Blondel’s (1995, ch.17) summery of Max Webber (1968, vol.1) claims that there are three types of leadership: charismatic, traditional, and rational. The rational leader obeys the laws closely, is sensible and reasonable, such as Wilson in America, or Chamberlain in Britain. The traditional follows the established and common leadership set out by his/her party or predecessors, such as Hoover in the US and Major in Britain. Charismatic leaders are more concerned with putting across their personal characteristics and opinions, such as the most recent Clinton in the US and current British Prime Minister Blair. Both of which relied, and still heavily do rely on the media and communication with 'the people'. However, this theory has no mention for Heroic leadership, which could possibly include Churchill or Lloyd George, both of which were war heroes. Revolutionary leaders have no mention such as Lenin, who completely changed Russia from a Tsarist aristocracy to Communism. Innovative leaders like Kennedy, who was seen as a celebrity rather than a President. Transforming leadership, this includes F D Roosevelt and Attlee. Roosevelt introduced the 'New Deal', which helped bring America back on its feet and Attlee introduced the National Health Service, which was the first of its kind. Therefore, this theory can only be seen as an eye-opener but not the final and definitive one to follow.
Barber (Barber, 1992, p.8-12, 48-84, 169-224, 266-386) came up with a theory, which groups leaders into four possible categories. Firstly, the energy level of a president or Prime Minister is described as ‘active’ or ‘passive’. Then the satisfaction from the job is presented as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. Therefore, you are left with four categories: active-positives, passive-positives, active-negatives, and passive-negatives. Barber claims that the active-positives include past US Presidents such as F D Roosevelt, Kennedy, Truman, Ford, Carter, and Bush. He claims they were 'good' presidents and that they had a high energy level and consequently had satisfaction from their job and were effective presidents. While Wilson, Hoover, L Johnson, and Nixon were active-negatives. He claims that they were 'bad' presidents because although they had a high energy level they had no satisfaction from their posts and were not effective. Barber claims that this is due to their "personal character" (Barber, 1992, p.48-84). Then he claims that Ronald Reagan, Taft, and Harding were passive-positives. This meaning, they had little energy or drive but received satisfaction from their job nevertheless. Finally Coolidge and Eisenhower are classed as passive-negatives; he describes them as dissatisfied with politics and the obligations of being a president.
There have been, and are scholars who disagree with this theory claiming that the terms 'active' and 'passive', for example, are too ambiguous. Greenstein (1969), as mentioned by Blondel (1995) was one who commented on this 'flaw'.
Nevertheless, if this theory was applied to British Prime Ministers then surely Churchill and Thatcher would be seen as active-positives, Chamberlain and Major would be seen as active-negatives.
This theory clearly shows the importance of personality and personal characteristics in being an effective leader. Mckay (1987, p.117) agrees with this and has remarked that "Personality is a crucial determinant of presidential performance". Barbers theory also indicates that there is no certain political style that applies to all political situations. Often the situation influences the effectiveness of a political leader.
What is occurring at the time often alters the effectiveness of a leader. For example James Callagham, British Prime Minister in the late 1970's can be viewed as ineffective leader due to the public sector strikes of 1978-1979, 'Winter of Discontent', which led to his downfall. In the US, Johnson and Nixon are often viewed as ineffective presidents but much of this is, and was, due to the Vietnam War occurring at the time and the internal problems of anti-war and black rebellions. However even the most effective leaders prove to be ineffective at some stage. F D Roosevelt was an effective leader but after 1935 the economy began to suffer once again. Reagan lost his effective leadership after nine months, at which point Congress began to intervene. Most recently, Clinton has experienced ineffectiveness of leading as Congress has often refused his policies. McKay (1987, p.118-120) argues that due to a more difficult and volatile environment personality skills become much more important. This is what saved Clinton from appearing as an ineffective leader. His personality skills and characteristics were very effective, such as his public speaking, determination, good vision, and drive.
The Media is another aspect, which influences the effectiveness of a political leader. The Media can and has been used to both enhance and destroy political careers and has been used as a dangerous tool. The growth of media has further enhanced its impact on politics, and so in an age of technology, as we enter the 21st century political leaders see the value of positive media and see it as important in their success or effectiveness. Politicians are becoming increasing concerned with the image they present to the media, and in turn the public. Due to this personality and characteristics of political leaders has become more central in the politician's popularity and assessed effectiveness. Since 1989, cameras have been present in the Commons in Britain. Similarly in America, live televisualised debates are commonplace. In both cases, they are a way for leaders, and in fact all politicians to gain public support, be it through their promised policies, or more commonly their personal characteristics. After all when you watch the news it is often how the leader presents himself and speaks that attracts you to them. For example, you would not take what Tony Blair said seriously if he wore scruffy clothes and could not speak properly. You expect leader to dress appropriately and sound intellectual, as this is a personal characteristic which people desire from their leader. Nevertheless, this is not often the case. Stalin for example was a poor public speaker, yet he still attracted followers. However, in a communist yet dictated nation it is difficult to assess his popularity.
Leaders often use the media to appeal to the public. They do this by putting across a desired personality or slightly altered characteristics. Tony Blair appeals to be a 'man for the people' however his social background shows us otherwise. It is no accident that he entered number 10 wearing a Marks and Spencer suit, as this showed he wore 'clothes of the people', even though his social background is not at all alike to most of his electorate.
