In 1986, I published an article on presidential personalities in which I extracted quantitative information from character sketches compiled from biographical sources (Simonton, 1986). These sketches had all identifying material removed and were placed in random order before they were subjected to analyses by several independent raters. Further analyses yielded factor scores on 14 personality dimensions for 39 presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan.
Two years later, I used these same sketches to derive measures of presidential style (Simonton, 1988), in this case taking advantage of an inventory that had been developed at the Institute for Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) at the Berkeley campus of the University
of California (Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative, 1977). After seven blind and independent raters applied this style scale to the sketches, a factor analysis was executed for those items that displayed the highest reliability coefficients (49 items out of the initial 82). The result was five stylistic factors: interpersonal, charismatic, deliberative, creative, and neu-rotic (listed in order of variance explained in the items). The remainder of this section describes these five styles and indicates some of the personality traits and performance criteria associated with each (for the biographical experiences associated with each style, seeSimonton, 1988).
Interpersonal Style
Interpersonal style is evident when the president ‘‘allows Cabinet members considerable independence,’’ ‘‘encourages the exercise of independent judgment by aides,’’ ‘‘gives credit to others for work done,’’ ‘‘endears himself to staff through his courtesy and consideration,’’ ‘‘is flexible,’’
‘‘emphasizes teamwork,’’ ‘‘is frequently in contact with his advisers and Cabinet,’’ ‘‘maintains close relationships with wide circle of associates,’’ is
‘‘willing to make compromises,’’ ‘‘relies on working in a staff system, deciding among options formulated by advisers,’’ ‘‘keeps members of his staff informed on matters concerning other departments,’’ ‘‘knows his limitations,’’ and sometimes even ‘‘permits himself to be outflanked.’’ In contrast, such a chief executive seldom ‘‘accepts recommendations of others only under protest,’’ rarely ‘‘believes he knows what is best for the people,’’
and is much less likely to be ‘‘emphatic in asserting his judgments,’’ to be
‘‘suspicious of reformers,’’ or to be ‘‘impatient, abrupt in conference.’’ He is also less prone to base ‘‘decisions on willfulness, nervousness, and egotism’’
or to ‘‘force decisions to be made prematurely.’’ In short, such presidents
‘‘work well with others.’’ Interestingly, Woodrow Wilson and Richard Nixon scored especially low on this style.
In terms of personality traits, presidents with an interpersonal style tend to be pleasant, good-natured, easy-going, friendly, flexible, moderate, conservative, and nonbelligerent, but not forceful, petty, distrustful, or Machiavellian (i.e., sly, deceitful, unscrupulous, evasive, shrewd, greedy but not sincere or honest). Interpersonal leaders in the White House also tend to be more physically attractive. On the ‘‘Big Five’’ personality dimensions, the interpersonal style is positively correlated with agreeableness but negatively correlated with neuroticism (see Table 1). The interpersonal style is also negatively associated with interpersonal dominance – the desire to exert
control over others in personal relationships. All in all, this style is the most amiable from the perspective of face-to-face interaction.
Turning our attention to the criteria of leader performance, presidents exhibiting the interpersonal style are likely to experience fewer Cabinet resignations, indicating an ability to get along with their appointees.
Such presidents also tend to get along better with Congress: Interpersonal presidents use the veto power less often, have fewer of their vetoes over-turned, and have fewer of their nominees to the Cabinet or Supreme Court rejected by the Senate. Lastly, although interpersonal presidents are not more or less likely to go down in history as great presidents, their standing with posterity is much less controversial. Such presidents neither awe nor alienate.
