Chairman or Chief

Chairman or Chief is a term sometimes used in political science to categorise the style of leadership of a senior executive figure, be they a prime minister, president, pope or monarch. It comes from a book of that name written about the office of Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) by Professor Brian Farrell of the Department of Politics in University College Dublin in 1971.

In its general application, it seeks to categorise the style of leadership of a senior executive figure.

* A chairman is someone who takes on a co-ordinating, facilitating role in government, chairing cabinets and allowing individual ministers a high degree of independence in their own departments.

* A chief is someone who takes a predominant role in government, hiring and firing at will, setting agendas, instructing ministers on the minutæ of their departmental decision-taking, and being the dominant spokesperson for the government, with in some cases the rest of the cabinet reduced to forming a backdrop to their leadership.

Controversial

Both roles can be controversial. Chairmen like Pope Paul VI can face accusations of indecision or an unwillingness to take decisions, or sitting back and not taking responsibility, while Chiefs like Margaret Thatcher or Charles Haughey may face accusations of being too dominant or too controlling, of running their government or organisation like a private fiefdom.

Deceptive appearance

While someone may appear to outsiders to be a chief, their actual style of leadership may in reality be more akin to a chairman, for example Eamon de Valera. Though de Valera was seen as the dominant figure within his governments, in reality he rarely changed ministers, and rarely intervened in policy except in his own pet areas of interest. In contrast, though seen as a chairman to outsiders, de Valera's s successor as taoiseach, Seán Lemass, exercised a more direct control throughout government, hiring and firing ministers and giving ministers specific tasks to do in their departments. In Charles Haughey's case, at one major press conference in 1982, in which he and all his ministers appeared at the platform, though all had microphones in front of them only Haughey's was actually connected up and working. While he was seeking to project an image of collegiality, the reality was that he alone could speak.

Haughey's press officer, P.J. Mara summed up Haughey's leadership style with the quip una duce, una voce (one leader, one voice).

Another contrast was between Presidents of the United States Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Whereas Reagan was publicly seen as the more dominant chief-like, and Carter the more chairmanlike leader, in reality Carter wished to be intimately briefed about every aspect of policy and be involved in decision making throughout his administration, whereas Reagan was a "hands off" chairman who rarely read detailed briefs and left his cabinet members and administration leaders to do their own thing without reference to him.

Personal relationships

Chieflike leaders often prefer dealing with other chiefs rather than chairmen, even through they may have little in common with them politically. Margaret Thatcher famously said that she preferred dealing with Charles Haughey rather than Garret FitzGerald even though in Anglo-Irish relations in terms of policy she would have been closer to the latter than the former. She recorded in her memoirs that she knew where Haughey stood whereas FitzGerald was much more difficult to fathom. Haughey in turn was closer to Francois Mitterrand than any other leader, because both men ran similar styles of government and felt they were on the same "wavelength" in terms of leadership styles.

Image in language

The dominance of a leader can often be reflected in rumours and myths. Two of Europe's most dominant Chiefs, Charles Haughey and Margaret Thatcher, both had the same mythical story told about them; how they were in a restaurant with their ministers. The waiter took the order for steak from Haughey/Thatcher and then asked "and what about the vegetables?" to which they received the reply "oh they'll have what I am having", implying that their boss thought that the ministers were mere vegetables! A variant of the story also exists in other states with "chief" leaders.

Not all fit neatly into either category

Some chiefs are more dominant than others, and some chairman are more assertive than others. Though regarded as a Chief because of his dominance and policy control, Garret FitzGerald as taoiseach was also a strong believer in collegiality. Rather than instructing ministers on what he wanted to do, he famously used to try to convince them through intellectual argument, producing notoriously long cabinet meetings that took a day and sometimes ran well into the night. In contrast his fellow chief Charles Haughey held short meetings in which he took control. Nevertheless he was less willing to challenge opponents or to sack them than some other Chiefs, notably Margaret Thatcher.

Pluses and minuses of chairmen and chiefs

An effective chairman can act as a co-ordinator running a team, whereas an ineffective chairman can preside over a government that is perceived to be drifting and weak. John Bruton was widely perceived to be the former, whereas John Major was seen as the latter. Similarly a strong chief can run an effective efficient administration, whereas a poor chief can lead his or her government in the wrong policy direction without any ministers daring to question policies.

Examples of chairmen

* John Major
* Edward Heath
* John Bruton
* Bertie Ahern
* Stanley Baldwin
* Pope Paul VI
* Ronald Reagan

Examples of chiefs

* Margaret Thatcher
* Tony Blair
* Charlie Haughey
* Garret FitzGerald
* Charles de Gaulle
* David Lloyd George
* William E. Gladstone
* Queen Elizabeth I of England
* Pope John Paul II
* Jimmy Carter
* François Mitterrand

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu