annurev%2Epsych%2E55%2E090902%2E141918

6 Dec 2004 10:51 AR AR231-PS56-20.tex AR231-PS56-20.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141918

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2005. 56:54570doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141918

Copyright c 2005 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

George R. GoethalsDepartment of Psychology, Williams College, Williamstown,Massachusetts 01267; email: [email protected]

Key Words character, charisma, motives, politics, transformational Abstract This chapter reviews psychological theories of leadership and selectedliterature on the American presidency to highlight key psychological principles ofpresidential leadership. Psychological theories, framed by the principles of leadershipoutlined by Freud (1921), include those of Burns (1978, 2003) on transformational lead-ership, Bass (1997) and House & Shamir (1993) on charismatic and transformationalleadership, Gardner (1995) on stories of identity, Hogg (2001, 2003) on social identity,and Tyler & Lind (1992) on procedural justice. The discussion of presidential schol-arship considers work by Barber (1992) on presidential character, Simonton (1986,1987) on presidential personality and success, Skowronek (1997) on reconstructivepolitics, and Winter (1987) on presidential motive profiles. These studies suggest thatfollowers have high expectations for presidents and that successful presidential leader-ship depends on opportunity, high levels of activity, intelligence, optimistic resilience,and flexibility.

CONTENTS

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545PSYCHOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546

Freuds Group Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546Modern Psychological Theories of Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549

PRINCIPLES OF PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557BEYOND PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

The presidency of the United States offers particularly compelling lessons onleadership. Political scientist and presidential scholar James David Barber (1992)writes: The Presidency is the focus for the most intense and persistent emotions inthe American polity. The President is a symbolic leader, the one figure who drawstogether the peoples hopes and fears for the political future (p. 2). We can learn agreat deal about leadership from the way 42 different individuals have executed this

0066-4308/05/0203-0545$14.00 545

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

6 Dec 2004 10:51 AR AR231-PS56-20.tex AR231-PS56-20.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH

546 GOETHALS

unique office. The goal of this chapter is to describe the literatures on leadershipand on the presidency that are relevant to understanding presidential leadership. Itis important to note at the beginning that this review differs from similar chaptersin the Annual Review of Psychology in that it focuses almost entirely on theoryrather than on research. There are two reasons for this. First, although a large bodyof empirical literature deals with the presidency and presidential leadership, verylittle of it addresses the theoretical formulations discussed here. A few exceptionsare noted. Second, presidential scholars concerned with psychological questionstend not to contribute to that empirical literature. The work of Dean Keith Simontonand David Winter are notable exceptions, and their studies are considered here.However, the theoretical literature on the presidency discussed here has producedlittle research. Thus, this chapters focus is theory.

This review of presidential leadership begins in an unusual place, with Freuds1921 extended essay Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Two consid-erations make this an appropriate beginning. First, Freuds ideas about leadershipseem unusually insightful. Modern theories of leadership represent many of his keyobservations and formulations, although few of them reference Freud. AlthoughFreuds theory is not entirely well integrated, he clearly touched on many extremelyimportant elements of leadership. This becomes apparent in the examination ofmodern theories. Second, as Barber (1992) points out, the American presidencyis the focus of the kind of intense symbolic and emotional follower dynamics thatFreud emphasized.

The outline of Freuds key concepts is followed by a discussion of severalmodern psychological theories that are relevant to understanding leadership andthe presidency and are related to Freuds theory. Other leadership theories pertinentto understanding presidential leadership are also reviewed. The applicability ofeach of these perspectives to understanding the presidency is briefly examined.Next, the principles of presidential leadership derived from political scientistsand psychologists are reviewed. Finally, the work on presidential leadership isintegrated with more general considerations of leadership theory and research.

PSYCHOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF LEADERSHIP

Freuds Group Psychology

Freuds treatment of leadership is contained in his 1921 publication Group Psychol-ogy and the Analysis of the Ego. Heavily influenced by Gustave LeBons (1895)book The Crowd, Freuds work emphasizes how highly suggestible and deeplyinfluenced people can be in group situations. Freud initially sought to understandwhy crowds, as described by LeBon, are capable of such intense emotions andextreme behavior. In crowds, LeBon and Freud argue, people seem to regress to alower intellectual level, where they are easily swayed by the words and actions ofleaders toward dramatic action and rapidly changing emotions. An example from

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP 547

literature nicely captures the phenomenon that LeBon and Freud tried to under-stand. In Shakespeares Julius Caesar, a crowd of Romans hears Brutus defend hisparticipation in the assassination of Caesar. He argues that Caesar was dangerouslyambitious. The crowd is convinced, and hails Brutus. Mark Antony follows, andin his famous Friends, Romans, countrymen. . . speech, subtly plays on the ideathat Brutus is an honorable man. Antony slowly and subtly takes issue with thecharge of ambition: The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious. If itwere so, it was a grievous fault, and grievously hath Caesar answered it. In a fewminutes, the crowds viewpoint has markedly changed. Brutus is no longer seenas honorable and Caesar is no longer seen as ambitious. The crowd determines tocapture and kill Brutus.

How does this happen? Why are crowds so suggestible? What causes theirintellectual level to be reduced? Why do they feel omnipotent? Freud (1921)argues that in groups, people place themselves instinctively under the authority ofa chief. . . [A group] has such a thirst for obedience it submits itself instinctively toanyone who appoints himself its master (p. 81). In submitting themselves, peopledo not think but rather do as directed by the leader. Both the leader and his ideashave what Freud describes as a mysterious and irresistible power. Furthermore,strong libidinal bonds exist between group members and the leader, and amonggroup members themselves, accounting for the heightened emotionality of thegroup and the groups feeling that it is capable of anything.

How can we account for this kind of dominance, or perhaps more importantly,this kind of submission? Freud argues that the groups strong libidinal ties to theleaders transform into identification with the leader. Furthermore, the identificationis strengthened based on perceived similarity with the leader: [Identification] mayarise with any new perception of common quality shared with some other person. . ..The more important this common quality is, the more successful . . . (Freud 1921,p. 122) this identification may become. What accounts for the libidinal ties? Whyis there such strong love for, and subsequent identification with, the leader?

Freud traces the origin of such feelings to an archaic heritage of feelings andperceptions that originally arose in a primitive form of social organization that hecalled the primal horde. In 1912 I took up the conjecture of Darwins to the effectthat the primitive form of human society was that of a horde ruled over despoticallyby a powerful male. I attempted to show that the fortunes of this horde have leftindestructible traces upon the history of human descent (Freud 1921, p. 122). Inthe primal horde, male members of the group loved and feared the male leader. Theleader, chief, or father was entirely unfettered: His intellectual acts were strongand independent. . . and his will needed no reinforcement from others. This strongchief satisfied his sexual needs at will, but developed no love for others. He closedoff sexual access for other males in the group. Freud argues that memory traces ofthis kind of leader in this kind of primitive society are recoverable in the present,and that they are reawakened when in a group a leader puts himself forward.When this archaic heritage is activated, what is thus awakened is the idea of aparamount and dangerous personality. . . to whom ones will had to be surrendered

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


548 GOETHALS

(p. 127). Contemporary accounts of Americas first president, George Washington,and recent biographies (e.g., Brookhiser 1996) make clear that Washington hadthis kind of force with the officers and soldiers in the Continental army, delegatesat the constitutional convention in 1787, and cabinet officers and officials in thegovernment during his two presidential terms. He was a physically imposing manwith a tempera temper generally under tight control, but a temper nevertheless.

In short, people have an archaic memory of a despotic male leader who wasfeared and loved, and that memory is reawakened in a group setting. Inheritedtendencies to identify with and completely obey this powerful figure lead peoplein the present to make leaders their ego ideals and to go along with whateverthey suggest. In line with this perspective, Freud (1921) offers a definition forsuggestion: a conviction which is not based upon perception and reasoning but onan erotic tie (pp. 127128).

Freud made other observations about leadership that fill out this overall per-spective. Humans are prepared by their primitive heritage to identify with andrespond to leaders. However, leaders must have particular qualities. They must beimposing ideal types, and they must command language and ideas. Freud (1921)says that the groups needs for a leader carry it half-way to meet the leader, yethe too must fit in with it in his personal qualities. . . he must possess a strong andimposing will (p. 81). Also, he must possess the typical qualities of the [group]in a particularly clearly marked and pure form, and. . . give an impression of greaterforce. . . (p. 129).

In addition to being strong, imposing, and ideally representative of the group,the leader must command the power of words and ideas. Freud discusses the factthat ideas have the same power or prestige as leaders themselves. He states thatthe leader must himself be held in fascination by a strong faith (in an idea) inorder to awaken the groups faith. . .. Leaders make themselves felt by means ofthe ideas in which they themselves are fanatical believers. . . Prestige is a sort ofdomination exercised over us by an individual, a work or an idea (Freud 1920,p. 81). Freud discusses whether an idea or abstraction can take the place of the leaderin unifying a group. Thus, ideas clearly have power and are one important sourceof a leaders power and prestige. Freud emphasizes the importance of languagein expressing those ideas: A group . . . is subject to the truly magical power ofwords; they can evoke the most formidable tempests in the group mind, and are alsocapable of stifling them (p. 80). The words need not appeal to rationality. Indeed,reason and argument are incapable of combating certain words and formulas(p. 80, quoted from LeBon 1895). Groups have never thirsted after truth. Theydemand illusions (p. 80). Anyone who wishes to produce an effect upon [thegroup] needs no logical arguments; he must paint in the most forcible colours, hemust exaggerate, and he must repeat the same thing again and again (p. 78).

In short, Freuds leader must represent the group ideally and strongly, and mustexpress the central ideas of the group in a forceful if not particularly reasonedway. He obtains the capacity to influence through an erotic tie based in turn onhis prototypicality. A number of presidents have had the combination of qualities

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



suggested in Freuds analysis. As noted above, George Washington possessed greatforce and was highly prototypical. Andrew Jackson had similar force and couldexpress himself extremely clearly and directly. Theodore Roosevelt had perhapseven more force and greater articulacy. John Kennedy was less overtly forceful butexpressed compelling ideas with moving words. In addition, his charisma producedstrong affective ties in many of those who supported him. Ronald Reagan possessedcharisma based on prototypicality, and in a 1987 speech in Berlin his challenge toMikhail Gorbachev to tear down this wall combined force and rhetoric in a waythat well illustrates Freuds viewpoint.

Another central point in Freuds theory of leadership is that a key elementin follower perception is the illusion that the leader loves all of the individualsequally and justly (Freud 1921, p. 124). In the primal horde, all of the sons knewthat they were equally persecuted by the primal father, and feared him equally(p. 125, italics in original). These perceptions are recast into the presupposition ofthe fathers equal love and provide indestructible strength to group formation(p. 125). The illusion of equal love is an important element in leadership in highlyorganized groups as well as in the family or clan. In a chapter on the church andthe army, Freud argues that this illusion holds true in both. For example, in thearmy the commander-in-chief is a father who loves all soldiers equally. . .. Everycaptain is, as it were, the commander-in-chief and the father of his company, andso is every noncommissioned officer of his section (p. 94). George Washingtonhad to convey equal love to the two key young men in his first cabinet, AlexanderHamilton and Thomas Jefferson. When Jefferson felt that Washington favoredHamilton, he retired to Monticello.

In sum, Freuds theory of leadership includes (a) the ideas of strong affectiveties between the leader and followers, and strong follower identification with theleader; (b) the importance of leader prototypicality and the leaders capacity tosuggest a wide range of beliefs, emotions, and behaviors through ideas vividlyexpressed in words; and (c) the importance of just and equal treatment by a leader.A final point can be added to this list. Freud held that a leaders prestige. . . isalso dependent on success, and is lost in the event of failure (p. 81). Some mayfind it hard to remember that Jimmy Carter had prestige during the first part of hisadministration, particularly after the successful Camp David Accords. However,once Carter was perceived to be a failure, he was easily ridiculed and quicklyrejected.

Modern Psychological Theories of Leadership

There are numerous psychological theories of leadership. Although any selectionis bound to exclude some theories that are important, those discussed below capturethe principal psychological theories of leadership that are relevant to understandingthe presidency. It is useful to tie many of these theories to Freuds analysis, whereappropriate, and to show how many of them amplify one or another of Freudsinsights into the relation between leaders and followers.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


550 GOETHALS

BURNSS CONCEPT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP One of the most influen-tial leadership developments of the past few decades has been James MacGregorBurnss (1978) concept of transformational leadership. Burns made a fundamental,and often-debated, distinction between transactional and transformational leader-ship. Transactional leadership occurs when one person takes the initiative inmaking contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things(p. 19). The valued things may be of an economic, political, or psychological na-ture. The leader may secure economic benefits for followers who in turn grantauthority and legitimacy to the leader. In this kind of leadership, Burns argues,the bargainers have no enduring purpose that holds them together (p. 20). Theirexchange relationship (cf. Hollander 1993) is a business arrangement.

Some leadership theorists contend that this kind of exchange describes allleadership (Hollander 1993). However, Burns argues that transactional leadershipshould be distinguished at a very fundamental level from transforming or trans-formational leadership. Transformational leadership occurs when one or morepersons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one an-other to higher levels of motivation and morality (p. 20, italics in original). Burnscites Gandhi as a transformational leader who raised the aspirations of millions ofIndians and in the process himself was transformed and elevated. Gandhis visionfundamentally reoriented the beliefs of Indians about what they could achieve po-litically and economically. He also completely redefined how such goals could beattained, namely, through nonviolence. Clearly, leaders have the potential to alterradically the motives and morals that govern a group. Additionally, in Burnssview, not only are the motives and morals of the group altered, but the leaderembraces the transformed motives and morals as well. The two have commoncause.

Burns & Sorenson (2000) criticized Bill Clinton for failing to fight for realchange after the failure of Hillary Clintons health plan, and therefore for failingthe test of transformational leadership. He was an exemplary transactional leader,in their view. James Polk is another example of an effective transactional leaderone of the most effective presidents in this regard. He was able to get support fora few ideas, e.g., annexing Texas, and he delivered on his promises. Yet, he is notremembered for any transforming principles or policy changes. Abraham Lincoln,in contrast, is remembered for eradicating Americas institution of slavery. Thatconstituted transformational leadership.