Charismatic Style
A president operating under the charismatic style is a leader who ‘‘finds dealing with the press challenging and enjoyable,’’ ‘‘enjoys the ceremonial aspects of the office,’’ ‘‘is charismatic,’’ ‘‘consciously refines his own public image,’’ ‘‘has a flair for the dramatic,’’ ‘‘conveys clear-cut, highly visible personality,’’ is a ‘‘skilled and self-confident negotiator,’’ ‘‘uses rhetoric effectively,’’ is a ‘‘dynamo of energy and determination,’’ is ‘‘characterized as a world figure,’’ ‘‘keeps in contact with the American public and its moods,’’ ‘‘has ability to maintain popularity,’’ ‘‘exhibits artistry in Table 1. Correlations between the Big Five Personality Factors and the
Five Presidential Styles.
Factor Presidential Style
Interpersonal Charismatic Deliberate Creative Neurotic
Extraversion 0.11 0.55** 0.47** 0.12 0.10
Agreeableness 0.68*** 0.40* 0.20 0.49** 0.17
Conscientiousness 0.07 0.26 0.40* 0.12 0.08
Openness 0.10 0.06 0.39* 0.21 0.03
Neuroticism 0.42* 0.20 0.07 0.16 0.12
Notes:Based on presidential style scores published inSimonton (1988)and Big Five factor scores published inRubenzer and Faschingbauer (2004)for the 29 presidents that were shared between the two studies. These correlations are published here for the first time.
*po0.05, **po0.01, ***po0.002.
manipulation,’’ and ‘‘views the presidency as a vehicle for self-expression.’’
By comparison, he is rarely ‘‘shy, awkward in public.’’ The highest scorers on this style were Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt. It is worth pointing out that presidents who score high on this style have been shown to display a distinctive rhetoric in their speeches (Emrich, Brower, Feldman, &
Garland, 2001). The rhetoric is actually comparable to what is found in great poetry!
With respect to personality traits, charismatic presidents are prone to be outgoing, natural, and witty, rather than shy or withdrawn. They are also inclined to be intellectually brilliant, Machiavellian, forceful, immoderate, and progressive rather than conservative. In addition, the charismatic style is linked with elevated scores on two basic motives: the need for power and the need for achievement. Charisma also correlates with two Big Five factors: positively with extraversion and negatively with agreeableness (see Table 1). Hence, charismatic presidents are more dominant than friendly. In fact, high charisma tends to go with high interpersonal dominance: These are pushy people.
Turning to performance criteria, charisma is positively correlated with the number of significant acts passed, specific legislative victories, and special messages sent to Congress. The charismatic chief executive also likes to promulgate more executive orders to exert his will without needing the approval of Congress. Most significantly, charismatic presidents are great presidents, at least according to posthumous assessments. Besides tending to receive higher overall ratings, charisma has a positive correlation with ratings of prestige, strength, activeness, and accomplishment.
Deliberative Style
Deliberative style describes that chief executive who ‘‘understands implica-tions of his decisions; exhibits depth of comprehension,’’ is ‘‘able to visualize alternatives and weigh long-term consequences,’’ ‘‘keeps himself thoroughly informed; reads briefings, background reports,’’ and is ‘‘cautious, con-servative in action.’’ At the same time, such a president infrequently – if ever – ‘‘indulges in emotional outbursts.’’ This style was most characteristic of George Washington. The deliberative style has a positive correlation with the interpersonal style. An example of a president who was low on both is Andrew Jackson.
Deliberative presidents are organized, insightful, polished, methodical, intelligent, sophisticated, flexible, and moderate to an almost passive degree.
With regard to the Big Five personality factors, these chief executives score high on conscientiousness and openness but low on extraversion (see Table 1).
Similar to interpersonal presidents, deliberative chief executives are less likely to suffer numerous Cabinet resignations. In this case, the low turnover may indicate superior wisdom in making the appointments in the first place.
