TITLE:
Vladimir Putin’s Leadership: Charisma, Power Dynamics, and Influence through the Lens of Leadership Traits and Theoretical Perspectives
AUTHORS:
Samir Novruzov
KEYWORDS:
Vladimir Putin, Leadership Analysis, Charismatic Leadership, Directive Leadership, Leadership Traits, Pseudotransformational Leadership, Machiavellianism, Putinism, Power, Influence, Charisma, Post-Soviet Russia
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Journal of Leadership,
Vol.13 No.3,
July
30,
2024
ABSTRACT: The paper explores the multifaceted leadership of Vladimir Putin, examining his rise to power, leadership traits, and the influence he exerts on both domestic and international stages. The primary objective is to identify and explore Putin’s directive, charismatic, and Machiavellian tendencies, emphasizing his ability to consolidate power and exert influence during Russia’s turbulent post-Soviet transition. The paper employs a qualitative method, utilizing both primary and secondary resources, including historical records, interviews with leading scholars and analysts of Putin’s leadership, biographical sources, and leadership theories. It delves into Putin’s background, tracing his journey from a KGB officer to the President of Russia, and analyzes his leadership through various theoretical lenses, including the Great Man Theory, trait theory, and charismatic leadership. The research identifies key traits such as intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, and sociability, which have been pivotal in Putin’s enduring influence and control. Additionally, the study investigates the ideological construct of Putinism, comparing it to historical authoritarian regimes, and evaluates the power dynamics and coercive methods employed by Putin. While recognizing the potential biases and limitations inherent in historical and biographical analyses, this study provides a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of Putin’s leadership, highlighting its implications for Russia’s political landscape and global interactions. While recognizing his significant impact, the paper refrains from moral judgment, instead focusing on the multifaceted nature of his leadership.