hunt, 2002; Lindsay, 2003b). The hierarchy of needs in the context of the

safety issues, identified in this current study, and the various levels of security-need

consciousness were determined to be contingent upon the leadership’s security-risk

awareness and perception. In the past, immigration scholars, for example, took several

approaches (Carens; Deng, 2001; Obi, 2000) to answer such questions as, why liberal

societies (or nations) such as the United States risk security by pursuing liberal

immigration policies. This type of question was troubling because of the imagined threats

to the national sovereignty of the United States by a large number of aliens in the United

States (see Table 4). Freeman (1995) observed that non-liberal and autocratic countries

and their governments, such as Saudi Arabia, for example, kept a very tight reign on their

policies and borders, prompting an arguable and researchable reduction in the

possibilities for terrorism. Countries such as Germany and France were known to have

opened their borders in varying degrees to all sorts of migration streams, including guest

workers and refugees (Carens; Galbraith, 2004; Lindsay, 2003b).

Table 4

FY2003 Immigrants by Category

Class of Admission Number Admitted

Immediate relatives of citizens 486,748

Family preference 187,069

Employment preference 174,968

Refugee and Asylee adjustments 126,084

Diversity 42,829

Other 45,977

Total 1,063,732

Note. Compiled from data in the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics by U.S. Department

of Homeland Security (2003).

Freeman (1995) noted that the United States has struggled with pressures that

have compelled it toward liberal immigration policies. The internal ideology, such as the

U.S. ethos of being a country of immigrants, and the need for low-cost labor aptly point

to a paradox regarding immigration matters. The issue of cheap labor benefits has always

competed with public preference for restrictive immigration policies (Hunt, 2002).

Autocratic nations, in contrast, expel immigrants when the perceived risk to security is

too high. Previous studies have failed to address sufficiently the issues of the security of

U.S. citizens and U.S. interests around the world.

The focus of this current analysis was not on nativist and xenophobic sentiments

on immigration, but rather on both the domestic and the global security of U.S. citizens

and interests around the world. Jones and Strahan (1976), who examined the impact of

the 1973 oil embargo and the overall uncertainty and shock about meeting strategic

military and domestic energy needs, brought new ways of understanding energy policy

issues at that time (in the Carter era). New energy policies and solutions that had

previously been overlooked became viable alternative options (Cannistaro, 1995; Crotty,

2004).

In 2006, as during the 1973 oil crisis, domestic and global security and U.S.

immigration policies raised serious concerns in many circles. Earlier studies on

immigration and security overly relied on the roles of external factors such as economic

performance and the internal benefit of cheap labor, which failed to explain or address the

security and safety issues of the United States, locally and globally. This current study has

sought to make substantial contributions to the understanding of the role played by U.S.

presidents in policy implementation that touched on global security while directly or

indirectly addressing issues that would affect business organizations (Capra, 1996;

Merriam; 1998; Senge, 1990).

Specifically, this current study examined whether a change of administration

(leadership) increased or decreased the domestic and global security of U.S. citizens and

U.S. interests. Investigated also were questions of when, where, and why security was

tight, lax, or porous nationally and globally. Research findings in Ajuogu and Orji (2004)

and The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) helped reveal the unsafe result of such situations

and to prompt the recommendations made based on those findings. The leading question

was if conditions could cause leadership to shift its policy position to enhance positive

security and safety outcomes. This question was necessary because previous studies did

not illuminate sufficiently on this important area of inquiry. Generalizing on those studies

produced two main themes: (a) an over-reliance on external market performance and

internal benefit of cheap labor of immigrants and (b) an under-examination of the way in

which leadership styles mediate both internal and external market performance factors

and issues.

This current study, on the other hand emphasizes on the importance of the

dynamics (Bamberg, 2004) and iterations (ZIT-c) triangulated from the systems of

leadership, policy formulations, and policy implementations. The impacts of the U.S.

presidents’ leadership behaviors toward security have not yet been explored fully to the

satisfactory understanding of the phenomenon, which can be attributed to the limited

studies done thus far in the area of global security. The hope is that this current study will

lead in a trend for increased interest in this study direction.