The deliberative style is also similar to the interpersonal style in that such presidents tend to veto fewer bills sent to their desk. Otherwise, this style appears much less successful. The deliberative president has fewer bills passed by Congress, including fewer really important bills, and tends to have a shorter administration – he is more like a transient caretaker. The only plus is that such leaders have lower odds of having major scandals dishonor their administrations. Clearly, in this area of performance their deliberative nature pays off; they do not appoint anyone to high office who has no business being there. Strangely, when we look at posthumous greatness assessments, the leadership performance of deliberative presidents is no better or no worse than the norm. Perhaps they are so risk adverse that they are unwilling to take the risks necessary for bona fide greatness – yet they avoid out-and-out failure en route to leader mediocrity.
Creative Style
A creative orientation is associated with a leader who regularly ‘‘initiates new legislation and programs’’ and who ‘‘is innovative in his role as an executive.’’
Yet he is very seldom a ‘‘middle-of-the-roader.’’ Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Franklin Roosevelt are counted among the best exemplars of this style. The creative style often coexists with the charismatic style; many presidents are high (or low) on both together.
The creative style is correlated with being inventive and artistic – with pervasive intellectual brilliance – as well as being Machiavellian, inflexible, immoderate, forceful, aggressive, and progressive rather than conservative.
Furthermore, the creative style is associated with higher scores on the need for power and the need for achievement. Although the charismatic style is also connected with these two motives, charisma is more strongly correlated with power motivation while creativity is more strongly correlated with achievement motivation. Nonetheless, the creative style is even more conspicuously linked with interpersonal dominance than is the charismatic style. Perhaps as a consequence, the creative style has a somewhat more negative correlation with the Big Five agreeableness dimension than does
the charismatic style (seeTable 1). It would seem that creative presidents are so concerned with getting where they want to go that they are more willing to step on a lot of toes than are charismatic presidents. The latter have much less interest in alienating people to get the job done.
Like the charismatic style, the creative style is positively correlated with the number of significant acts passed, specific legislative victories, and special messages sent to Congress. However, creativity – unlike charisma – is more predictive of reelection to a second term, and hence serving more years in office. Even more important are the relations with expert evaluations of ultimate presidential performance. Like charismatic chief executives, creative leaders earn higher posthumous ratings, including higher assess-ments on specific criteria of prestige, strength, activeness, and accomplish-ment. Nevertheless, the correlations are almost always higher for the creative style relative to the charismatic style. Moreover, charismatic chief executives have a higher likelihood of becoming controversial, of provoking disagreements about the president’s global success. Thus, if one were a voter deciding between a creative candidate and a charismatic candidate, the wiser choice would be the first. Not only are creative presidents better, on average, but they are less likely to be seen by some as worse.
Neurotic Style
The last of the five styles is the most peculiar. The neurotic style applies to that president who most frequently ‘‘places political success over effective policy’’ and who ‘‘suffers health problems [that] tend to parallel difficult and critical periods in office.’’ Making matters even worse, presidents with this style are almost never exhibit a ‘‘direct, uncomplicated approach’’ to political leadership. The neurotic style is best exemplified by James Polk, whereas Ronald Reagan’s style was the least neurotic.
Presidents featuring the neurotic style tend to exhibit Machiavellian and petty (i.e., greedy and self-pitying) personalities, and to display higher than average levels of achievement (but not power) motivation. These leaders have a ‘‘chip on their shoulder’’ and, therefore, manipulate politics to meet their ego needs. Although the neurotic style is positively correlated with the Big Five factor neuroticism, this correlation is far from statistically significant (see Table 1). This null result may partly reflect the poor reli-ability of this particular factor. The inferior relireli-ability may also explain why the neurotic style is not a conspicuous predictor of leadership performance.
It correlates with only one criterion – the number of failures in getting the
president’s legislative proposals through Congress. Evidently, neuroticism is not very persuasive on Capitol Hill.
