What makes a president great? Some U.S. presidents have been acclaimed
by historians for their greatness, while others have been seen as
ineffective leaders. Undoubtedly, there are complex reasons for such
wide divergence in the merits of different presidents. There is evidence
indicating that at least some of the variation in presidential
greatness can be linked to their individual personality
traits. Looking at how personality traits are related to performance in
the highest political office may provide a test of theories about how
personality relates to social effectiveness in real life.
People who run for political office, especially for president, are
scrutinized by the public to determine if they have the right character
to be an effective leader. But what sort of character traits make a leader effective?
There may be no one right answer, as leader effectiveness will depend
to a great extent on the requirements of the circumstances in which they
wield power. However, there may be certain characteristics that great
leaders share in common. Examining historic leaders may provide some
clues as to what these common characteristics might be. Additionally,
such an examination might provide a test of theories about what set of
traits makes a person socially effective. One such theory relates social
effectiveness to a single underlying general factor of personality that
combines many different traits in a socially desirable way (Dunkel
& Van der Linden, 2014). According to this view, there is a
continuum of personality traits ranging from one end that is adaptive,
prosocial, and socially effective, while the opposite end is
maladaptive, socially deviant, and likely to alienate a person from
society. As I have explained in a number of previous posts (for
example, here and here),
proponents of the general factor of personality claim that it is the
underlying basis of well-known, multi-factor models of personality, such
as the Big Five. Hence, persons high in this general factor would
combine high levels of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, with low levels of neuroticism.
If this theory is correct, then one might expect that presidents who
have been rated as particularly effective by historians would generally
show a pattern of being high in extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and openness to experience, and low in neuroticism, while less
effective presidents would show a generally opposite, or at least
different, pattern.
A number of studies have attempted to assess the personalities of
U.S. presidents, living and dead. Assessing public figures, particularly
those who are no longer alive, presents some difficulties, but they are
not insurmountable. All the U.S. presidents have been intensively
studied by historians, so it is possible to use detailed historical
information to develop ratings of their personality traits.
Additionally, presidential performance can be assessed against objective
criteria, and rankings of presidents on their effectiveness based on
expert consensus have already been published. One influential study
(Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, & Ones, 2000) recruited expert biographers
and asked them to provide ratings using personality tests for every
president from Washington to Clinton. They were then able to assign each
president a score on each of the Big Five factors. Additionally, each
of the Big Five was subdivided into six narrower traits or facets,
making a total of 30 facets rated for each president. The scoring system
used was designed to allow comparisons with norms for the modern U.S.
population, so that presidential trait scores could be compared to the
average scores of ordinary people. Individual presidents varied
enormously on every trait. Comparing the average of presidential traits
to population norms, they found that presidents tended to be more extraverted
and less agreeable and open to experience than most ordinary people. In
regard to specific facets, presidents on average tended to be higher in
achievement striving, assertiveness,
and openness to feelings, and lower in openness to values,
straightforwardness (honesty), and modesty. As the authors explained,
presidents tend to be hard-working, able to get their own way, in touch
with their emotions, conventional and traditional in their moral views, yet willing to take liberties with the truth and manipulate others, and also have a good opinion of themselves.
More importantly, they found that a number of these traits had
substantial correlations with independently obtained ratings of
presidential greatness, which were based on existing surveys of a very
large number of presidential experts. The Big Five dimension with the
largest correlation with presidential greatness was openness to
experience, so that presidents who were more open to experience
were generally considered greater than those who more closed. This
makes sense, as another study found that ratings of presidential
openness to experience were strongly correlated with ratings of their
intellectual brilliance and their general intelligence
(Simonton, 2006). Additionally, extraversion and conscientiousness had
modest positive correlations, while agreeableness had a modest negative
correlation with greatness. That is, great presidents tended to be
somewhat more extraverted and conscientious, but also somewhat less
agreeable. Neuroticism on the whole was unrelated to greatness. Please
note that there are prominent exceptions to these patterns (e.g.,
Washington was rated as being low in openness to experience, yet he has
been consistently rated very highly indeed on greatness). Nevertheless,
these patterns apply more often than not.
