Politicians – Personality and Problems, Part 2

What kind of person becomes a successful politician? How does that personality type affect performance in office? Last time I discussed how being an extrovert gets people leadership positions but militates against good decision-making. However there are worse problems with the personality type that often acquires political power.

Too often politicians are power seekers, seeking that power because they like to control others. That is often combined with a tendency to listen to people who tell them how wonderful they are.

If we think about it this should be no surprise. Where else but politics can a control freak acquire the power to take people's money to spend on pet projects, to order people to do or not do things etc? Even the corporate CEO cannot force people to buy his product if they don't want to – but a politician can often do just that. Don't like General Motors cars? You're free to buy from Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, or even not buy a car at all. Don't like the public school system? Sorry you have to pay for it anyway, even if you send your kids to private school.

Of course not all politicians are of that type, but a political career has to be enticing to control freaks. That type of person is unlikely to seek a career in retail sales or engineering. Instead he is likely to try to either get into management or more likely into something like politics where he has the possibility of being able to tell others what to do. That means that initially those who enter politics are disproportionately of the type of individual who want to control others.

Even those who get into politics for other reasons find themselves tempted. Power is heady stuff and such people can get caught up in the ability to control others and spend huge amounts of other people's money. Political power becomes addictive. That addiction often includes a belief that those in power know what is best for others. They often have or acquire what Sowell calls the “unconstrained vision” in that they believe they can and should fix all the world's problems. This intellectual arrogance helps them justify the belief that they can and should control everything.*

That gets exacerbated by the fact that sycophants tend to cluster around the powerful. Anyone in a position of political power will attract a following of “yes men” who attempt to advance their own ends by flattery. Such people tend to infest the staffs of congressmen, presidents, governors etc. They tell their boss or friend what he wants to hear, reinforcing his already great tendency to think of himself as all-knowledgeable. As a result we have too many politicians who want to control all aspects of our lives, being encouraged by their employees and acquaintances. That is bad for the country, and for each of us individually.

Once again a good solution to this problem is to return to the constitional principle of limited government. We must stop congress from overstepping its bounds. We should become the control freaks, controlling and limiting congress instead of allowing congress to control us.

*See for example my review of Sowell's book, “The Vision of the Anointed” posted here September 4, 2009.

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

Politicians – Personality and Problems, Part 1

What kind of person becomes a successful politician? How does that personality type affect performance in office? I'm afraid the answers to those questions do not bode well for the country. The fact is that the requirements to get elected have almost nothing to do with the ability to do a good job and in fact often militate against good decision-making.

Consider for example two people. Joe is an extrovert, a real people person who knows how to get people to like him. Bill on the other hand is a contemplative type, given to thinking seriously about any significant decision, weighing the pros and cons and making careful decisions. Which is more likely to be attracted to politics? The answer of course is Joe. He will thrive on the glad-handing and other aspects of political life. His outgoing personality will attract supporters and voters who think they have a real connection with him.

However in the unlikely event that Bill tries to get into politics he will have a hard time inspiring supporters. Regardless of how correct and well-thought-out his positions, people will think of him as dull compared to Joe. Without the excitement that a more charismatic candidate can inspire, Bill will have a difficult time getting volunteers and campaign donations. Worse, voters may regard him as lacking in leadership. Barring something like a major scandal on Joe's part, Bill has almost no chance of winning an election against him. An outgoing personality is a big advantage in politics.

In fact Timothy Judge of the University of Florida business school says that being an extrovert is correlated with being chosen as a leader, but not with being a good leader. “We go for these effervescent leaders when what's really needed is a dull, focused, plodding [type] building effective groups and organizations.”*

As a decision-making consultant I'm convinced that Dr. Judge is correct, not only in politics but also in business and other aspects of life. The charismatic extrovert attracts followers and gets them excited. However that excitement is often directed at the wrong goal or the wrong means to that goal. This personality type frequently fails to adequately evaluate what he is doing. Furthermore, his charisma often causes his followers to act unthinkingly as well. Too often the result is disaster. Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Adolf Hitler come to mind as examples of this type of personality-driven leadership.

On the other hand, Dwight Eisenhower lacked a charismatic personality. Yet he successfully led the battle against Germany in World War II and later accomplished much as president of the United States. His style was to listen to his advisers, then make the best decision he could. While not all his decisions worked out perfectly that style was much more effective than was that of Montgomery, the flamboyant British field marshal. Eisenhower's more collaborative style led to better decisions than did Montgomery's self-aggrandizing personality.

In most cases, that is what good leadership requires: making good decisions and getting subordinates to carry out those decisions. The extroverted personality militates against those good decisions, though it does inspire followers to act. However enthusiastic action on a bad decision is usually counterproductive, often worse than no action at all. On the other hand, even half-hearted work on a good decision seldom causes harm and usually does at least some good. Furthermore, once followers see the effectiveness of the good decision, their enthusiasm is likely to increase and they are likely to work harder to implement that decision.

The solution is obvious, whether for the voters or the search committee seeking a new CEO or other leader. Seek first wise and collaborative decision-making skills and ignore the charisma and personality of the candidates.

However there are worse problems with the political personality. I plan to discuss a couple of them next time.

*U.S. News and World Report, November 2009, p26

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

The Powers and Perils of Charisma

Today’s blog returns, at least partly, to the political arena though this applies in many aspects of life.

John Kennedy, Adolph Hitler, Barak Obama, Jim Jones, Bill Clinton, David Koresh. What do all those people have in common? Charisma. Each and every one attracted a following of dedicated supporters. However, some of those supporters can be more involved with a personality cult than with critical thinking. Too often they don't look at where their leader is taking them.

Charismatic leaders need to be careful lest they mislead their followers. The rest of us must be equally careful to avoid being misled. If we understand the problem and remain aware of it, that will help both leaders and the rest of us.

Charisma is a very powerful personality trait and can be used for good or ill. Sports coaches, military leaders, motivational speakers and similar people can use charisma to get people to perform beyond their normal capability. However charisma can also be dangerous. Jim Jones convinced his followers that they should drink poison. Hitler created one of the worst regimes in the history of the world. David Koresh led his followers into a fiery disaster. In each of these cases, people followed a charismatic leader. This unthinking followership leads to groupthink, a condition in which agreement becomes more important that what is right or true.

I saw a good example of this while I was at the army's jump school in Georgia. The commander of that school was a colonel who was a great leader and teacher. His charisma got everybody fired up to learn and to perform the unnatural act of jumping out of a perfectly good airplane. It was the best training I got during my entire time in the army. However that commander was never going to get another promotion because of previous misuse of his charisma. He got a group of paratroopers fired up to jump even though the wind was high enough that regulations prohibited a jump. Some were injured and a couple were killed, all because he led them to act without thinking.

One of the best-documented examples of this comes from the Bay of Pigs fiasco early in the Kennedy presidency. Irving Janis describes this in his two books about groupthink. (The second book is really just an expanded version of the first.)

One of the major reasons for the Bay of Pigs decision was that Kennedy's charisma made staff members want to agree with what they thought he wanted. The decision to go ahead with the invasion was made essentially in a vacuum with no contrary opinions or information allowed. Dissenters were silenced and no effort was made to obtain outside information. The decision-makers acted on the assumptions that the Cuban military was ineffectual and that the Cuban people would rise up and help the invaders. Both assumptions were seriously wrong and experts in the State Department knew they were wrong. Nobody consulted those experts.

A study of the meetings leading up to the Bay of Pigs invasion presents a picture of staff members enthralled with a charismatic leader. This caused them to tell him what they thought he wanted to hear. Robert Kennedy even functioned as a "mindguard," telling at least one staffer that he should not speak his mind, but instead should get behind the president on the decision. Such decision-making problems are obviously dangerous. Why hire smart people as advisers and then allow them to be silenced?

To Kennedy's credit, he and his staff learned from the Bay of Pigs. When the Cuban missile crisis arose, they corrected their previous problems. Kennedy even went so far as to deliberately absent himself from many meetings to avoid giving people any hint as to his own preferences. His staff also made an effort to question all information and decisions. No person or opinion was ignored, nor was any person or opinion automatically accepted. The result was no groupthink and a much better decision.

The above illustrates the dangers a charismatic leader presents. A leader must, absolutely must, make good decisions if he is to help his followers. However charisma tends to block critical thinking among subordinates. It also causes voters to vote on the basis of personality instead of selecting a politician for good decision-making skills. For those reasons, charisma is a dangerous characteristic. Rock stars and other entertainers may be charismatic, but we should be very careful about charismatic leaders.

Each of us should recognize when we are following someone because of charisma. Then we should mentally step back and evaluate where that leader is taking us. Are his positions well thought out? Realistic? Really what we want and should do? We should do our own critical thinking before putting ourselves in the care of such a person. Had the paratroopers mentioned above thought before just following the jump would probably have been canceled and the deaths avoided.

Charismatic people have a great responsibility as well. They need to recognize their power to mislead and make an extra effort to be sure people think critically before following. The methods used by Kennedy and his staff during the Cuban missile crisis provide a good example of how to do it right.

Charisma can be a useful tool to get things done after a good decision is made. However it can interfere with decision-making and lead us to charge off, enthusiastically, in the wrong direction. We must be careful to avoid that kind of decision-making.