Many leaders have apparently changed not only the level but also the nature ofthe motivation and morality of their followers. However, have such leaders raised,or have they lowered, the jointly held motives and morals? Hitler and Osama binLaden are examples of leaders who have transformed the thoughts, feelings, andbehaviors of large groups of followers. Wereor aretheir aspirations elevatedor lowered? Because this is a psychological rather than philosophical review, noattempt to answer this question will be made. However, from a psychologicalviewpoint, it is likely that these leaders and their followers felt that they had setout on a morally superior course of action.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Somewhat surprisingly, LeBons and Freuds view of leadership also considerswhat Burns would regard as transformational leadership, and suggests that this kindof leadership is produced by the same processes that generate less commendablegroup behavior. The fundamental premise of LeBons and Freuds understanding ofgroups is simply that they can be easily led. People in groups are highly suggestible.A leader can strongly affect peoples beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. AlthoughLeBon and Freud emphasize the negative behaviors that appear in crowds andother groups, they make clear that in groups, depending on the nature and qualityof the relationship between leaders and followers, people can be led nearly any-where, toward either good or evil. In groups, an individual readily sacrifices hispersonal interest to the collective interest (Freud 1921, p. 75, quoting LeBon). Al-though people in groups often express their cruel, brutal, and destructive instincts(p. 79), a leader can also move them to highly moral and socially responsible behav-ior. Under the influence of suggestion groups are also capable of high achievementin the shape of abnegation, unselfishness, and devotion to an ideal. . .. [A groups]ethical conduct may rise as high above [the individuals] as it may sink below it(p. 79). . . .The morals of a group can be higher than those of the individuals whocompose it. . . only collectivities are capable of a high degree of unselfishness anddevotion (p. 82). For a time charismatic leader John F. Kennedy, who urged thenation to ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for yourcountry, produced this kind of unselfish devotion to ideals, as seen, for example,in the Peace Corps.

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL EFFECTS OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP Burnss conceptof transformational leadership very usefully highlights the fact that leaders canmove followers a long way. Combined with the LeBon/Freud approach, it sug-gests the wide range of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward which followerscan be moved. Burnss theory does not pay as much attention to the character-istics of leaders that produce transformative effects. Burns & Sorenson (2000)simply argue that transforming leaders display courage, commitment, conviction,and competence, and meld these attributes toward creating change (cf. also Burns2003).

Bass & Avolio (Bass & Avolio 1993, Bass 1997) and House & Shamir (1993)develop similar themes in their work. They also distinguish behaviors from effects.As House & Shamir state, charismatic leadership produces transformational ef-fects. Bass (1997) characterizes the behavior of transformational leaders as havingfour significant attributes. First, they have charisma, or idealized influence. Theydisplay conviction, present. . .important values, and emphasize the impor-tance of purpose, commitment, and ethical components of decisions (Bass 1997,p. 133). Second, transformational leaders use inspirational motivation, meaningthat they articulate an appealing vision of the future, challenge followers withhigh standards, talk optimistically with enthusiasm, and provide encouragementand meaning for what needs to be done (p. 133). Franklin Roosevelt excelled atproviding this kind of inspirational motivation: the only thing we have to fear

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


552 GOETHALS

is fear itself. Third, such leaders provide intellectual stimulation, pushing fol-lowers to consider new points of view and to question old assumptions, and toarticulate their own views. Finally, they demonstrate individualized consideration,meaning that they take into account the needs, capacities, and aspirations of eachindividual follower in the effort to treat followers equitably. One of the empiricalquestions that Bass (1997) has addressed is whether these four factors are inde-pendent enough to be differentiated. The last three are correlated with charisma,which suggests that charisma is the more general factor. However, the dimensionsare conceptually distinct. The most useful view may be that the latter three qualitiesoften go along with charisma and give it a fuller definition.

House & Shamir (1993) add to our understanding of the characteristics ofcharismatic behavior. They propose that charismatic leaders articulate an ideolog-ical goal, a vision that describes a better future for followers (p. 97). Often thatfuture involves achieving fundamental values such as freedom, beauty, or dignity.They add that charismatic leaders build a positive image that appeals to follow-ers. House & Shamir recognize the theatrical abilities that military historian JohnKeegan noted were typical of charismatic leaders. Keegan (1987) wrote that theexceptional leader, particularly a military leader, is both shown to and hiddenfrom the mass of humankind, revealed by artifice, presented by theater. . .. What[followers] know of him must be what they hope and require. What they should notknow of him must be concealed at all costs. The leader of men in warfare can showhimself to his followers only through a mask, a mask that he must make for him-self, but a mask made in such form as will mark him to men of his time and placeas the leader they want and need (p. 11). In a historic example of positive imagebuilding by a charismatic leader, Theodore Roosevelt carefully choreographed aphotograph of himself at the controls of a large Bucyrus steam shovel in 1906 tobuild support for the construction of the Panama Canal.

Charismatic leaders must take risks and sacrifice themselves for their goals, thusdemonstrating the courage and conviction noted by Burns & Sorenson. Like Bass& Avolio (1993), House & Shamir (1993) note the importance of empoweringbehaviors. These include setting high expectations for followers, and conveyingthe belief that the group can attain its lofty goals.

Leaders who behave in these ways have the ability to influence a group toward awide range of behaviors. In the best instances, the behaviors will promote universalvalues.

THE ROLE OF LEADER SCHEMAS Freud (1921) argued that the groups passionfor authority (p. 127) and need for a strong chief (p. 129) meet the leaderhalfway. Nevertheless, the leader must fit the followers expectations for a leader.The behaviors of charismatic leaders outlined above very likely fit, at least in manycultures, peoples expectations for what a leader should be like. Such behavior canreawaken the image of a paramount and dangerous personality. Psychologistsstudying leader schemas or implicit leadership theories have explored the im-age people have of leaders (Calder 1977, Fiske 1993, Kenney et al. 1994, Kinder

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



et al. 1980, Lord et al. 1984, Philips & Lord 1981, Simonton 1987). Lord et al.(1984) found that leaders are thought of as competent, caring, honest, understand-ing, outgoing, verbally skilled, determined, aggressive, decisive, dedicated, edu-cated, kind, and well dressed. In a study of conceptions of new leaders, Kenneyet al. (1994) found 16 categories of expectations that formed 4 prototypes de-scribing peoples implicit leadership theories for new leaders: learning the groupsgoals, taking charge, being a nice person, and being nervous. In his book Why Pres-idents Succeed, Simonton (1987) proposes a leadership schema based on semanticdifferential research by Osgood et al. (1957). Leaders are expected to be strong,active, and good. In Freuds terms, if a potential leader give(s) an impression ofgreater force and possesses a strong and imposing will, group members willinvest him with a predominance to which he would otherwise perhaps have noclaim (Freud 1920, p. 129).

These different approaches, describing leadership schemas, prototypes, or im-plicit leadership theories, characterize peoples beliefs about leaders at differentlevels of specificity. What is common to all of them is the idea that people do havea schema about leadership and that this schema forms a standard for judging lead-ers. Hogg (2001) argues that once followers have decided that a person qualifiesas a leader there is a tendency for followers to attribute the leaders behavior tointrinsic leadership ability, or charisma, and to construct a charismatic lead-ership personality for that person (p. 190). Thus, leadership schemas are usedto evaluate leaders or potential leaders, and they can have a profound effect onwhat personal qualities are attributed to someone who has been judged to meetthe leader standard. A person who has the typical qualities of the individualsconcerned in a particularly clearly marked and pure form (Freud 1920, p. 129)will be perceived as the leader, and will be granted many of those qualities that arenot initially attributed. As Hollander (1993) stated, charisma is a quality that canbe considered to be invested by followers and accorded or withdrawn by them(p. 41).

LEADER PROTOTYPICALITY One of the central concepts in Hoggs (2001) socialidentity approach to leadership is prototypicality. Hogg holds that individuals whoare prototypical of the group become leaders. Prototypes are defined as contextspecific, fuzzy sets of attributes that define and prescribe attitudes, feelings, andbehaviors that characterize one group and distinguish it from other groups (Hogg2001, p. 187). The idea that the prototype can define and prescribe the attributesof the group suggests that the leader must not only be representative of the groupbut also must represent it in an ideal way.