There were also a number of significant correlations between
greatness and the facet scores. The only neuroticism facet that
was significant was vulnerability, with a negative correlation,
indicating that presidents who coped well with stress
and adversity tended to be greater. Among the extraversion facets, the
strongest positive correlation was with assertiveness, followed by
activity, positive emotions, and to a lesser extent excitement seeking.
Interestingly, the warmth and sociability facets were unrelated to
greatness, suggesting that one does not have to be a people person to be
an effective president.
Among the openness facets, there were significant positive
correlations for openness to feeling, aesthetics, actions, values, and
ideas. This suggests that great presidents valued their emotions, were
interested in art and culture, were willing to try new experiences,
willing to go against tradition and challenge convention, and were
intellectually sophisticated.
The pattern for the agreeableness facets showed an interesting
mixture. There were negative correlations with straightforwardness and
compliance, indicating that even great presidents were willing to bend
the truth and manipulate people when it suited them, and they refused to
follow rules or go along with the wishes of others when necessary. On
the other hand, there was a positive correlation between greatness and
tender-mindedness, indicating that great presidents genuinely cared
about the suffering of the less fortunate.
In regards to conscientiousness facets, there were positive correlations with competence, achievement striving, and self-discipline, indicating that great presidents were sure of their abilities, worked hard to achieve their goals,
and controlled their impulses. On the other hand, there was a small
negative correlation with orderliness, suggesting that great presidents
were not especially concerned with being neat and tidy and may have
appreciated messiness.
Based on these results, traits that distinguish the greater from the
lesser-regarded presidents are not a complete match for a general factor
of personality. On the one hand, presidential greatness tends to be
associated with higher openness to experience, extraversion, and
conscientiousness, but also with lower agreeableness on the other.
Looking at the facets of agreeableness is particularly interesting, as
it suggests that presidents who were considered compassionate have been
rated more greatly, yet those who were cooperative, compliant, and
willing to go along with others have been less effective.
Straightforwardness, which is basically a form of honesty, has a
strikingly negative relationship with greatness, indicating that great
presidents know when to be devious. Hence, while at least one aspect of
agreeableness (tender-mindedness) is important for greatness, other
aspects of agreeableness may be a hindrance. This might be because in
order to be considered great, a leader needs to have a noble vision, yet
in order to achieve their goals they also need to be tough and
demanding, and possess political skills in manipulating people.
Additionally, certain facet traits appear to be unimportant for
presidential greatness. For example, while sociability and warmth are
important for close interpersonal relationships, they do not seem to
make much difference to a president’s effectiveness. Also, while being
low in neuroticism is clearly beneficial to one’s mental health,
it appears that presidents who suffer from emotional and psychological
problems can still be great leaders, as long as they can handle stress
and adversity well. The best example of this is Abraham Lincoln, who was
known to suffer severe bouts of depression and anxiety, yet has been widely acclaimed as the greatest American president of all time.
It has been argued that a general factor of personality represents a
dimension of social effectiveness. In order to become a great president,
a person surely must be socially effective, yet not all of the traits
that make up the general factor are associated with presidential
greatness, and some of them actually may interfere with a president’s
effectiveness. Hence, presidents who have been regarded as great and
effective have displayed a mixture of socially desirable and undesirable
traits. This seems especially true in regards to the traits that
compose agreeableness. While highly agreeable people are generally
well-regarded and seen as good citizens, they may also be seen as overly
submissive and easily taken advantage of. Hence, while it is important
for leaders to care about people, at least some agreeable traits may get
in the way of being a good leader. Another point is that while a
general factor of personality is associated with good psychological
adjustment (e.g., people high in this factor tend to have high self-esteem
and be satisfied with their lives (Musek, 2007), being happy and
well-adjusted may not be a necessity in a great leader. A leader’s role
is to serve the people well, rather than to have a happy life. This
might shed some light on the fact that traits associated with subjective
well-being, such as sociability and most facets of neuroticism, were
unrelated to presidential greatness.
There are of course limitations to looking at presidents for clues to
social effectiveness. American presidents represent a sample of leaders
from a highly individualistic Western democracy. Hopefully, future
studies will examine the personality traits of leaders from other
cultures, such as those that are more collectivistic and authoritarian,
in order to shed more light on what traits distinguish effective
leaders, and how this might depend on the cultural context.
Further reading
To view a list of previous posts (with links) I have written concerning the general factor of personality click here (link is external).
No comments:
Post a Comment