Abstract
Purpose: This study examined the first eight months of Lyndon Johnson's presidency during 1964. Complex Responsive Processes Theory was used to evaluate Johnson's style and leadership and to identify the qualities of complexity that existed in the administration. Theoretical Framework: CRP Theory was develop to address complexity in organizations. The foci of CRP Theory examined in this paper were the quality of conversation and participation, anxiety, unpredictability and paradox, and the quality of diversity. Methodology: Telephone conversations, personal interviews, and documents from the Lyndon Johnson administration were examined. Emerging themes and elements of CRP Theory were delineated and then juxtaposed against criteria that were derived to determine whether or not the elements were present. Findings and Conclusion: Lyndon Johnson took great pains to include as many people as possible in the organizational "conversation" but that true discussion and dissent was not allowed. The President was very cognizant of anxiety in the United States and in its citizens. Because of this anxiety, Lyndon Johnson limited his own solutions to those that were politically safe. He took steps to marginalize or ostracize those whose views differed from his own. Lyndon Johnson placed a great amount of faith in polls, whose long-term predictability was limited. The President also made a gaffe in not addressing the moral and ethic issues he was faced with and in not communicating his decision-making process. This disallowed the American people from public discussion on important issues such as poverty and civil rights and contributed to the overall mistrust of the President. Recommendations: Did these patterns continue throughout Johnson's Presidency? What elements of theory are present in a popular Presidency? In a successful Presidency? What are some guidelines that enable transformational instead of transactional leadership? What guidelines of CRP thought can be developed to guide interaction in different sizes of groups, from individual all the way to the national? What organs of inclusion and discussion exist on a national level or can be developed to facilitate the involvement of the American electorate?