Prototypical individuals are perceived as having more influence than other mem-bers of the group, whether they actually do or not, because as group membersconform to a group prototype, the most prototypical individuals have to changeless to conform than those who are less prototypical. Thus, those individuals areperceived to be causing others to change, and they are regarded as highly influentialand therefore as leaders. Freud emphasizes that individuals who possess typical

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


554 GOETHALS

qualities of the group are granted authority. Hoggs perspective is slightly differ-ent. It suggests that such individuals give the appearance of having exercisedauthority. Then over time, and whether they have actually been influential or not,the perception that they are influential becomes stronger and more entrenched(Hogg 2001, p. 189). This process lends prototypical individuals real influenceover group members.

Hogg also suggests that the processes above are strongest when the salienceof group identity is greatest. Much of the research addressing the social identitytheory of leadership manipulates identity salience (Hogg 2003). Hogg also arguesthat leaders sometimes attempt to maintain their position by redefining, usuallythrough rhetoric and polemic. . .the prototype in a self-serving manner to proto-typically marginalize contenders and prototypically centralize self. This can bedone by accentuating the ingroup prototype, by pillorying ingroup deviants, or bydemonizing an appropriate outgroup (Hogg 2001, p. 191). Hogg notes that formerBritish Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher acted in this way during the Falklandswar in 1983. Members of the George W. Bush administration did likewise duringthe 2003 Iraq war.

TELLING IDENTITY STORIES Both Freud and Hogg discuss the use of rhetoric andpolemic to manipulate emotions and retain influence. Howard Gardners (1995)theory of leadership particularly emphasizes this aspect of leadership. Gardnerholds that the central element in leading is relating and/or embodying stories,typically about identity. Leaders of nations or other large groups or institutionsoften lead through the stories and acts they address to an audience (p. 13).The most powerful stories are about identity. Effective leaders tell stories aboutthemselves and their groups, about where they were coming from and where theywere headed, about what was to be feared, struggled against, and dreamed about.Such stories are dynamic. They unfold over time, and the leader and followersare the principal characters or heroes (Gardner 1995, p. 14). Lincolns secondinaugural address is a particularly good example of a powerful identity story.Somewhat rewriting history, Lincoln persuasively proclaimed slavery as the causeof the civil war, declared slavery finished, and then explained how the nation wasto proceed in the wars aftermath: With malice toward none; with charity for all;with firmness in the right as God gives to see the right, let us strive on to finish thework we are in. . . to do all which may achieve a just and lasting peace. . ..

Freud argued that leaders influence through words and ideas. Gardners (1995)emphasis on stories is entirely congruent. He sharpens the focus of Freuds ideasby showing that the leaders words and ideas generally focus on identity, inspiringand leading followers by providing a vision or story about where a group is going,and what needs to be done to get there. Gardner also adds the important concept,perhaps implicit in Freuds work, that the leaders actions, or embodiment of thestory, are as influential as the words of the story. One of Gardners most interestingexamples is Pope John XXIII. Pope John expressed in words a story of humility,openness, and inclusion. This story ran into the counterstories of the entrenched

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Catholic leadership, stories that emphasized hierarchy, obedience, and formality.Pope Johns behavior also represented humility, openness, and inclusion. I alwaystry to show people that I am a regular person. I have two eyes, a nosea very bigonea mouth, two ears and so on (Gardner 1995, p. 178). His story was effective,and appealed broadly to non-Catholics as well as to Catholics, because it was firmlygrounded in the words and deeds of Jesus. A story that resonated so closely to thatof Jesus himself was difficult for the church elders to counter effectively.

Gardner (1995) introduced other important concepts. First, he distinguishedbetween direct and indirect leaders. Direct leaders tell or embody their storiesto followers through some kind of contact or interaction. Indirect leaders mayhave no contact with followers. In this case, it is simply their ideas or products,often artistic products, that have impact. In this way, Einstein can be considereda leaderspecifically, an indirect leader. His written theories carried the weightof influence. There was little about him as a man that added to his impact. Freudalso emphasized the paramount importance of ideas. Second, Gardner notes thatthe stories of most successful political leaders are innovative. They are not entirelynew. Rather, they touch on themes that have been important in the group in thepast, but have been temporarily lost or overshadowed by other stories. RonaldReagan, for example, revitalized a story of American goodness and greatness thathad come unraveled during the administrations of his four immediate predecessors,Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Third, Gardner distinguishes between storiesthat are inclusive, and tell about the common identities of many people, like that ofPope John XXIII, and exclusive stories, like those of Hitler and Margaret Thatcher,which emphasize the differences between ingroups and outgroups, and trumpet thevirtues of the ingroup. In his social identity theory, Hogg (2001, 2003) describesleaders who seek to retain leadership by redefining the ingroup prototype in aself-serving manner and thus behave similarly to leaders who tell exclusionarystories.

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND COMPLIANCE WITH AUTHORITY Work by Tyler & Lind(1992) focuses on the various ways persons in authority make decisions and theeffects different kinds of decisions have on compliance. They discuss a large bodyof literature that shows that procedural justice is more important than distributivejustice. Peoples willingness to comply with the decisions of authorities is moreinfluenced by whether those decisions are based on fair procedures than by whetherthose decisions give them favorable outcomes. Tyler & Lind (1992) suggest thatit is easier to judge the procedural fairness of a decision than whether its resultingdistributions are fair, and that people believe that they will manage well in thelong term if procedures are fair. Authorities who show concern for ones needs,who consider ones views, who are polite and treat one with dignity, and who arehonest and unbiased are perceived as procedurally fair and just. When an author-ity treats an individual fairly, that fair treatment signals that the individual hasvalue in the group. The authority powerfully represents the group such that goodtreatment by the authority predicts positive treatment by the group as a whole.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


556 GOETHALS

Under these circumstances, the individual accords the authority legitimacy andvoluntarily complies with the authoritys decisions.

This perspective clearly aligns with Freuds theory that followers need to havethe illusion of equal love from the leader. This perception is central to their feel-ing of having a common attachment and to their willingness to obey the leader.Interestingly, Tyler & Lind (1992) describe a similar perception, specifically anillusion of personal justice (p. 155). People have the general expectation thatlegal and political authorities have treated them fairly and will continue to do so.

PERSONALITY, LEADERSHIP STYLE, AND CONTINGENCY Finally, a number of otherperspectives on leadership are highly relevant to understanding the presidents.These approaches are mentioned last in this section to emphasize that they dealwith issues not addressed by Freud. By no means does that suggest their lesserimportance.

Hogan et al. (1994) review some of the basic issues in leadership and identify theBig Five model of personality (cf. Norman 1963, McRae & Costa 1987) as havingparticular relevance for understanding leadership. Surgency, emotional stability,agreeableness, conscientiousness, and intellectance are all related to perceived,emergent, and effective leadership. Bill Clintons charisma reflects surgency, agree-ableness, and intellectance. Surgency and stability are particularly ubiquitous inleadership effectiveness. The Big Five are bright side characteristics that all con-tribute to good leadership. Hogan et al. (1994) also very usefully identify darkside characteristics that derail leadership or undermine its effectiveness. Theseinclude being arrogant, hostile, passive aggressive, selfish, compulsive, abrasive,and aloof. Richard Nixon possessed several of these traits.

One of the earliest studies of emergent leadership suggests that individuals withdifferent personalities may adopt one of two different leadership roles (Bales 1958).One is the role of task leader. This involves actively suggesting ideas to solve groupproblems, and thus draws on surgency, conscientiousness, and intellectance. Theother role is that of socio-emotional leader, a role that involves keeping other groupmembers happy. This role draws mainly on agreeableness, but also on stabilityand sometimes on surgency. Although on occasion a leader has enough personalresources to play both roles well, a complementary leadership structure often existsin a group where there are separate task and socio-emotional leaders.

The distinction between task and socio-emotional roles is central in Fiedlers(1993) well-known contingency theory of leadership. Fiedler outlines the con-ditions under which leaders oriented toward task performance rather than in-terpersonal relations will be more effective. For our purposes, the most generalimplication of Fiedlers theory is important: Different individuals are better leadersin different circumstances.

SUMMARY OF LEADERSHIP THEORIES The foregoing treatment of leadership the-ories is selective. A number of useful theories, including those of Heifetz (1994)and Hollander (1993, Hollander & Julian 1969), have not been reviewed because

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



their relevance to presidential leadership is less direct than that of the theoriesdiscussed above. The theories described above suggest a picture of the followersof presidential leadership, and of ourselves more generally, in fact. Followers thirstfor leadership, they are highly suggestible by the ideas forcefully expressed andvividly embodied by a leader, they have strong emotional attachments to leaders,and they expect and demand fair treatment. Followers have leader schemas suchthat they expect leaders, particularly presidents, to be strong, active, and good. Thereader may have noticed that these theories of leadership treat the characteristicsof followers and followership in much more detail than the attributes of leaders. Inthe discussion below of the specific consideration of presidential leadership, thequalities of presidents themselves come more clearly into focus. Still, however, thenature of followers and following occupies an important place in those theories.

PRINCIPLES OF PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

The nations need to perceive effective presidential leadership was clearly demon-strated during and immediately after the terrorist attacks on New York and Wash-ington, DC, in September 2001. During much of the day on September 11, thepublic did not know where President George W. Bush was. When he emerged inthe next few days, commentators spoke repeatedly about whether Bush appearedconfident and whether he was effectively exercising leadership. Slowly he seemedto find his voice. Citizens gave him high approval ratings. If ever there was athirst for authority and leadership, it was in those traumatic days. Once PresidentBushs words and actions appeared to meet and surpass the minimal expectationsfor leadership, he was perceived as highly effective.

What do presidents bring to the complex, highly emotional relationship betweenleaders and followers? How does what they bring interact with the shifting andcomplex needs of the polity? Five useful approaches to presidential leadership areconsidered in this section. As in the review of theories of leadership, this review isselective. The approaches that are considered address the principle psychologicalquestions of presidential leadership.

PRESIDENTIAL CHARACTER James David Barbers (1992) book, Presidential Char-acter: Predicting Performance in the White House, was first published in 1972.It gained considerable currency after its portrayal of incumbent president RichardNixon as an active-negative was seen to have effectively predicted the kind ofself-defeating behavior that was Nixons undoing during the Watergate scandal.Since then presidential candidates have been anxious to be categorized by Barberand others as having the highly praised active-positive character. Barber is apsychologically minded political scientist. One of his key concepts is self-esteem.Barber asserts that every story of Presidential decision-making is really two sto-ries: an outer one in which a rational man calculates and an inner one in which anemotional man feels (p. 4). How much the inner man feels, and howand how

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


558 GOETHALS

muchemotions rooted in low self-esteem disturb his rationality, is the centralstory in presidential performance.

Barber identifies three essential components of presidential personality: char-acter, worldview, and style. These are formed in childhood, adolescence, and earlyadulthood, respectively. Character is fundamental in Barbers theory. He classi-fies presidents as having one of four types of character, determined largely byself-esteem developed in early childhood. The four types of character are deter-mined by two dimensions, not surprisingly similar to two of the basic dimensions ofmeaning identified by Osgood et al.s (1957) semantic differential studies. Barbers(1992) dimensions are active versus passive, and positive versus negative. He con-trasts the active Lyndon Johnson, who went at his day like a human cyclone,coming to rest long after the sun went down, with the passive Calvin Coolidgewho often slept eleven hours a night and still needed a nap in the middle of theday (p. 8). Similarly, he contrasts Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, who werepositive and both understood and enjoyed the use of power, with negatives suchas Wilson and Nixon, who felt that power was a burden, or was overwhelming, orwho experienced high doses of hostility in their work.

In reviewing twentieth-century presidents, Barber (1992) includes among theactive-positives Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. He arguesthat for all the active-positives there is a congruence between working hard andbeing active, and enjoying that activity. The active-positives are the high self-esteem presidents who have enough confidence to be flexible and adaptive in theirapproach to the nations problems. They are open to experience and learn from it.Barber calls them the adapted type. The active-negatives include Woodrow Wilson,Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon. These presidents seldomenjoyed their hard work. They were compulsive and often petty and aggressive.Their inflexibility contrasts with the active-positives. Their self-image is vagueand discontinuous. Life is a hard struggle to achieve and hold power, hampered bythe condemnations of a perfectionistic conscience (Barber 1992, p. 9). They areBarbers compulsive types.

The passive-positives include William Howard Taft and Ronald Reagan, whohad low self-esteem based on perceptions of being unlovable and unattractive, butthey possessed a superficial optimism. They were fragile and dependent, and wereeasily pushed around by powerful advisers. They were likely to be pushed intoscandal or other self-defeating circumstances. Barber describes them as compliant.

The passive-negatives include Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower. Thesepresidents did not much engage with the activities of governing and did not enjoythe little they did. They are called withdrawn. Barber notes that passive types havebecome increasingly rare in American politics, and are likely to become even morerare given the growing demands of the presidency.

Barber (1992) also discusses each presidents basic philosophy or worldviewand the way in which that credo develops in adolescence, and how in early adult-hood men who become president develop a style, learning how successfully touse some combination of homework, interpersonal relations, and rhetoric to lead

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



others and to achieve their political goals. Barber does not see presidential effec-tiveness as solely dependent on character, worldview, and style. One importantexternal variable is the power situation. This includes the popular mandate withwhich the president is elected, and the degree of support he has for his programin the congress. A more psychological external variable is what Barber calls theclimate of expectations. Barber suggests there is a cyclical series of expectationsbased in part on present circumstances, but in large measure on past expectationsand actions. Initially, the public may want action. They want things to be accom-plished; they want goals to be achieved. However, the pushy activist presidentoften bends the rules in an effort to get his program through. Franklin Rooseveltsattempt to pack the Supreme Court is a memorable example. The public growsskeptical of the hard-driving, rule-bending, action-oriented president and seekslegitimacy. For example, after the Watergate scandal of the second Nixon term,people were seeking legitimacy in their leaders. Jimmy Carters born-again pietyand personal virtue met the legitimacy expectation well. However, things continueto change, and people grow weary of the moralistic, critical, near preaching of thelegitimacy-oriented president. For example, many voters said they found Carters1979 malaise speech disturbing and offensive: Carter seemed to blame the publicfor the countrys difficulties. The legitimacy approach then gives way to a cravingfor reassurance. In 1980, Ronald Reagan offered the nation just that. The UnitedStates, Reagan said, had the capacity to meet the worlds challenges and solvethe nations problems. Why shouldnt we believe that? Reagan concluded hisinaugural address, After all, we are Americans.

Barbers (1992) arguments have been challenged on many grounds for manyyears. For example, a recent article (Ellis 2003) suggested that the enjoyment ofthe presidency is a twentieth-century construal of the office, influenced greatlyby Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. Many eighteenth- and nineteenth-centurypresidents regarded the office as a burden (Ellis 2003). This is the not the placeto review criticism of Barbers theory. For our purposes, it convincingly suggestsa useful picture of confident, engaged, essentially positive leaders who wisely,adaptively, and flexibly cope with the burdens of the office, and learn from theirexperience. It also convincingly shows us how less self-assured presidents canbecome embroiled in their compulsions, their aggressions, or their weakness andpassivity to the detriment of their presidencies and, of course, the nation.

