Why Donald Trump’s opponents should strive to better understand his governing style
Often dismissed as purely transactional, Trump’s leadership blends deal-making with a transformational push to reorder US foreign policy. Understanding this hybrid style is essential for his opponents – and for Europe’s future.
It is said that today’s leaders – whether in a boardroom or bunker – usually fall into two stylistic categories. Transactional ones concentrate on management, bargaining and calibrated rewards or punishments, often prioritising short-term gains and measurable outputs. Transformational leaders, by contrast, anchor their authority in a broad vision and moral purpose, and seek to inspire followers to accept a shared, higher goal.
These styles shape foreign and security policy in different ways. Transformational leaders can redefine national identity and doctrines – think of Ronald Reagan’s role in reframing Cold War rhetoric or Nelson Mandela’s in conceiving post-apartheid South Africa – by mobilising public purpose and long-term commitment. Transactional leaders – perhaps most famously exemplified by Donald Trump – typically pursue tactical bargains, incremental reforms and contingent alliances: they negotiate, trade and calculate advantage rather than seek wholesale reordering of the international system.
Many believe that what Europe needs is a standout transformational leader – a singular figure capable of, for example, leading the negotiations over Ukraine’s future or bringing peace to the Middle East. By contrast, the US president, who is widely perceived as being wholly transactional, seems to be setting the global agenda. But it is misguided to present Trump as representing one clear leadership style. Instead, he is a paradoxical embodiment of both transactional and transformational. On the one hand, he treats foreign relations as a series of zero-sum exchanges, underscoring a deal-making philosophy that fits the transactional definition. Yet he also, particularly during his election campaign, exhibited transformational traits such as calling for a complete reordering of US foreign policy and global trade.
Perhaps herein lies the effectiveness of Trump’s sometimes difficult-to-articulate style. The late Joseph S Nye Jr conducted a thorough stylistic survey of US presidents in his 2013 book, Presidential Leadership and the Creation of the American Era. He concluded that while long-term economic and military shifts have accounted for much of the rise and fall of US power, crucial historical turning points have also been shaped by key leadership decisions. Indeed, Nye’s striking finding was that highly effective transactional leaders, such as Dwight D Eisenhower and George H W Bush, often proved just as consequential as their more transformational counterparts. By portraying transformational leadership as the sole engine of historical change, opponents of Trump, at home and in Europe, might be looking for the wrong style. The multinational challenges of the 21st century demand hybrid leaders: managers who can negotiate and execute, and visionaries who can build trust and long-lasting coalitions.
