of a crosswalk at a busy intersection. From there, she went on to win a local election. After that she was elected at a regional (provincial) level. She eventually went on to be a cabinet minister with a major government portfolio, overseeing hundreds of millions of dollars. She was able to leverage her interpersonal skills from one-on-one to one-to-many.
Measuring Leadership
One of the breakthroughs in our understanding of leadership in an academic sense came in a review paper by psychologist Robert Lord and his colleagues at the University of Akron back in 1986.24 While looking at the (then) controversial area in organizational psychology around the usefulness of personality traits in leadership, he found an important distinction. Most organizational psychologists at the time had written off the importance of personality in leadership. This was based on a few poorly designed studies that focused on the importance of IQ in leadership by mainly looking at leader performance, and mostly in academic settings. Of course, you don't need to be an organizational psychologist to realize that personality plays a big part in leadership – if not in leadership performance, at least in leadership selection. For example, it would be hard to imagine a political election in which the personality of the candidates doesn't come into play.
Although it may seem intuitive, this was a big realization. How we select leaders is completely different from how we evaluate their performance. So Kaiser and his group reformulated our understanding of leadership using this distinction and classified studies into two groups: one group of studies that focused on how a leader is seen by others and another group that focused on the effectiveness of the groups that were being led. Basically, this differentiated the groups into leaders who were “looking good” versus those who were “doing good.” Just think about how we select leaders, whether it's CEOs or politicians. We generally go by how they present themselves. Another way to look at it is that the first group of studies focused on the individual leader and the second group looked at how the team, group, or organization was functioning.
Political Leaders
It's interesting how this plays out in the world of politics. Stephen Harper was a Canadian prime minister known for being very effective at getting things done. He was elected prime minister for two terms. He had a strong record of accomplishments but was seen as an introvert. He had come to lead the party through his work in the backroom, as opposed to the more traditional glad-handing politicians are known for. For his first two terms as prime minister, he had run against candidates who were seen as even less personable or likable than he.
He ran again, attempting a third term, against a young, charismatic drama teacher named Justin Trudeau, son of the late former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. At a dinner meeting during the election, I sat at a table with one of his senior cabinet ministers. We got into a discussion about the decreased likability of Harper and the effect his lack of personal appeal (compared to his rival) may have on the upcoming election. She tried to assure me that this wasn't a personality contest. Voters would decide on the candidate's record and would not be swayed by personality. Besides, she told me, Trudeau had no record of accomplishments. As you may know, Harper lost the election by a huge margin to the former drama teacher, who, as she said, had very little record to speak of. Harper's loss may seem like an anomaly, but, as I will illustrate, choosing leaders based on personality, not achievement, is fairly common.
Understanding the Ideal Political Candidate
Of course, the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump presented an ideal laboratory and a historical opportunity for those of us interested in leadership and how leaders are chosen. At MHS, we decided to take advantage of this opportunity, and we conducted two surveys at the beginning of September 2016, before the election. In order to get a better handle of what the emotional intelligence of an ideal leader (in this case, president) would look like, we surveyed 1,000 American voters. The sample selected was one-third Democrats, one-third Republicans, and one-third Independents. Their ideal president, by political affiliation, can be seen in Figure 2.1.25
Figure 2.1 Ideal President EQ Profile by Party Affiliation (© MHS, 2016)
As seen in Figure 2.1, the results were fairly similar across the political divide, which is interesting as this was one of the most divisive elections in recent history. There were some differences: whereas self-declared Democrats prefer, in order of preference, a president who is highest in Impulse Control, Social Responsibility, and Reality Testing. Republicans prefer a president who is strongest in Stress Tolerance, Problem Solving, and Reality Testing. Independents want to see a president highest in Stress Tolerance, Problem Solving, and Impulse Control (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Top Three Qualities of an Ideal President by Party Affiliation
All three groups seem to be in agreement that the least important of the emotional skills for a president are Emotional Expression, Self-Regard, and Emotional Self-Awareness.
What are the biggest differences between Republicans and Democrats? The biggest difference was in Social Responsibility, with Democrats rating that higher than Republicans. The Independents were close to the Democrats on this. So to win over Independents, the candidates had to show at some level they care about their communities and the world around them. Just caring about your own and nobody else may not win the hearts and minds of Independents. Perhaps Hillary Clinton was seen as too self-motivated to win over Independents. Or perhaps Donald Trump's message of bringing back jobs and repealing Obamacare (due to its escalating costs to subscribers) was demonstrative of Social Responsibility.
The next biggest difference was in Empathy, with Democrats rating Empathy as a more important trait in a president compared to how Republicans rated it. Independents fell right between the two. Democrats want a president who can read the thoughts and feelings of others. This seems less important to Republicans. This is a skill that Bill Clinton is widely regarded as excelling in. A turning point here may have been Hillary Clinton's declaring Trump supporters as “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” Many Independents may have found it unacceptable to write off nearly 50 percent of the electorate.
Finally, the groups differed on Impulse Control. Democrats wanted a president higher in Impulse Control; that is, more able to manage what they say and their behavior. They prefer a president who is more thoughtful and doesn't shoot from the hip. Independents fall somewhere between the two, but slightly closer to Democrats. This factor is less important for Republicans, which may explain why many Republicans are not bothered by Trump's penchant for impulsive use of Twitter.
We then surveyed a new group of about 1,000 voters, once again almost equally divided among party affiliation. They were sampled with one of two alternate surveys, with 500 voters completing each survey. In one survey, Clinton's emotional intelligence was rated first; in the other survey, Trump's was rated.
As seen in Figure 2.2, neither candidate reaches the ideal president in terms of their emotional intelligence scores. They each have their peaks and valleys, though both Clinton and Trump score highest in Independence and Assertiveness.
Figure 2.2 Emotional Intelligence Ratings of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Compared to Ideal President
The biggest differences between the two are Clinton scoring higher in Impulse Control, Stress Tolerance, and Emotional Self-Awareness, while Trump scores higher in Emotional Expression and Assertiveness, and slightly