RECONSTRUCTIVE PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP Stephen Skowroneks (1997) book,The Politics Presidents Make, has contributed a great deal to our understandingof presidential leadership, especially the interaction of personal and situationalfactors. Like Barbers work, it proposes a two-dimensional, four-category classifi-cation of presidential politics and leadership. Like Barber, Skowronek attempts tomake predictions about the fate of different presidencies based on his classificationscheme. As much as Barber is credited for predicting an eruption like the Water-gate scandal in his 1972 publication, Skowronek is noted for predicting in early1997 something very much like impeachment proceedings for Clinton (Skowronek

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


560 GOETHALS

1999). Beyond that, there is little similarity in their approaches, although the pos-sible overlap is tantalizing.

Skowronek classifies presidents along two dimensions. The first is whether theyare affiliated with or opposed to the established regime. The second is whetherthat established regime is resilient or vulnerable. The idea of the established regimeis critical. Skowronek also employs the following essentially synonymous terms:the pre-established regime, its basic commitments, received arrangements, thereceived agenda, and previously established commitments. These terms all referto the dominant political regime that is holding power in the government as awhole. For example, there was a long-standing Jacksonian regime, beginning withthe first inauguration of Andrew Jackson and going through the administrationof James Buchanan, a period from 1829 to 1861. That period was dominated byJackson, Jacksons proteges, and then, after Jacksons death, his basic philosophyof an activist, expansionist, Western-oriented government that generally protectedSouthern slave interests. Similarly, there was a Democratic regime, born in the NewDeal, whose policies and philosophy largely dominated the federal governmentfrom Franklin Roosevelt through Jimmy Carter. Thus, in the twentieth centuryHarry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter were affiliatedto varying degrees with that established regime, whereas Dwight Eisenhower,Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford opposed it.

The other major dimension in Skowroneks 1997 analysis is whether the es-tablished regime, to which a president may be affiliated or opposed, is resilient orvulnerable. For example, by the 1970s the New Deal Democratic regime begun byFDR was quite vulnerable. In Trumans and Kennedys time, it was still resilient.

Skowronek (1997) describes four kinds of presidential politics. A president affil-iated with a resilient regime practices a politics of articulation, where he continuesin his own way the politics, policies, and practices of the established regime with agood deal of support. The first President Bush essentially continued the policies ofRonald Reagan. A president affiliated with a vulnerable regime practices a politicsof disjunction. Jimmy Carter is a good example. He shared central values with theDemocratic politics of the preceding 40 years, but that big government approachto governing was perceived as stale and tired, and thus became vulnerable.

There are two kinds of politics of opposition. First, there are presidents whooppose resilient regimes. They are said to practice the politics of preemption. BillClinton is a good example, as is Richard Nixon. Clinton opposed the resilientReagan/Gingrich regime that has been in power more or less continuously since1981. Nixon opposed the still-resilient FDR/Democratic regime. Second, there arepresidents who oppose a vulnerable regime. They include Thomas Jefferson, An-drew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. Thesepresidents were the lucky ones. They had the good fortune to oppose and repudiatea vulnerable regime and to practice a politics of reconstruction. A president whosuccessfully opposes a vulnerable regime has the warrants to institute a new wayof doing politics and of governing. He is free to create a new regime that maydominate government for decades to come.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



In comparison to the reconstructive presidents who oppose a vulnerable regime,presidents practicing the other three kinds of politics are much more constrained,some dangerously so. The presidents who practice the politics of articulationthose who are affiliated with a resilient regime, such as the first President Bushareconstrained by their received commitments. They attempt to be orthodox innova-tors, trying hard to be independent without betraying the basic philosophy withwhich they are affiliated. Thus, the first President Bush vowed to continue the basicReagan program, but in a kinder and gentler manner. The Republican right wingvilified him when he violated his own orthodox no new taxes pledge in 1990.

Those who practice the politics of preemption by opposing a resilient regimereceive even rougher treatment. Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clin-ton all fell into this category. They oppose the regime, but because it is resilient,they make certain compromises with it. They are trusted by no one, and are seenas having large character flaws. They are actually or nearly impeached. Thus,Skowronek (1997) writing about Bill Clinton at the start of his second term, notedthat The wellsprings of potential constitutional crisis appear particularly full atthis writing, and the prospects of Clinton completing the profile of the typicalpreemptive leader are all too real. Another collapse of Clintons political authorityand the election of a Republican committed to moving the nation down a moreorthodox road. . . would confirm the predictions of Skowroneks book in an em-phatic way. Skowronek in effect anticipated something like impeachment a yearbefore the public was introduced to Monica Lewinsky, and a year before mostcitizens became familiar with Kenneth Starr.

Finally, the presidents affiliated with a vulnerable regime, like Herbert Hooverand Jimmy Carter, have a difficult time leading. Their program has little credibility,their warrants for leadership are weak, and they often try to salvage somethingin their administrations by devising policies and programs that have technicalmerit and propriety even if they do not really address the major problems of theday.

The four kinds of politics tend to follow each other in a largely predictable man-ner. Presidents like Jimmy Carter, affiliated with a vulnerable regime, are oftenvoted out of office. The politics these presidents represent loses popularity, and achallenger opposed to the vulnerable regimein Carters case, Ronald Reagansoon defeats the president (or his politics). Reagan then was free to practice thepolitics of reconstruction. He was free, especially with a Republican senate, anda generally cooperative house of representatives, to institute new approaches andpolicies, to support new values and perspectives, and, in general, to make a newbrand of politics that was still dominant at the time this review was written. Reaganwas followed by someone affiliated with the regime Reagan established. As notedabove, George H. W. Bush practiced the politics of articulation and tried hardto be the orthodox innovator. At some point, if history repeats itself, the politicsof Reagan/Bush/younger Bush will become discredited, and a new regime willcome to power in a dramatic way. Skowronek (1997) shows that the following pat-tern happens regularly: The reconstruction president makes the breakthrough, the

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


562 GOETHALS

articulation president oversees some breakup of the new politics, and the disjunc-tion president helplessly watches a breakdown of the regime.

Along the way, for a variety of reasonsoften the personal appeal of a particu-lar individuala preemptive president who is opposed to the dominant regime iselected. As noted above, Bill Clinton was such a president, but was succeeded bysomeone who clearly represented the philosophy of the breakthrough reconstruc-tive leader, Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower was also a preemptive president,elected because of his personal popularity, and because he never fully disavowedthe policies of FDR. He could easily have run as a Democrat: Truman and theDemocrats courted him before he identified himself as a Republican.

Many leadership theories consider the interaction of personal and situationalvariables (e.g., Fiedler 1993). Barbers (1992) approach emphasizes the role ofpersonal variables in presidential effectiveness while giving distinctly less weightto situational factors such as electoral mandate and congressional support. In con-trast, Skowroneks approach seems to attribute the effectiveness of presidentialleadership almost entirely to situational variables, that is, whether the regime thatone opposes or supports is resilient or vulnerable. However, in discussing par-ticular cases Skowronek (1997) makes clear that a presidents personal qualities,particularly his energy and competence, make all the difference. In the case ofpresidents opposed to the established regime, he notes that there is a thin lineseparating towering achievement from de facto impeachment (p. 45). That is,some presidents take on the establishment and succeedthrough tenacity, cun-ning, and strong and active leadershipin defeating the regime. Thus, the regimeturns out to be vulnerable, although that was not clear at the outset. The presidentthen practices his own independent politics of reconstruction.