DISCUSSION
Now how do these five styles line up with the three forms of outstanding leadership advanced by Mumford and his coauthors? Let us simplify the analysis by dismissing the neurotic style. High scores on this factor are very rare, and it has very few correlates, especially regarding performance criteria. That leaves the interpersonal, charismatic, deliberative, and creative styles. It might be reasonably argued that these four can be collapsed into just two – to wit, the interpersonal–deliberative style and the charismatic–
creative style. This consolidation can be defended on two grounds:
The two sets of styles have strong positive correlations. Although there are exceptions, interpersonal leaders tend to be deliberative (r ¼ 0.55) and charismatic leaders tend to be creative (r ¼ 0.62).
The two sets tend to correlate the same way with personality traits and performance criteria (and with biographical experiences; Simonton, 1988). To be sure, contrasts do emerge for each set, but these differences may be judged smaller than the affinities.
If so, then we might offer two correspondences:
Most obviously, charismatic leadership would be associated with some integration of charismatic and creative styles.
More tenuously, pragmatic leadership might be identified with some combination of interpersonal and deliberative styles.
If we then consolidate these four styles into the two leadership types, we obtain the new set of scores shown in Table 2. The highest-scoring presidents on the charismatic–creative dimension are Franklin Roosevelt and Jackson; the lowest-scoring presidents are Grant, Coolidge, and Taft. In contrast, the highest scorers on the interpersonal–deliberative dimension are Fillmore and Washington, and the lowest scorers are Jackson and Wilson.
For good or ill, chief executives since Franklin Roosevelt have not scored more than one standard deviation above or below the mean on either of the two collapsed dimensions.
The attractions of this unification notwithstanding, we are still left with an irksome question: What happened to ideological leadership? One possibility is that the original IPAR presidential style inventory did not
Table 2. Standardized Scores Combining Charismatic–Creative and Interpersonal–Deliberative Styles.
President Charismatic–Creative Interpersonal–Deliberative
Washington 0.04 1.72
J. Adams 0.15 0.23
Jefferson 0.84 1.08
Madison 0.61 1.47
Monroe 0.66 0.72
J. Q. Adams 0.44 0.09
Jackson 2.18 2.12
Van Buren 0.53 0.26
W. Harrison 1.26 0.30
Tyler 0.52 1.36
Polk 0.24 0.89
Taylor 0.15 0.46
Fillmore 1.35 2.12
Pierce 0.32 0.27
Buchanan 0.68 0.44
Lincoln 0.38 0.93
A. Johnson 0.37 1.19
Grant 1.86 1.64
Hayes 0.94 0.65
Garfield 0.62 0.44
Arthur 0.69 0.13
Cleveland 0.92 0.07
B. Harrison 0.60 0.31
McKinley 0.30 1.12
T. Roosevelt 0.64 1.23
Taft 1.84 0.76
Wilson 0.21 2.07
Harding 1.08 0.24
Coolidge 1.86 0.08
Hoover 0.01 0.51
F. Roosevelt 2.16 0.89
Truman 0.45 1.22
Eisenhower 0.21 0.19
Kennedy 1.27 1.14
L. Johnson 1.51 0.53
Nixon 0.94 1.15
Ford 0.32 1.06
Carter 0.14 0.48
Reagan 1.24 0.01
G. H. W. Bush 0.06 0.47
Clinton 1.51 0.69
Note:All scores are published here for the first time. Scores for Bush and Clinton are based on imputed scores for the two presidents based on the Big Five factor personality scores in Rubenzer and Faschingbauer (2004). Accordingly, these must be considered more tentative than the others. In any case, the two combined factors have a correlation of 0.33 (po0.05), indicating a slight antagonism between the two leadership types. Kennedy is the only chief executive who was more than one standard deviation above the mean on both styles.
contain items tapping this aspect of presidential leadership. Unfortunately, a glance at the items indicates that this may be the case (Simonton, 1988, Table 1). Only two items seem relevant to capturing this dimension:
‘‘uncompromising in matters of personal principle’’ and ‘‘is idealistic.’’
Worse still, neither of these items entered the factor analysis. Their reliability coefficients were too low. Accordingly, it was impossible to tap variation in ideological leadership among the 39 U.S. presidents sampled.