The Importance of Leadership Styles and Perceived Security Risk

In spite of the much discovery made in this current study about the U.S.

immigration policies (see Table 3), much more information was lacking in trying to

understand the implications of policy issues for immigration and security, both nationally

and globally. Important conditions within the current study were that the leadership styles

of any given period of government or any administration were not static or neutral

(Capra, 1996; Hunt, 2002; Senge, 1990). Considering the president as the chief “political

actor” (Hunt, 2002, p. 5), examining the president’s selections and choices (Maslow’s

hierarchy of needs), and analyzing the political actors’ iterations or exchange of activities

(systems thinking) within the societal system (systems theory) helped reveal what the

president’s leadership role or effect was on global security.

As qualitative studies reflect upon researchers’ interpretations of data, the

aforementioned functional arrangements between the presidents studied, the tools that the

presidents employed in those leadership functions, and the medium through which the

operations took place, were triangulated and summarized under a coined phrase—the

Zekoist Iteration Triangulation conception (ZIT-c)—for simplicity of reference. As in

McEvoy-Levy’s (2001) definition, the policies explored in this dissertation are tools of

statecraft; those were policies that characterized each of the two administrations studied

—those of Jimmy Carter and G. W. Bush.

The leadership characteristics of the U.S. presidency, rather dynamic and

influencing to the kinds and scope of security risk and security control, produced

unintended outcomes of the policies made. A policy for security enhancement, for

instance, may eventually end up a source of contentious and divisive debate as the case

with the USA PATRIOT Act. The main point of this current study, however, was to

explore these dynamics within a systems concept for the domestic and global security of

the United States as a sovereign state (Hunt, 2002).

Historical Overview

In the search for literature in this historical case study, the ProQuest search engine

yielded 902 references for possible peer-reviewed articles within a 12-month period of

between April 2004 and April 2005 using the keywords leadership and history. Although

ordinarily one could have perceived a study of this sort to attribute great importance to

reviewing and citing every detailed historical account on leadership while discussing

history, the essence of this historical case study was not to do so. In a recent study,

Gephart (2004) clearly explained that “the qualitative researcher provides

wellsubstantiated conceptual insights that reveal how broad concepts and theories operate

in particular cases, in addition to being highly descriptive and often recounting on who

said what to whom and/or how, when, and why” (p. 455). Gephart’s observation justified

the decision to limit the historical overview to only a historical analytic perspective on the

concept of leadership as it related to former President Carter and the incumbent President

G. W. Bush. This approach provided the opportunity to understand the emerged

leadership styles and roles of the presidents and the impact on either enhancing or

undermining global security.

The term leadership has evolved over time. Numerous definitions have resulted

from this evolution and are presented by scholars through theories and concepts. Some of

the definitions found during the study included the trait approach, the charismatic

approach, the Machiavellian approach, leadership styles, initiating structure, influence

leadership, role position approach, distributed actions approach, task actions approach,

relationship actions approach, member maturity, telling, selling, participating, and

delegating (D. W. Johnson and Johnson, 2000). However, this current study narrowed the

list of discourses as presented in Table 2. A simple comparative analysis chart in Table 2

compared the systems iterations triangulation conception (Burns, 1978; Capra, 1996;

Galbraith, 2004; Senge, 1990) to Maslow’s (1971) hierarchy of needs model to analyze

the case of the two selected U.S. presidents whose leadership styles and roles were

determined to have impacted global security.

Discussions around the world in recent times have centered principally on

terrorism and the war against terrorism. The news media and nations around the world

have been captivated by a new household word, terrorism, and the conflict in Iraq, which

continued into the second term of the G. W. Bush administration. This study was not only

drawn to the commonality of the concept of terrorism but was challenged to study the

phenomenon. Tempers have flared, alliances of nations have been threatened, and even

some shifts have been noted among the coalition of forces, just over the assaults on

Baghdad and Afghanistan (Crotty, 2004; Lindsay, 2003b; Obi, 2000; The 9/11

Commission Report, 2004).