Andrew Jackson provides a compelling example. Skowronek (1997) begins hischapter on Jacksons politics by quoting a statement Jackson made to his vicepresident, Martin Van Buren: [T]he Bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me,but I will kill it! Skowronek then shows how Jackson defeated an extremelypowerful, unrelenting, and unforgiving opposition in the congress and the bankingcommunity by actively and forcefully telling a story about what he was tryingto do for the American people. In Gardners terms, it was a compelling narrativeabout what Jackson was elected to achieve. Jackson retained all along a coherentand compelling narrative about his place in history. He was still fighting to rid thegovernment of the corruptions of the recent past. . .. As the establishment threwup its best defenses, Jacksons repudiative authority became a battering ram forradical change (Skowronek 1997, p. 143).

In contrast to Jackson, who became a reconstructive leader by defeating an es-tablished regime that he made vulnerable, Grover Cleveland in 1897 was perfectlypositioned to lead a politics of reconstruction. He had been elected as a Demo-crat and the congressional elections turned out the Republicans, yielding largeDemocrat majorities in both houses. However, Skowronek points out, Clevelandwas simply disinclined to seize the opportunity to push through an aggressive pro-gram for his own party. In a short time, the opportunity had passed. Skowronekacknowledges that Cleveland does not fit any of his four categories.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



In sum, Skowronek (1997) paints a very clear picture of the various situationalvariables that constrain a presidents opportunities for independent and creativeleadership. However, he also emphasizes that the presidents own personality willinteract with the situation to determine how he manages. In particular, his analysisdemonstrates that strong, active, flexible, and adaptive presidents, whose charactersare essentially, in Barbers terms, active-positive, can take advantage of the politicalopportunity to make their marks on history.

MOTIVATION AND PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP One lively tradition in the psycho-logical study of presidential leadership is that of Winter and others exploringmotive profiles (Spangler & House 1991, Winter 1987, Winter & Stewart 1977).Although their methodology has generated some controversy, their results havebeen quite compelling.

Using scoring methods developed by David McClelland (1961, 1975), Winter(1987) scored first presidential inaugural addresses (for all presidents through Rea-gan) for three motives originally studied by Henry Murray (1938): achievement,affiliation, and power. Winter argues that the presidents underlying motive profilecan be accurately assessed using this method, even though many inaugural ad-dresses are composed in part by speechwriters: [I]n the end, an inaugural addresssays almost exactly what the president wants it to say (Winter 1987, p. 198).

This method has tested several interesting hypotheses, and it seems remarkablethat the method works as well as it does. Winter (1987) explored which motive pro-files predicted presidential appeal and which predicted presidential performance.Interestingly, quite different motive patterns predicted appeal and performance.Presidential appeal was predicted by a high correlation between the presidentsneeds and the motives that were dominant in the culture according to an analysisof needs expressed in popular novels, childrens readers, and hymns. When therewas good fit between what the president wanted and what the public as a wholewanted, the presidents had great appeal, according to measures of electoral suc-cess. On the other hand, such congruence did not predict successful presidentialperformance, according to various measures of presidential greatness, includinghistorians judgments of great decisions (cf. Morris 1967). Rather, president/publicneed congruence was negatively associated with greatness, whereas high powermotivation was positively associated with greatness. Among other things, powermotivation was associated with dramatic, crisis-oriented, perhaps confrontationalforeign policy, which may end peacefully but which can easily end in war (Winter1987, p. 201). Subsequent studies have supported the positive correlation betweenpower motivation and presidential success, especially when the power-motivatedpresident is also impatient, forceful, radical, demanding, and active (Spangler& House 1991, p. 451). In contrast, a high affiliation motive is negatively as-sociated with presidential success. This is reminiscent of Freuds primal hordeleader, who was despotic and unconcerned with affection from others. Achieve-ment motivation does predict the successful negotiation of peace treaties, but highachievement-oriented presidents are not happy in their jobs (Simonton 1987). Theyderive satisfaction from personal achievement and attempt to do too much by

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


564 GOETHALS

themselves. They do not enjoy mobilizing and having an impact on others, as dothe power-motivated presidents.

Clearly, then, individual motives are an important predictor of both effectivepresidential leadership and a presidents personal appeal in his time. Although thereis some controversy about the use of motive scores based on inaugural addresses,their effectiveness in prediction supports their validity.

PRESIDENTIAL PERSONALITY AND PRESIDENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS Simonton (1986)has also explored the personal characteristics of individual presidents, using scoresfrom a shortened version of Goughs Adjective Check List. The scores were basedon information about each president, from George Washington through RonaldReagan, gleaned from biographical reference works. The identities of the presi-dents to whom the information applied were concealed from raters. Factor analy-ses of the ratings revealed 14 different personality dimensions, called Moderation,Friendliness, Intellectual Brilliance, Machiavellianism, Poise and Polish, Achieve-ment Drive, Forcefulness, Wit, Physical Attractiveness, Pettiness, Tidiness, Con-servatism, Inflexibility, and Pacifism.

Two particularly interesting findings derive from this research. First, a hierar-chical cluster analysis allowed a grouping of presidents according to the similarityof each ones personality profile to other profiles. Second, there were insights intothe personal characteristics of presidents with high historical greatness ratings.Simonton (1986) notes a number of groupings of interest. John Adams and JohnQuincy Adams were very similar and in turn were quite comparable to Tyler,Cleveland, and Wilson. These five presidents were highly idealistic, even self-righteous, and eminently stubborn (Simonton 1986, p. 153). Close to them isanother group, consisting of Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Johnson, andTruman, and these two groups are similar to another consisting of Polk, Nixon, andLyndon Johnson. All were somewhat compulsive and hard working, and roughlyfit James David Barbers (1992) active-negative category. Another cluster fits Bar-bers passive-positive category, linking Fillmore, Pierce, Arthur, and Harding. Theywere popular but did not attempt to achieve much. Finally, Barber points out thesimilarity of Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, and to a lesser extent, Reagan. Theseseem to fit Barbers active-positive category, though Barber classified Reagan aspassive-positive. They were all attractive, optimistic and persuasive as well asenergetic and decisive (p. 153). Interestingly, one president, Ulysses S. Grant,is a complete outlier, with a personality profile unlike any other. How does oneexplain Grant? His rise to the presidency through military success was by no meansunique. Perhaps he had a truly unique set of personal characteristics, or perhapshistorians badly misjudged him (Smith 2001).

Presidents who were most successful in regard to legislation were Machiavel-lian, forceful, moderate, poised and polished, and flexible (Barber 1992, p. 153).In terms of greatness, there is very little correlation between the 14 dimensionsand overall greatness, except for intellectual brilliance, which correlates 0.51 to0.70, depending on the greatness rating employed. Simonton finds that the four

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



most brilliant presidents were Jefferson, Kennedy, Wilson, and J.Q. Adams, andthe four least brilliant were Harding, Coolidge, Monroe, and Grant. The correlationis apparent, but not overwhelming.

WHY PRESIDENTS SUCCEED Beyond his study of presidential personality profiles,Simonton (1987) has written a comprehensive account of presidential success thatmakes important contributions. First, it distinguishes various measures of presi-dential success, including electoral success, popular approval during presidentialterms, actual performance as measured by specific domestic and foreign policyachievements, and, finally, the judgments of historical greatness. Second, it thor-oughly examines empirical data assessing the presidents successes with respectto these standards. Third, it provides an overall interpretive account of the wealthof data brought to bear in assessing the presidents.