Even so, these same deficiencies can be interpreted in a more positive fashion. Perhaps the inventory omitted lots of items concerning ideological leadership because that form of leadership is not a prominent feature of the U.S. presidency. Consequently, there is too little variation on that dimension. This interpretation would also explain the low reliabilities of the items that do seem relevant to ideological leadership. If the sampled presidents varied very little on these traits, then the variance is not large enough to support a conspicuous consensus. Thus U.S. presidents may really come in just two types: charismatic (charismatic and creative styles) and pragmatic (interpersonal and deliberative styles).
Admittedly, it is possible to extract from historians’ ratings (published in Maranell, 1970) a bipolar dogmatism factor that features idealistic-inflexibility at one pole and pragmatic-flexibility at the other pole (Simonton, 1986, 1987). Moreover, posthumously assessed presidential performance is a U-shaped function of this dogmatism assessment. The greatest presidents are either idealistically inflexible or pragmatically flexible! However, this finding does not solve the problem because the dogmatism factor places ideological and pragmatic presidents on opposite poles of a single dimension. Hence, a pure ideological type of leadership remains elusive among those who have assumed the highest political office in the United States.
Naturally, some observers might like to brand this or that president as an ideologue. In truth, such ideological leaders are very rare, if nonexistent.
Perhaps George W. Bush came closest, yet he was probably a far cry from a genuine ideological leader from either right or left (but seeSimonton, 2006).
Because the U.S. system of electing presidents requires that each candidate seek the largest electorate, and because voters as a whole tend to place themselves in the middle of the political spectrum, a forthright ideologue may be unelectable – as libertarian Republican Barry Goldwater learned in the 1964 presidential election.
Presidents of the United States may really come in only two alternative flavors: charismatic (and creative) or pragmatic (interpersonal and delib-erative). Whether this binary decision is an asset or a deficit of American democracy, I let others determine.
REFERENCES
Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in words:
Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 527–557.
Historical Figures Assessment Collaborative. (1977). Assessing historical figures: The use of observer-based personality descriptions. Historical Methods Newsletter, 10, 66–76.
Ludwig, A. M. (2002). King of the mountain: The nature of political leadership. Lexington, KY:
University Press of Kentucky.
Maranell, G. M. (1970). The evaluation of presidents: An extension of the Schlesinger polls.
Journal of American History, 57, 104–113.
Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., Friedrich, T. L., & Caughron, J. J. (2009). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: An examination of multi-level influences on emergence and performance. In: F. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds), Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and leadership. Vol. 8 of Research in Multi-Level Issues.
Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2004). Personality, character, and leadership in the White House: Psychologists assess the presidents. Washington, DC: Brassey’s.
Simonton, D. K. (1980). Land battles, generals, and armies: Individual and situational determinants of victory and casualties. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 110–119.
Simonton, D. K. (1986). Presidential personality: Biographical use of the Gough Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 149–160.
Simonton, D. K. (1987). Why presidents succeed: A political psychology of leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Personality, biography, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 928–936.
Simonton, D. K. (1993). Putting the best leaders in the White House: Personality, policy, and performance. Political Psychology, 14, 537–548.
Simonton, D. K. (2001). Kings, queens, and sultans: Empirical studies of political leadership in European hereditary monarchies. In: O. Feldman & L. O. Valenty (Eds), Profiling political leaders: Cross-cultural studies of personality and behavior (pp. 97–110).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Simonton, D. K. (2006). Presidential IQ, openness, intellectual brilliance, and leadership:
Estimates and correlations for 42 US chief executives. Political Psychology, 27, 511–639.
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Presidential greatness and its socio-psychological significance:
Individual or situation? Performance or attribution? In: C. Hoyt, G. R. Goethals, &
D. Forsyth (Eds), Leadership at the crossroads: Psychology and leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 132–148). Westport, CT: Praeger.