A high-stakes battle is underway between two prospective leaders over the most influential country in the world.
The US election is just days away at the time of writing, and the contest so far has been fierce. With only a few percentage points between the two parties in the polls, it seems Americans are firmly split over which leader—and which leadership style—they prefer.
A political campaign should be a demonstration of leadership ability, as both candidates seek to prove why they would make the better President. So what have the presidential and vice presidential candidates shown so far—and what if anything from this tumultuous political campaign is transferable to businesses?
Election season
The election campaign technically started at least a year ago, but it really kicked into gear with the early Presidential Debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Biden had requested the early debate in a bid to recapture momentum, after a string of public gaffes. What ultimately transpired was an even bigger disaster for Biden, as he gave a confused and ineffective performance, something he blamed on a bout of illness. At that point, Trump held a comfortable lead, and the race was presumed finished almost before it had started.
At that point, Trump led through minimal intervention. To paraphrase another great leader in Napoleon, you should never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake. But the twist in the tale came when Biden decided to surrender his nomination to his Vice President. In the few months since then, Kamala Harris is widely considered to have done extremely well in establishing herself as a credible candidate. The Democrats have gone from a losing position with a clear poll deficit, to one where they appear to be holding a narrow lead.
While the response from the Trump campaign has been less than stellar, he has already shown the capacity to win an election, and achieve an upset while doing so. The multiple assassination attempts against him have further boosted his popularity, cementing his status as a man of the people, who is putting his life on the line for public service. The race is far from over—and both candidates have plenty to teach us about contrasting styles of leadership.
Polar opposites
The election is a clear battle between two very different leadership styles. Trump is seen as charismatic by many, and leads through strength of personality, with a brand which he has built and maintained over many decades. In both his political campaigns and presidential term, he has established himself as different to other political leaders: talking bluntly, and promising dramatic reform to a populace fed up with the state of modern politics.
While the world has seen less of Kamala Harria, she has established herself as someone with clear convictions and messaging, and a wealth of political experience. She is not quite as charismatic as Trump, but can be equally forceful. Rather than leaning on humour or melodrama, she has positioned herself as someone who is well-informed, practical and pragmatic—promising normalcy, stability, and improvements for all Americans.
The Trump campaign meanwhile has somewhat struggled to reestablish itself after Biden’s withdrawal, and has taken to painting Harris as an extremist and a threat to democracy, with less focus on her policies. The highlight from the first and only debate was arguably Trump’s assertion that Haitian immigrants were eating pets—a viral soundbite, no doubt, but not an assertion that lent any more credence to his immigration policies.
Perhaps the more even battle has been between the vice presidential candidates. Democratic nominee Tim Walz has demonstrated competency through normalcy, connecting with voters through the use of slang and occasional profanities as part of his straight-talking, forthright approach. Republican nominee JD Vance meanwhile has attacked the Democrats on the same grounds as Trump, showing off his slick public speaking skills in an evenly-matched debate.
Trump v Harris: which leadership style works best?
The great success of the Harris campaign has been to quickly and confidently establish a clear message. Harris has also displayed an openness to engage with different outlets, without compromising this messaging to appeal to different audiences. She engaged with Fox News knowing it would be a hard interview, but did well in countering the arguments put to her. This showed the kind of resistance to adversity, preparation, and assuredness that all leaders benefit from—both having clear ideas and the facts to substantiate them.
By contrast, Trump has demonstrated some of the pitfalls of his own leadership style. His approach has undoubtedly been extremely effective in the past, and continues to be in many areas. The ability to inspire people through public speaking, setting ambitious goals, and seeming to empathise with people’s struggles and difficulties cannot be underestimated. All of these are positive qualities in a leader—as long as they also excel in the more tangible aspects of leadership.
Where Trump continues to find success is in how he markets himself as a personification of his party. There’s a similar phenomenon among businesses with extremely public-facing leaders, be that Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, or Richard Branson. All of them cultivated a brand that made them almost inseparable from their businesses, using their own profiles to boost the visibility of their brands, and mirroring the values and ethos of the business. There will be many people who vote for Trump because they broadly dislike politics, and like the way that he presents himself as an outsider.
Leadership lessons for businesses
Where Trump seems to be falling behind Harris is in his ability to make pragmatic decisions, and to bring a majority of people onside, rather than a hardcore base. Trump’s paradigm in business is easy to spot, particularly as they’re often found standing next to each other: Elon Musk. Both men have a cult of personality around them, and both are fond of promising the moon (quite literally, in the case of SpaceX). But like Trump’s often radical proclamations, Musk’s takeover of Twitter and accusations of toxic work environments have caused many employees to leave.
For those who remain and buy into that culture, the outcomes can be positive, such as the recent successes enjoyed by SpaceX. But this approach inevitably leads to a loss of buy-in and a loss of talent, as well as broader reputational damage. There’s only so long you can alienate people before they begin to reinforce your rivals, and affect your bottom line. With Trump, this has come in the form of numerous Republican politicians supporting his Democratic rival.
Harris meanwhile perhaps fits the Warren Buffett archetype: famous unflashy (Buffett still drives a cheap car and lives in a small house), but characterised by pragmatic, long-term decision-making and investments, which ultimately reap rewards. Buying into his bellwether stock has reaped gradual rewards for many Americans through the company’s successful and diverse investments, not unlike the approach of Harris and Walz. Rather than huge headline-grabbing moves—which often target a smaller group of people you wish to win over—Harris is aiming for small wins in many key areas.
The leadership styles of both candidates can obviously be effective, as the tightness of the race suggests. Yet the upswing in the Democrats’ fortunes since Kamala Harris was nominated speaks to the particular qualities of her leadership.
While Trump has cultivated an effective brand, he remains extremely polarising, in a way that has divided and fatigued many voters. The Harris campaign may be less exciting, but by attempting to engage people across the spectrum—and demonstrating both competence and clarity of vision—it should be a closer election than anyone could have expected.
Looking to enhance your leadership skills? Explore our range of Leadership and Management courses here – no political aspirations necessary.