Consistent with the leadership literature in general, Simonton points to personalfactors, contextual factors, and interactions that account for presidential success.Simonton bases the personal characteristics he cites in large measure on his ownresearch. The characteristics include a high need for power, Machiavellianism andforcefulness, a low need for affiliation or intimacy, and intellectual brilliance. Theassociation of these variables with success depends on the measure of success, butthese attributes are clearly important qualities. Context matters greatlymore,Simonton argues, than individual traits. The state of the economy and whetherthere is a war are both importantpeace and prosperity during a presidents timeaccount for a great deal in his success. As Barber points out, the presidents supportin congress is important, certainly in legislative success.

An interaction of his personal qualities with situational factors over which hemay have little control likewise affects a presidents standing. For example, thedata Simonton (1987) reviews suggest that firstborns may perform better duringinternational crises, whereas laterborns may do better in placid times. Good timingand good luck account for much of the success. Of particular interest, Simontonalso points out that greatness can be predicted by how long the president servedin office, the number of years he served as wartime commander-in-chief, whetherhe was assassinated, whether his administration was plagued by a scandal, andwhether the president had been a national hero previous to running for office(Simonton 1986, p. 156). All of these situational factors, including assassination(presidents high in power motivation are more often the target of assassins), arerelated to personal variables, but most of them are influenced by external variablesbeyond a presidents control.

Finally, Simonton explains that a presidents standing on all the measuresof success can be best understood in terms of an attributional model that in-cludes leadership schemas, especially schemas that apply particularly to pres-idents. As briefly discussed previously in the chapter, one schema specifies thatpresidents display drive, forcefulness, firmness, determination, courage, and deci-siveness (strength); initiative, persuasiveness, enthusiasm, extroversion, and men-tal and physical alertness (activity); and a sincere interest in people, diplomacy and

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


566 GOETHALS

consideration, and good moral judgment (goodness) (Merenda 1964) (Simonton1987, p. 238). However, the schema is abstract and represents an ideal or archetypehaving transhistorical, even cross cultural, relevance (p. 239). (Certainly, such aschema resembles Freuds archetype of the leader in the primal horde.) Whethera president is viewed as fitting the presidential schema by the public or by his-torians is influenced by the range of variables that psychologists working in thesocial cognition tradition have long since identified as biasing person perception:information availability, the salience and hedonic relevance of that information,and attribution biases.

CONCLUSION Much of the work reviewed in this chapter suggests that situationalvariables and variables that are not fully understood account for effective presi-dential leadership. But can anything be suggested about the personal qualities ofsuccessful presidents? The motive and personality studies of Winter (1987) andSimonton (1987) add intellectual brilliance and power motivation to a cluster ofpersonal qualities associated with both Barbers (1992) active-positive charactercategory and Skowroneks reconstructive politics category to suggest a set ofpersonal characteristics important to successful presidents. Such a set of personalcharacteristics can be compared to the personal characteristics of those who havebeen considered successful, and such a comparison, in turn, helps in the assess-ment of whether the literature as a whole usefully points toward personal qualitiesassociated with presidential success.

First, it must be acknowledged that judging the most effective or successfulpresidents is a daunting task. Some of the measures considered by Simonton, e.g.,electoral success and popular support, are highly reliable, but do they really revealpresidential success? As Simonton points out, presidential success, like that ofall leaders, is in the eye of beholders. The public frequently looks to historiansas the most credible beholders, although historians ratings sometimes differ sub-stantially from those of the public as a whole, as in the case of John Kennedy. Heis consistently rated more highly by the public than by historians. Moreover, thejudgments of history are fickle. New books on John Adams (McCullough 2001),Theodore Roosevelt (Morris 2001), Kennedy (Dallek 2003), and Lyndon Johnson(Caro 2002) differ from earlier treatments and are likely to produce changes inhistorians ratings.

Nevertheless, using historians ratings, which reflect their judgments and theirassessments of the publics judgments, seems like the most promising assessmentapproach. In 1996, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. conducted a poll of 32 presiden-tial historians. Each historian rated all but two presidents who had served veryshort terms. The poll identified three great presidentsWashington, Lincoln,and FDR, and six near-greatsJefferson, Jackson, Polk, Theodore Roosevelt,Wilson, and Truman. What connections can be drawn between these top nine pres-idents and the personal factors identified by scholars of presidential leadership?

In general, the top nine do support the value of scholarship on presidentialleadership, and of the larger body of more general leadership scholarship. In light

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



of what has been written about leadership and the presidency, the list of greatsand near-greats is no surprise. Situational variables, or context, loom large. Fourof the nineJefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDRpracticed what Skowronekcalled reconstructive politics. They were fortunate enough to oppose a vulnerableregime. However, it should not be forgotten that Jackson, and to some extentJefferson, had a large hand in making the regimes they opposed vulnerable. Theiractivity level was highly important. Also, five of the ninePolk, Lincoln, Wilson,FDR, and Trumanwere wartime presidents. Times of crisis, particularly war,offer presidents the opportunity to lead forcefully. The public expects and acceptsstrong leadership in such times.

The importance of power motivation seems clear when one considers that six ofthe nineJackson, Polk, both Roosevelts, Wilson, and Trumanhad high need forpower, according to Winter (1987), or were high on the dimension of forcefulness,according to Simonton (1987). Also, according to Barber (1992), three were active-positiveJefferson, FDR, and Truman. Barber doesnt classify all the presidents,but it would be hard to deny Theodore Roosevelt the active-positive label: NoPresident has ever enjoyed himself as much as I have enjoyed myself, and for thematter of that I do not know any man of my age who has had as good a time(cf. Simonton 1987, p. 231). Finally, several of these presidents were extremelyintellectual. Jefferson, Wilson, and both Roosevelts are among the highest onSimontons Intellectual Brilliance factor. Lincolns law career and presidentialspeeches certainly reveal an unusually keen intellect.

BEYOND PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

Conceptualizations from presidential scholarship can be used to broaden our gen-eral understanding of leadership. Barbers (1992) theory contains a number ofhelpful ideas. First, the personality and behavior of a leader always intersect withthe requirements of a given situation. This is not a new idea, but Barbers conceptof shifting climates of expectationfrom action to legitimacy to reassurance andback to action againhas general applicability to understanding what followerswant and expect from leaders. Any of these three concerns may be relevant ineducation, business, the military, sports, or the arts. Different leaders can addressthese needs or expectations to varying degrees, depending on their style. Second,the behavior of all leaders needs to be understood in terms of both the situationthey face and their unique life history. Basic character and temperament developin childhood and combine with worldviews in adolescence. Then character andworldviews shape a specific behavioral style that combines different elements ofworking alone, face-to-face interaction with other people in the group, and com-munication to broader audiences of followers or potential followers. Underlyingcharacter, worldview, and style is a basic sense of self, secure and positive, or un-certain and troubled. This basic aspect of self determines how adaptively a leadercan deal with followers and the challenges the group faces. Barbers emphasis

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

005.

56:5

45-5

70. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of N

ew Y

ork

- Bin

gham

ton

on 0

6/24

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


568 GOETHALS

on the developmental continuity of personality and its interaction with externalchallenges is relevant to understanding leadership in many situations.

Stephen Skowroneks (1997, 1999) writings on presidential politics offer anunusually rich perspective on general issues of leadership. Some leaders are fortu-nate enough to successfully cha

annurev%2Epsych%2E55%2E090902%2E141918

Documents

presidential character

presidential personality

presidential scholars

presidential motive

american presidency

annual review of psychology

latex2e20020118 p1

annual reviews