PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP STYLES: IMPLICATIONS & IMPERATIVES

Most of my doctoral research was invested in the study of the African Leadership Deficit and what to do about it. While I have researched on African Public Leadership generally (primarily focused on Leadership Theory and Practice in Government and the Public Sector), my practice of public leadership development has been significantly shaped by the Nigerian experience.

Leadership Theory Eras of Evolution

From the evolutionary point of view, we could phase the development of leadership theory into the following eras, based on the prevalent school of thought at the time[25] (HRDQ, 2012):

• Trait Era (Leaders are Born): 1900-1940.
• Behavioural Era (People can learn to become leaders): 1930 - 1950.
• Situational Era (Leadership depends of the Context): 1960s - Date.

From a historic point of view, leadership theory is really as old as man himself. It would seem that the Trait Theory applied the most in ancient times from the rise of Nimrod in Babel; to the rise of legendary and sometimes mythological Greek leadership personalities like Achilles, Odysseus, Hercules, Perseus, and Theseus; to men like Alexander the Great. The basic interpretation of rise to leadership is one of being born or destined to lead. So we can conclude that Africa was not alone in the Trait Theory. When we look at available leadership texts we see that as far back as 2000 years ago from Plato's attempt to define leadership, it remains some kind of enigma that evades proper and adequate definitions.

 Evolution of Leadership Styles

In the 1980s significant contributions and advancements in examination and research of personality styles were made in academic literature; for example, Alessandra and Hunsaker in 1980, Merril and Reid in 1981, and Bolton and Bolton in 1984. Most of them developed a two-dimensional model which resulted in the evolution of four basic personality styles. Today, one of the many key research organizations that have built specifically on the work of Alessandra and Hunsaker is HRDQ. HRDQ is a trusted developer of soft-skills learning solutions that help to improve the performance of individu-als, teams, and organizations. The HRDQ Leadership Styles model indicates four leadership personality styles based on their degree of assertiveness and expressiveness. They are Direct, Spirited, Considerate and Systematic.

 In over a decade of facilitating Leadership Development of programs for leaders in government at all levels within client organizations, I have found the HRDQ Leadership Styles Model to be an effective tool in assessing leadership styles. I have personally reviewed over 1000 Leadership Styles report and the feedback in every single case has validated their core natural leadership style.

 DESCRIPTION OF THE HRDQ LEADERSHIP STYLES

Like I have already stated, there are four leadership styles as illustrated in the model above: Direct, Spirited, Considerate and Systematic. Two of the leadership styles are introverts, i.e. they have low assertiveness (Considerate and Systematic) and two are extroverts, i.e. they have high assertiveness (Direct and Spirited).

• Direct Leadership Style: the direct leadership style is synonymous with the Hippocrates (460-370 BC) proto-psychological personality type known as Choleric (Ambitious and Leader-like) [33] (Ivan, V. S., 1992). They have high assertiveness (prefer to tell when communicating with others) and low expressiveness (show very little emotion). Their characteristic leadership trait is their propensity for delivering and producing quick results. They have a very "General-like" approach to getting people moving towards goals, and they take charge no matter how challenging the circumstance. Direct Leaders are most effective in conflict, change and crisis circumstances or rapidly changing scenarios in which bold proactive action and quick effective decisions are needed, required and expected. However, Direct Leaders tend to fail and be least effective in circumstances requiring taking the time to carefully plan and craft a strategy, or in times when people's emotions and feelings must be considered, and managing group sensitivity is paramount to success. The Direct Leader leads ultimately by Taking Charge.

• Spirited Leadership Style: The spirited leadership style is synonymous with the Hippocrates (460-370 BC) proto-psychological personality type known as Sanguine (Pleasure-seeking and Sociable) [34] (Ivan, V. S., 1992). They have high assertiveness (prefer to tell when communicating with others) and high expressiveness (show the widest range of emotions of all the human personality types). Their characteristic leadership trait is their propensity for socializing, communicating and connecting with others. They have a very charismatic approach to getting people moving towards goals. Due to their boundless energy and enthusiasm, they inspire others to develop fresh, new approaches, and they create a fun atmosphere by acting spontaneously. The Spirited Leader is in the centre of their strengths and genius when they are in situations in which people need to be motivated to develop fresh, innovative ideas. However, they are prone to failure and ineffectiveness in circumstances that require a great sense of urgency, standards, critical deadlines and where long-term planning is vital. The Spirited Leader leads ultimately by Inspiration.