How or Why Do State Authorities Monitor Policy and Security Matters?

Carens (2003) had noted in his study that each state had the sovereign authority,

not only to monitor, but also to control immigration through their borders. Obi (2000)

also underscored an immigration concern by observing what exists among U.S. policy

makers and scholars. Obi pointed to the implications of security and globalization that

continued to pervade the postcolonial African states, evidenced in the various forms of

documented crises. These noted events and more important, the terrorist bombings of the

United States, influenced the placing of security and safety on the highest hierarchy-need

agenda and scale. Events of the September 11, 2001 bombing in the United States

heightened the security-need consciousness of the United States and prompted the

government to create methods of awareness and alertness (see Table 1) for the citizenry.

Although Carens (2003) had agreed that each state should maintain sovereign

authority to monitor and control immigration through their borders, Obi (2000) pointed to

a concern among U.S. policy makers and scholars about the implications of globalization

in postcolonial African states that were experiencing crises of various forms and

intensities. Obi further emphasized that such fears were based on the belief that a

crisisridden Africa would pose a serious threat to global peace and security. This current

investigation sought to probe the impacts of U.S. presidents’ leadership on U.S. policies,

including immigration policies, and the increasing global security concerns of the United

States (Joyner, 2003; Lindsay, 2003b). The cause for this important historical case study

—the rising rates of violence against Americans at home and abroad through suicide

bombings, kidnappings, and senseless murders—was the same concern that led U.S.

leadership to place security and safety on the highest hierarchy of United States’

immediate needs. The events of September 11 were no exception.

Numerous studies (Braziel, 2000; Carens, 2003; Deng, 2001; Hagel, 2002;

Lindsay; 2003a; Obi, 2000; Pillar, 2001) have attempted to address global security and

safety concerns, especially in relation to the focus of this current study—the effects of a

U.S. president’s leadership style on global security. Carens had remarked that the

sovereign rights of states to determine whom to admit into each sovereign sate must be

protected. However, Carens’ argument was that the sovereign state should only select

whom to admit without disparately affecting the other countries.

Deng noted that the Chinese interpretation of U.S. global strategy ultimately

motivated Beijing’s external behavior and reactions to the United States. China actualized

the external behavior by vehemently opposing the United States’ proposition for, and

eventual execution of, the preemptive attack on Iraq (Crotty, 2004). China’s opposition

was voiced shortly after the September 11 attack and the United States’ subsequent attack

on Afghanistan. Noteworthy here was that the preemptive attack on Iraq by President G.

W. Bush was necessary because of the intelligence gathered and the high state of

insecurity within the United States, generated by the events of September 11 (Crotty).

Although this current study agreed with some of the preceding arguments that

posited equity of admissions and sovereignty of independent states in admitting

foreigners, (Carens, 2003; Crotty, 2004; Obi, 2000), this qualitative historical case study

concentrated on investigating possible impacts of U.S. policies, including immigration

policies and the concerns raised in earlier studies. Policies were noted as being the results

of leadership roles (Hunt, 2002; Maslow, 1971; Senge, 1990), and the U.S. government

formulated many such policies over the years (see Table 3). This study focused on

examining the impacts of the leadership styles and roles of President Carter and President

G. W. Bush based on intelligence gathering and handling. The current study also

examined the effectiveness of U.S. immigration policies in either curbing or raising

global safety and security concerns to analyze the presidential leadership under study.

Practical Implications of Policy Formulations: Contingency of Leadership Styles

Table 3 shows that policies made to control immigration into the United States,

for instance, have steadily increased since 1790. In spite of these steady increases, records

of immigration violations have also steadily increased. The leadership styles that emerged

from the study, and which characterized the successive administrations, were particularly

noted. This study used the Zekoist Iterations Triangulation conception (see Figure 1)

approach to link leadership roles to modulations in the nature of policy formulations. The

iterations that occurred within the leadership system concerning the intelligence

information gathered were evaluated (Burns, 1978; Capra, 1996; Galbraith,

2004, Senge, 1990).