In the recent fuel crisis Tony Blair still appeared effective. Although he did not give in to the protestors, which most of the public supported. This is because he showed his characteristic of not giving in and standing up for what he believes which, most of the British public valued.
Major, the Prime Minister before Blair, is seen as non-effective. If you ask most people why they would probably say it is because he was 'boring'. He was often described as being 'grey', although his policies followed and were very similar to his predecessor Thatcher, who at her time was a very popular Prime Minister. After all she served three terms, won the Falklands War, helped to bring the Cold War to a close, and defeated the trade unionists, which had been the downfall of her three predecessors. So, why was Major so unpopular? He was ineffective as he was seen to be weak and not authoritative enough. In addition, his personality was much to blame. People saw him as boring, and directionless. His personal characteristics made him an ineffective leader.
In America, as in any county, the personal characteristics and personality of leaders are important in their popularity and effectiveness. In a recent poll on a car buying website, Autotrader, a question was asked about the campaign for president 2000, "If each candidate were a used car what model would he be?" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1002000/1002256.stm). The poll showed George Bush as a Porsche and Al Gore as a Volvo. This is a simple but helpful guide to the two politicians campaigning for presidency. It shows that Al Gore is the safe, reliable and secure candidate that would continue from where Clinton finished, while Bush is more risqué but has more personality and fun. In the end, this is what will decide it. People will not vote for Gore as his public speaking has not been good, his campaign was inadequate, with little advertising, and his public appearances have not been convincing. Bush has appeared as more fun, using humour in his public appearances, his speeches have been adequate and captivating, and he appears to have more characteristics than Gore. The question is whether the public will vote for the stable but uninteresting Gore or the fun but not necessary policy safe Bush? As the recent news stories have shown the race is close and Bush appears to have won it. This is probably more due to his personality and personal inadequacies of his opponent, rather than his policies.
Another scholar who stressed the importance of examining personality in leadership was Richard Neustadt. In 1960 he wrote 'Presidential Power', this tried to explain how personality of a president, in this case (but it can be applied to any political leader), can be used to explain the variations in performance or effectiveness. The theory, summarised by Blakesley (1995) focused on how presidents could gain power and therefore greater leadership through persuasion and bargaining. To Neustadt and other scholars F D Roosevelt was the quintessence of the ideal president. He was strong, politically skilled and got personally involved. Unlike Eisenhower, for example, who focused on specialisation and delegation which made him an ineffective leader. However, like Blakesley (1995, p.10) claims a "Presidents character certainly affects how a president performs" but "a presidents world view and style also have important impacts".
In conclusion, political leadership is much more then just about having a good personality and the right personal characteristics. Presidents and Prime Ministers who have not been viewed as having 'the right characteristics' have often made good political leaders, but not in the eyes of the people, such are those that can be classed as 'active-negatives' by Barber, like L Johnson, Nixon and Major. Many leaders may make the right choices, implement the right policies and overall succeed at leadership but can still be viewed as ineffective. From this, you can say that although personality is not the outweighing factor in a presidents or prime ministers effectiveness at leadership it is important.
There are other factors, which are just as vital in determining the effectiveness of a leader. These include what is occurring at the time. Some Prime Ministers and Presidents have been viewed as successful and effective as not a lot was taking place at the time they were leaders, therefore they had little to deal with. Other leaders had many problems in their terms in office and this could make them appear ineffective. Therefore it must be stated that political leaders operate within an environment which often structures and constraints their actions. Nevertheless, if a president or prime minister is an effective leader he or she can often have the opportunity to shape the environment around them.
Another factor is the policies the leaders adopt and the way they implement them. If they are popular policies that influence the nation in a positive way they would be seen as effective leaders.
Another factor is the mass media. This has become increasingly important with the development and enhancement of media such as sky and digital television, and the internet which has become widely used by much of the population. Leaders must now be aware that they are a public figure and if they make ineffective choices this will be known be most of the electorate. The Media on the one hand encourages effective leadership as everything is viewed for other to see. However, on the other hand the Media enhances the important of a prime ministers or a presidents personality and personal characteristics. The media has lead to an increase of public appearances, speeches, and news stories about or by leaders. Now prime ministers and presidents are more likely to be judged on how effective they are by their appearance, public speaking, intelligence, drive, communication, energy, humour, job satisfaction, to name but a few. Moreover, many of theses seriously influence the effectiveness of a leader. Communication for example determine how well he/she will communicate with other politicians, drive determines how the president or prime minister will stick to his/her policies and how he/she will campaign for them, intelligence determines whether he/she has thought out what they are doing. This list can go on.
Overall, personality and personal characteristics play a large part in determining the effectiveness of a political leader. Nevertheless, other factors must also be considered, as not only the politicians with the right personality can make good leaders. However, one thing is certain there is no single best leadership style for all occasions. Therefore, in order for a leader to be effective he/she must adapt their style of leadership in accordance with what is occurring around them.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Barber J D (1992) The Presidential Character, United States Prentice Hall.
Blakesley L (1995) Presidential Leadership, Chicago Nelson-Hall.
Blondel J (1995) Comparative Government, 2nd edn., London Prentice Hall
Harvester Wheatsheaf London.
Elgie R (1995) Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies, London
Macmillan Press.
McKay D (1987) Politics and Power in the USA, London Penguin.
Robertson D (1993) Dictionary of Politics, 2nd edn., London Penguin.