• Considerate Leadership Style: The considerate leadership style is synonymous with the Hippocrates (460-370 BC) proto-psychological personality type known as Phlegmatic (Relaxed and Quiet) [35] (Ivan, V. S., 1992). They have low assertiveness (prefer to ask when communicating with others) and high expressiveness (show the widest range of emotions of all the human personality types). Their characteristic leadership trait is their propensity for empathy with others. Due to their heightened sensitivity to the feelings of others, they are great listeners and given time will build cohesive teams and working groups. The considerate leader inspires others to work together effectively and is a catalyst for creating a group harmony and synergy. In circumstances that require empathy and listening, the Considerate Leader will rise to his or her heights of genius. However, place the considerate leader in situations where quick, aggressive and decisive action is required and they may stumble. Put them in circumstances where people need to do as they are told and they are prone to fail. The Considerate Leader leads ultimately by Building Group Harmony.

• Systematic Leadership Style: The systematic leadership style is synonymous with the Hippocrates (460-370 BC) proto-psychological personality type known as Melancholy (Introverted and thoughtful) [36] (Ivan, V. S., 1992). They have Low assertiveness (prefer to ask when communicating with others) and low expressiveness (show very little emotion). Their characteristic leadership trait is their propensity for objective, accurate and analytical thinking and decision-making. Due to their heightened sense of standards, quality, perfection and structure, they are brutal realists and will never act until they have all the facts on a matter. The Systematic leader is analytical and thrives on objectivity, so they work best in situations requiring accuracy and careful planning, but they are prone to fail when the circumstances are crisis, or urgent actions are needed even when all the facts are not available. The Systematic Leader leads ultimately by Careful Planning.

A brief note on Hippocrates (460-370 BC) proto-psychological personality types: The Greek physician Hippocrates incorporated the four human temperaments into medicine. Temperament theory is believed to have its origins in ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian philosophies. They have been modified and reviewed as the science of psychology has advanced[37] (Karl, 1926, p. 67,87, 104).

 PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP STYLES AND GOVERNANCE CULTURE

We have already established that a person's natural leadership style or adaptive style could be the basis of his predominant leadership behaviour. This has significant implications for those who hold political office in Africa. Since leadership behaviour has impact on organizational culture, we can infer that governance culture in most of Africa is leadership-determined.

Leadership behaviour, leadership perception and philosophy also have an impact on cultures of nations, tribes and continents. The 2009 GLOBE Book of In-depth Studies of 25 societies (Culture and Leadership across the World) shows that the cultural expectation of leadership in Sub-Sahara Africa is Charismatic/Value-Based, team-oriented, Participative leadership. The survey showed that "blacks are not results-driven as whites,"[38] "blacks focus on people instead of skills,"[39] "whites are more task- focused than people- oriented."[40] The study further showed that "blacks divide and share responsibility in order to protect the non-performer." [41] Therefore samples of white populations display a Euro-centric performance and individualism-oriented leadership style, and samples of black populations display a people- and collectivism-oriented leadership style. So corporate or national culture is shaped by leadership, and our expectations of those in leadership positions.

Political and presidential leadership styles are reflected in the communication ability and perspectives of Chief Executives and Commanders-in-Chief of countries; there is a direct correlation between their communication style (assertive, aggressive or passive) and governance culture that they create within their government administrations.

In the same vein, a president's organizational capacity may be enhanced by his approach and aptitude for working with people; his capacity for managing the multifarious array of stakeholder and political interests is a function of his natural and adaptive style. A president's leadership style also determines whether he will succeed with his team, his cabinet and with legislative and judiciary leaders. He must have the emotional intelligence to enable him to resonate well with others and depending on his leadership style, he may express emotional intelligence to a lesser or higher degree. Hence, a president may be well- suited and perfect for situations where his style is the essential leadership approach for the time, and totally unsuited and unfit for a different set of circumstances. Presidents that will succeed in all seasons must have transformational leadership that balances all styles, and apply the best leadership response to the challenge at hand.

An assessment of the leadership styles of four Nigerian presidents and heads of state provides validation for this argument. It also further illustrates how the application of one leadership style may lead to failure in circumstances where another style would have been more appropriate. This lays the foundation for a more serious study of presidential and political leadership and the institutional cultures they tend to create. A president's style brings with it strengths and weaknesses to the task of governance. To assess a president's style we must assess his leadership style and what Fred I. Greenstein of Princeton University has identified as the qualities that shape presidential performance [42] (Greenstein, 2005).