The purpose of this study extended beyond a mere investigation of possible

relationships between U.S. immigration policies and global security. In application, the

outcome reported was directed towards assisting the body of knowledge in all levels of

organizational management and leadership, and thus the definitions of leadership. Collins’

(2001) holistic view on the importance of linking leadership styles to corporate outcome

was a common opinion discovered among the numerous recent studies during the

literature search (Davis, 2001; J. Fisher, 2001), and in this study leadership was defined

on those terms rather than in piecemeal.

Systems thinking and practices have dominated the contemporary organizational

management including the approaches reviewed in this current study. The conditions of

the postmodern organization and the global nomenclature (Capra, 1996; Senge, 1990),

within the purview of systems thinking, have provided for the common view that the

commingling effect of the various iterations between intelligence information and

leadership styles result in binding policies. The iterations concept, in effect, underscored

this current study’s holistic approach to leadership definition (Capra; Maslow, 1971;

Senge).

Why and How Security and Immigration Policies Matter

This historical case study considered policies as significantly important

in leadership practices and deserving of the special attention given in this current study,

and especially whenever security and safety issues were addressed. Policies were

considered as tools that provide the general guidelines and that establish parameters for

decisionmaking and implementations (Galbraith, 2004; Hunt, 2002; Lindsay, 2003a). The

policies noted here were generally not considered explicit statements such as rules and

regulations, and as such required judgment and skill in interpretation and use (Creswell,

2002; Hunt; Leedy and Ormrod, 2001; Lindsay).

The fact that most Americans share a global vision regarding issues in which

America has many national interests helped to bring the main thrust of this current study

into a sharper focus (Berger, 2004; Bloemraad, 2004; Morningstar and Blacker, 2004).

The interests explored here include ensuring local and global security, facilitating

American prosperity, protecting human rights, and spreading democracy. An extensive

review of the literature revealed that American scholars, writers, and researchers have

assigned various priorities to these interests. Posen (2001/2002) noted that the two

interests that stood out quite prominently were security and prosperity. When these

interests (or goals) were separated into distinct categories, such as security, democracy

abroad, immigration, prosperity, and environmental control, a greater clarity emerged

showing that not much have been understood from those earlier studies (Deng, 2001;

Lindsay, 2003a; Obi, 2000). The relationship between pursuits of these goals and the

incidences of violence against Americans, or immigration violations and implications of

safety for Americans and American interests, both locally and globally, required

additional research and attention.

Much evidence has suggested that the U.S. government and its leadership feared

that hostile U.S. adversaries might generate enough economic and military power to

overtake the rest of the world through conquest and to therefore, threaten U.S. security.

However, at the time of this qualitative case study, and unlike the U.S. position during the

Cold War, the situation was different. Since the Cold War ended, many studies have been

conducted that differed widely in context. A review of some of the studies indicated there

were as many approaches as there were researchers. Art (1998/1999) had advocated a

concept of selective engagement, a global collective security paradigm, and cooperative

security arrangements in the regional collective security system. Many other researchers,

such as Parker (1999), on the other hand emphasized a regional hegemony system, a

unilateral defense approach, and similar methods.

Some researchers advocated the defensive realism approach of expansionist

policies, where the stronger state pursues military, diplomatic, and foreign economic

policies that communicate restraint (Taliaferro, 2000/2001). In spite of those and many

other studies like them, the increase and frequency of international threats and violence

against the United States and U.S. interests have remained high (Taliaferro). The many

policy measures that each administration has taken, including those of Jimmy Carter and

G. W. Bush, have not diminished immigration violations.

As Americans desire to enjoy the freedom and opportunities that their forefathers

have sought, fought, and died for, this current study has placed a great deal of importance

on investigating the effects of leadership on security and safety. Legislated policies,

including immigration policies, and security strategies on such matters consequent to the

needs of the United States and its interests around the globe were analyzed. The purpose

of this effort was to provide fruitful contribution to the existing knowledge base on the

subject investigated. The investigative effort also stimulated further inquiries into issues

that related to national and global security and safety of the United States and its interests

as a sovereign and global superpower.

