Measuring ‘greatness’ in American presidents: Model case for international research on political leadership?

Abstract

Original studies of leadership have characteristically been European and British, both in their theoretical base and, to a lesser extent, methodology. Yet most of the actual work in this area now is carried out in the United States, often by political scientists whose prime concern is operational or quantitative, rather than anecdotal or ideological (idological?) at least by intent.Traditional European notions of leadership remain among the standard repertoire of both the rhetoretician and the intelligent layman, and are barely under the surface of the professional's polished formalisms. Indeed, Max Weber's distinctions, e.g., of the 'charismatic' mode, are alive and well on both sides of the Atlantic. Recognized or not, American scientists continue to be consumers of these very ideas, as Europeans and others continue to be consumers of American methodology in social psychology. Moreover, many cultures now find themselves in far-reaching interactions with the American system in general, and frequently as 'consumers' of ramifications of actions initiated by the U.S. executive branch. Perhaps there is ample reason right there why the international student of social behavior might explore the perceptions held -both in America and elsewhereabout the adequacy of that special category of leadership. This note summarizes segments of an investigation where a specific cross-cultural component would be informative, and which might also suggest a format for studying the elusive phenomenon of charisma and 'greatness' in different social environments.In several widely quoted surveys between 1948 and 1968 historians and others attempted to judge presidential greatness, prestige, idealism, etc. (Schlesinger, 1962;Maranell, 1970). In the interest of recency and methodology it is useful to focus on a study by the latter, who had his 571 respondents rate 33 presidents' from G.

Presidential Greatness: The Historical Consensus and Its Psychological Significance

“…This interpretation, naturally, is the one assumed by the experts and laypersons who engage in such ratings. Further, the early content analytical research suggested that several predictors of greatness may result from underlying motivational dispositions (Wendt and Light, 1976;Winter, 1973;Winter and Stewart, 1977). If the power motive can be held responsible for a president becoming a wartime commander-in-chief and even for being assassinated, and if the affiliation motive is a hidden cause of administration corruption, then presidential greatness may indeed be the ultimate outcome of a constellation of personality traits.…”

“…Virtually all of these inquiries strove to link differences in greatness with personality. Most commonly, content analysis has been applied to inaugural addresses to show how the power, achievement, and affiliation motives relate to global performance indicators (Wendt and Light, 1976;Winter, 1973;Winter and Stewart, 1977). These analyses have indicated, for example, that power motivated chief executives tend to earn higher assessments.…”

Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals.

“…However, in many cases the truth of this assumption may not be unquestionable. For example, several studies have inferred the motivational profiles of the U.S. presidents from their inaugural addresses (e.g., Wendt & Light, 1976;Winter, 1987b). Given that not all presidents write their own speeches, it becomes incumbent on the investigator to show that these addresses are still indicative of each president's motives.…”

Predicting Presidential Performance in the United States: Equation Replication on Recent Survey Results

“…Given the demonstrated reliability and apparent validity of the performance ratings just described, many researchers have tried to isolate the predictors of presidential greatness. Wendt and Light (1976) published the first such study, and many others followed suit, both psychologists (McCann, 1992;Simonton, 1981;Winter, 1987) and political scientists (Kenney & Rice, 1988;Nice, 1984). As might be expected, the various investigators usually examined different potential predictors and, almost as frequently, adopted divergent methodological approaches (e.g., Deluga, 1997;Holmes & Elder, 1989;Spangler & House, 1991).…”