 These six qualities include:

• The president's ability as a communicator
• The president's organizational capacity
• The president's political skills
• The president's policy vision
• The president's cognitive style
• The emotional intelligence

In the assessments that follow, a key consideration is given to the contextual nature of environment in which these leaders were called to lead. It is easily evident that a president who is well suited to serve in one setting will be ill suited for another. This is also the justification for a more holistic leadership paradigm that prepares public leaders for effective and result-oriented governance in spite of the environmental conditions and factors.

DIRECT LEADERSHIP: THE OBASANJO EFFECT

The direct leadership style produces quick results, moves quickly, makes faster decisions and tends to take charge no matter the circumstance. Generally in Africa, when we say a leader is strong we mean he is a direct leader. It may be that since direct leaders thrive in situations where there is crisis, critical deadlines and where people need to do as they are told, this comes across as the natural choice of approach of leadership. However, this style, which is naturally weak in emotional intelligence and careful objective analysis, is prone to excesses if not balanced by other styles. In the history of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, there has not been a better example of strength and weaknesses of Direct Leadership than that of President Olu??gun Mathew Okiki?la Ar?mu ?basanj?.

President Obasanjo has served Nigeria as the nation's head of state, as a military ruler between 13 February 1976 to 1 October 1979, and as elected President from 29 May 1999 to 29 May 2007. In both cases, whether as Military or Civilian Leader, many as being predominantly direct have viewed his administration. Known for being somewhat brash, demanding, forceful, determined and decisive, President Obasanjo is respected as a leader that gets things done. His first rise to power was after the assassination of General Murtala Mohammed by coup plotters, led by Army Col. Dimka, on 13 February 1976. Obansajo was appointed head of state by the Supreme Military Council.

Retaining the basic governance structure established by Murtala, Obasanjo committed to completing the work of Murtala towards the restoration of civilian government in 1979 and the reform of public service. In his decisive approach to governance and leadership General Obasanjo kept faith with his promise by handing over power to a democratically elected government in 1979. One of the strengths of the direct leadership style is the capacity to not be distracted from the pursuit of their objectives. Of course, at this time in Nigeria's history this was a welcomed approach to governance and it yielded its dividends in a peaceful transition to civilian rule, however short-lived (1979 - 1983); Nigeria would go on to be governed by successive military regimes for another 16 years, after the civilian government lead by President Shehu Shagari was toppled by another military coup.

16 years later, in 1999 General Obansanjo decided to run for presidency under the auspices of the Peoples Democratic Party in the general elections. Obasanjo won with 62.6% of the vote, sweeping the strongly southeast and the north. Over the next 8 years (1999-2007), President Obansanjo would push for far-reaching socio-economic and political reforms of a size and scope never experienced in the country's history. Again his direct leadership style brought the needed decisiveness and take-charge approach that a nation battered by years of military dictatorships badly needed.

However, his direct leadership style also began to disenfranchise many of the political actors in his political party and those within his cabinet, as he increasingly came across as autocratic, dictatorial and unyielding on many issues. The most infamous of the issues was the proposed third term bid to keep him in power for another 4 years longer than the constitutionally-prescribed two terms of four years. As the bid progressed many of his allies, his lack of sensitivity to the feelings, needs and perspectives of others increasingly polarized friends and colleagues, leading to massive opposition that ended the third term bid. This ultimately climaxed in political crisis within the ruling party, the People's Democratic Party, which left many sore political and social wounds. My survey of perceptions of Presidential Leadership Style conducted amongst 150 public leaders in my 2011 courses on senior public leadership programme shows the following perceptions about President Obasanjo[43] (Aduloju, D. O., 2011):

• 100% of respondents believed his leadership style were direct.
• 100% of respondents believed that his leadership style matched the crisis the country was in when he assumed national leadership the first and second times.
• 100% of respondents believed that his leadership was insensitive to the feelings of others.
• 98% of respondents believed that his leadership left very little space for gaining group harmony and synergy.
• 70% of respondents believed he had a clear policy vision.
• 52% of respondents believed he had communication capacity.
• 90% of respondents believed he did not have emotional intelligence.