A review of the literature on immigration policies observed that the United States,

over the years had formulated and enacted a series of policies in effort to curb illegal

influx of immigrants into the United States. At the same time, and as some researchers

(Carens, 2003; Crotty, 2004; Lindsay, 2003b; Obi, 2000) observed, while some

Americans worried about their security and about the high rates of illegal immigration, a

troublesome categorization of immigrants exist as a potential security threat. The

dilemma was that although there were security procedures to weed out criminals and

terrorists, both legal and illegal immigrants were all generally considered potential

security risks. A policy centered on paranoia and not facts can be troubling and would

raise questions about the commitment to American values and issues of civil liberties and

civil rights.

Legitimate concerns about illegal immigrants were founded, and at the same time,

discovery made of abuses of policymaking on immigration matters. These and other

concerns reinforced the claim of this current study and the resolve to investigate the

implications of policies, including immigration policies, for the security and safety of

American interests all around the world.

Policy Formulation and Implementation in Governments

In the U.S. democratic government, the president and the administration initiate,

formulate, and implement policies. Under this arrangement, the various arms of the

democratic governance formulated and implemented both the immigration and the

security policies considered in this qualitative historical case study. Those policies

investigated immigration and security policy implementations (Hunt, 2002). In every

administration, leadership styles and strategies were influenced by the nature, scope,

timeliness of the intelligence information presented to the leadership consortium (Capra,

1996; Galbraith, 2004; Lindsay, 2003a), and policy formulations and implementations

accordingly induced stability within the policy subsystems observed (Hunt). In the U.S.

democratic governance, various arms of the government were noted as the locus of

maintaining stability within the American polity (Hunt).

One of the major goals of this research was to determine how to improve the

network of the various arms of the U.S. government and the various leadership structures

to the extent possible to facilitate both stability and change in the U.S. democratic

governance. The factors that influenced or mediated those policies and the

implementation strategies were also considered an important step. The factors were also

considered an important step because dramatic changes due to policy formulations and

implementation outcomes at times interrupted or punctuated the policy objectives found.

New issues always pointed to new solutions and alternative strategies and measures

(Hunt, 2002).

Immigration and security policies remained relatively stable for very long periods

and marked by small changes between those times. As Hunt (2002) noted, deterring rapid

and unsolicited changes was part of the primary goals in the institutional design of U.S.

democratic governance. The intent of the approach included promoting well-balanced

deliberations that entertained new ideas and accommodated new problems. The U.S.

president was a significant factor in the process explored in this current study and was

found to retain contingent powers provided for in the Constitution. In this dissertation, the

major political actor (Hunt, 2002) was the U.S. president. This was because of the high

degree of importance attributed to the position of the U.S. presidency in characterizing

the leadership effectiveness of each administration (Greenstein, 2004).

Article II of the Constitution allows the president a special provision intended to

facilitate this role, and over the years, U.S. presidents have exercised these powers

through executive directives. Sequential editions of Title 3, Code of Federal Regulations

contain presidential directives issued under this special provision. The editors at the

Office of the Federal Register maintain a disposition table for all directives the U.S.

president signs. Earlier efforts to compile presidential directives were credited to James

D. Richardson in A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, under the

direction of the congressional Joint Committee on Printing, and which President Lincoln

signed (Congressional Research Service, 2005).

` The historical effort noted in James D. Richardson’s work was extremely

important for this historical case study. Richardson was credited as the premier of the

practice of cataloging data for secondary data banks. Richardson’s approach provided

support for the exploration of secondary data sought for answers to the questions raised

here. Stewart and Kamins (1993) underscored the significance of the use of secondary

data in qualitative research methodology: