Leading the Nation

A Study of the Relationship between the President of the United States and his Chief and Deputy Chiefs of Staff

Edición de la obra Leading the Nation

This study examined the nature of the relationship between the President of the United States of America and his Chief and Deputy Chief of Staff that leads to productivity and sustainability, from the Chief and Deputy Chief of Staff's perspective. What is the nature of the relationship when examining the construct of productivity; and what is the nature of the relationship when examining the construct of sustainability, were sub-questions. The purpose of the study was to provide insight into the nature of the relationship between these individuals and how they work together to lead the nation. The theoretical framework that guided this study was based on the connective leadership model developed by Lipman-Blumen (1996). A phenomenological research methodology was used that consisted of in-depth interviews of Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs of Staff serving the President Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations. Qualitative coding was performed on interview transcripts to arrive at specific themes for findings and conclusions. The study concluded by presenting a model of allegiance leadership that described the nature of the relationship between the President, Chief, and Deputy Chief of Staff that includes the factors of Presidential allegiance, presidential execution, relational ability, and a deep sense of responsibility to the greater good. Other findings included that productivity was determined and assessed by the President, Chief and Deputy Chiefs of Staff of a Presidential Administration through the accomplishment of the Presidential Agenda initially created during the campaign and revisited each year during the State of the Union address; and sustainability in the tenure of staff such as the Chief and Deputy Chiefs of Staff may positively impact a Presidential Administration, but that turnover does not negatively impact a Presidential Administration and may even be beneficial, as long as it is not excessive. Implications of these findings related to practice, leadership, learning, service, and research were discussed.