We may attribute some of President Obansanjo's leadership style to nurturing. As a young man that went into the Nigerian Army at 21, there is not much doubt that military training shaped his approach to leadership, which for most military men is a command and control, take-charge type of leadership that is typical of the direct leadership style. So could we say that President Obansanjo is a Direct Leader by nature or nurture? Is this his default style by nature or nurture? This is not apparently clear. What is however absolutely certain is that his predominant leadership style is direct. The impact of his leadership approach on the culture of governance was as follows:

• Once government committed on a course of action it was implemented no matter what anyone felt about it.
• Presidential Advisors and Cabinet Members knew that the President could at a moment's notice override their decisions and move in the direction that he desired.
• Political opposition felt that his practices were autocratic and undemocratic.
• Nigeria made significant progress in the liberalization, commercialization and privatization of many critical sectors of the economy.
• Nigeria achieved significant debt profile reduction through a focused economic and federal fiscal administrative agenda.
• Nigeria's real sectors were jump-started and a significant flow of foreign direct investment started to come into the country. This was predominantly due to the decisive nature of the Obasanjo government.

As a direct result of this governance culture, global performance indicators like the Global Competitiveness Index and Doing Business in Nigeria Index improved slightly. However, his much- publicized Anti-Corruption campaign and economic programmes did not yield long-term dividends as the approaches and methods came to be viewed as an extension of his selective, aggressive, autocratic domineering and overbearing leadership. The end result was by the time President Obasanjo had exited office many issues of state were still in a state of crisis, needing urgent and immediate response.

President Obasanjo's administration would always be remembered for its result-oriented, fast, decisive, aggressive and confrontational approach in getting things done. His Government Executives have been criticised as being responsible for evolving a governance culture that was insensitive to the feelings of people, domineering, somewhat autocratic and destructive to government bureaucracies.

SYSTEMATIC LEADERSHIP: CALCULATED, SLOW AND STEADY YARA'DUA

One of the strengths of the systematic leadership style is the capacity to lead through careful planning, objective analysis and fact-based decision making. These qualities enable the systematic leader to be a natural idealist. Idealists tend to be abstract in speech and cooperative in pursuing their goals. Their greatest strength is diplomatic integration of ideas. They usually invest great amounts of their leadership time in ensuring that the basis of their decisions is evidence-based, objective and supported by sound reason. One of the challenges of the systematic leadership style is the ability to act in the midst of ambiguity, conflicting voices and with insufficient information, which is a situation leaders in today's world must deal with. The late President Umaru Musa Yara'dua was a Systematic Leader. He was the President of Nigeria and the 13th Head of State. Before becoming president he served as governor of Katsina State in northern Nigeria, was declared the winner of the controversial Nigerian presidential election held on 21 April 2007, and was sworn in on 29 May 2007.

True to the Systematic Style of Leadership Yara'dua developed what he called his Seven (7) Point Agenda, which was some carefully laid out plans to address seven of Nigeria's most pressing needs, due to the crisis in power, escalating in armed militancy in the Niger Delta and an array of other matters demanding immediate attention. The president's systematic style approach to decision-making was viewed by many critiques as slow, uncommitted and indecisive, failing to respond at an adequate pace to many national challenges and issues. However, in spite of all the criticisms of the Umaru Yara'dua Administration he is viewed as the primary architect for the development of the world-renowned and highly successful Niger Delta Amnesty Programme.

In this one area more than any other, his Systematic Leadership style guaranteed that the Federal Republic of Nigeria developed a long-term strategy for eliminating armed militancy in the Niger Delta Region, which right up to 2007 was the main international security threat in the Gulf of Guinea, a region that accounted for the sixth largest export of crude oil globally. When President Yara'dua assumed office in 2007, the world was in a global financial crisis.

The economic performance of Nigeria prior to the crisis in 2007 was below official projection, with an estimated GDP growth of 6.2%, set against a growth target of 10%, indicating a slight growth from the 6.0% recorded in 2006 which was driven primarily by the non-oil sector, which grew by 9.6%. Largely attributable to the agriculture sector, this grew by 7.4%, led by crop production, livestock and fishing. Other key components of growth in non-oil GDP consisted of wholesale and retail trade, building and construction and services, which recorded growth rates of 15.3%, 13.0% and 9.8%, respectively. Industrial output dropped by 3.5%, due to the 5.9% drop in crude oil production as a result of the Niger Delta Crisis.

At the close of the fiscal year 2007, the national crude oil production closed at a shocking 0.9 million barrels a day. Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) reports showed that the Federal Republic of Nigeria lost N16.9 billion to petroleum pipeline vandalism and militant attacks on other petroleum sector-critical infrastructure. As a result the downstream sector of the petroleum industry was functionally inactive, and the nation relied on imported refined petroleum products for domestic and industrial operations. The Federal Republic of Nigeria consumed about 14.13 billion litres of refined petroleum products (38.7 million litres per day) in 2007, with Premium Motor Spirit (PMS) accounting for 9.81 billion litres. At the close of the third quarter of 2007, the Manufacturers’ Association of Nigeria (MAN) reported a drop in manufacturing capacity utilization from 44.06% in 2006 to 43.5%, owing to the difficult operating environment. The industrial sector made a negative contribution of 0.78 percentage points.

President Yara'dua's administration developed an integrated strategy for dealing with the militancy challenge. He consulted with regional leaders rigorously over a one-year period, carefully studying the challenges of the region. He was the first leader in Nigerian history to agree that the injustices committed against the minorities in the oil-rich Niger Delta, which resulted in environmental degradation and impoverishment of the ethnic groups in the region, had to be corrected. His strategy included:

The review of the Niger Delta Development Master Plan, which gave President Umaru Yara'dua the basis for negotiating an amnesty deal with leaders of the militant groups;

The development of a phased Amnesty Programme which consisted of:

• Militant Disarmament and De-militarization
• Ex-Militant Reorientation
• Ex-Militant Rehabilitation
• Ex-Militant Reintegration
• The creation of the Federal Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs, a dedicated government institution that was focused on eliminating years of neglect in the development of socio-economic well-being of the people of the region, headed by a Cabinet Level Minister, who was mandated to implement the Niger Delta Development Master Plan;
• A well-orchestrated military strategy to de-militarize the Niger Delta region through joint security forces to clean up campaigns targeted at militant camps;
• A coordinated intelligence strategy for isolating militant groups that would not come to the negotiating table with the Federal Government.

Though the development of the strategy took a long time (one year in the minds of many of his critics was too long to wait), it worked. Tens of thousands of youth militants voluntarily disarmed throughout 2008 and 2009, relative peace returned to the region, and international oil companies resumed oil production.

The Systematic Leader Wins!

As a result of the full implementation of this strategy, Africa witnessed one of the largest and most successful disarmament and de-militarization programmes on the continent, and Nigeria experienced an increase in oil production. Oil production made a substantial recovery post-Niger Delta Amnesty in the Yara'dua administration. Oil prices stabilized averaging US$77.65/bbl in the first half of 2010 versus the benchmark price of US$60/bbl. Oil GDP growth was up 4.4% year to date versus 0.0% growth in the same period in 2009.

President Yara'dua died on the 5th of May 2010, after a protracted illness. Yara'dua's systematic leadership style created a slow-paced presidential decision-making process, which resulted in a governance culture where too many matters were pending presidential attention. His tendency to focus on details and objective analysis as a person reduced the amount of things he could achieve. Ultimately his Seven Point Agenda was criticised because his pace of decision meant he could not focus on Seven Points. Many critics recommended he focused on only one point.

My survey of perceptions of Presidential Leadership Style conducted amongst 150 public leaders in my 2011 courses on senior public leadership programme shows the following perceptions about President Yaradua[45] (Aduloju, D. O., 2011):

• 100% of respondents believed his leadership style were systematic.
• 10% of respondents believed that his leadership style matched the crisis the country was in when he assumed national leadership (in other words 90% felt his systematic style did not match the crisis).
• 60% of respondents believed that his leadership was insensitive to the feelings of others.
• 90% of respondents believed that his leadership was effective at gaining group harmony and synergy.
• 80% of respondents believed he had a clear policy vision.
• 20% of respondents believed he had communication capacity.
• 75% of respondents believed he did not have emotional intelligence.

 

PRESIDENT GOODLUCK JONATHAN: THE CONSIDERATE LEADER

President Goodluck Jonathan was known for his propensity for looking for more consensus than necessary. He was known to consult widely with others before making decisions. On his assumption of office he sought to inspire national leaders to work together, which was a welcome approach to leadership in Nigeria. However, his continuous consultative style soon attracted bitter rebukes from all quarters, as the Book Haram terrorism threat, a new national security challenge, emerged in the northern region of Nigeria, which citizens felt required quick, aggressive and decisive action. Many commentators were worried that the president's lack of decisiveness on a clear national security strategy and response gave the terrorists opportunities for incursion across the country, resulting in a devastating trend that again brought Nigeria back into global focus as a nation where terrorism had taken root. His tendency to be too patient with Government Executives that were perceived to be underperforming was another key weakness of his administration.

Furthermore, the tendency of President Jonathan’s administration to have myriad consultative committees and taskforces, which seek to harmonize and synergize amongst an array of national stakeholders, was ultimately now viewed as a weakness of his administration to act quickly, move decisively and respond adequately to new and emerging national challenges. In the last year of his administration, GEJ called the National Conference to create the platform for some of the most robust discussions on the Nigerian State in recent times and to gain Consensus on the way forward for the Federal Republic of  Nigeria.

In the final analysis, it was his Considerate Leadership Style that prevailed in his early concession of electoral defeat to President Bukhara, an act that might have saved Nigeria from the brink of chaos and political violence.

GENERAL MUHAMMADU BUHARI: THE SYSTEMATIC LEADER

My survey of perceptions of Presidential Leadership Style conducted amongst 150 public leaders in my 2011 courses on senior public leadership programmed shows the following perceptions about General Bukhara, when he was Head of State[45] (Aduloju, D. O., 2011):

• 98% of respondents believed his leadership style were systematic.
• 90% of respondents believed that his leadership style matched the country at that time as a military dictator
• 82% of respondents believed that his leadership was insensitive to the feelings of others.
• 30% of respondents believed that his leadership was effective at gaining group harmony and synergy.
• 92% of respondents believed he had a clear policy vision.
• 23% of respondents believed he had communication capacity.
• 85% of respondents believed he did not have emotional intelligence.

It is clear that the then President Buhari was predominantly a Systematic, though as a Military Dictator, the posture of His Administration was Direct, party due to the influence of key figures in his government.

THE SECOND COMING OF GMB AND THE NEW IMPERATIVES OF PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP MATURITY

Now, GMB is back as President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB), and already we can see him resort to his default Presidential Leadership Style, beginning with the setting up of Transitional Team of the APC, who submitted their report on 12th of June 2015. Already the Systematic President is being called “Baba Go Slow”, due to his insistence on subjecting everything to Objective Analysis and his demand for fact based recommendations on all matters, to the careful and meticulous process he is taking in personally assessing the prospects for Cabinet and His Advisory Pool. Our Systematic President is showing his unwillingness to engage in matters of ambiguity evidenced from his posture on the National Assembly Leadership evolution process and his reluctance to simply comment on everything without having all the facts. Some have argued that he is not talking enough about major APC Party issues, he is allowing too much to chance, he is too slow, and has refused to hit the ground running. The allegations and criticisms are endless. Our Classical Systematic President is living up to this style!

There are benefits to PMB’s approach at the beginning of his administration. For the Change Agenda to be translated to tangible outcomes citizens demand:

• He carefully assesses the government and nation he has received. No amount of outsider information prepares you for what you meet in office on day one;
• He objectively and proactively selects a Federal Cabinet and Presidential Advisory Team from our country’s best and brightest to work with him to translate his Vision of change into reality;
• He leads Nigeria through the articulation of a robust National Change Policy, Strategy and Master Plan;

The country demands nothing less, than a Systematic Approach to settling Government down to tackle our most formidable problems. But like PMB has done on matters of National Security, our country has many issues that require a greater sense of urgency, an acute sensitivity to the feelings and aspirations of the Nigerian people and a more robust execution framework. This will depend on the accelerated constitution and deployment of his Presidential team.

Finally, We demand that our beloved PMB transforms himself! He must rise above his default Leadership Style and become a Full Stature Presidential Leader that must:

• Display Considerate Approaches (by rallying, aligning and synergizing consensus for determinate, decisive and impactful action within and outside the APC and across all the geopolitical zones, ethnic and religious lines);
• Display Spirited Approaches (by inspiring Nigerians with words of faith, confidence, affirmation and action to belief that we can and we will see under his leadership the emergence of a peaceful, powerful, prosperous and great Nation);
• Display Direct Approaches (by taking charge of the APC Agenda, decisively dealing with distractions, clearly obstacles out of the way, fighting corruption head on and providing strong leadership and aggressive action towards reinventing governance and changing the fortunes of the Nigerian People).

 It is my belief that the PMB that Nigerians voted into office is more than capable of Full Stature Presidential Leadership – This is the new National Leadership Imperative and it will significantly determine the Culture of Governance going forward.