characteristics of a political leader essay

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.7: Leadership and the Qualities of Political Leaders

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 128427

• Robert W. Maloy & Torrey Trust
• University of Massachusetts via EdTech Books

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Standard 4.7: Leadership and the Qualities of Political Leaders

Apply the knowledge of the meaning of leadership and the qualities of good leaders to evaluate political leaders in the community, state, and national levels. (Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for History and Social Studies) [8.T4.7]

FOCUS QUESTION: What is effective political leadership?

Standard 4.7 addresses political leadership and the qualities that people seek in those they choose for leadership roles in democratic systems of government.

Leadership involves multiple skills and talents. It has been said that an effective leader is someone who knows "when to lead, when to follow, and when to get out of the way" (the phrase is attributed to the American revolutionary Thomas Paine). In this view, effective leaders do much more than give orders. They create a shared vision for the future and viable strategic plans for the present. They negotiate ways to achieve what is needed while also listening to what is wanted. They incorporate individuals and groups into processes of making decisions and enacting policies by developing support for their plans.

Different organizations need different types of leaders. A commercial profit-making firm needs a leader who can grow the business while balancing the interests of consumers, workers, and shareholders. An athletic team needs a leader who can call the plays and manage the personalities of the players to achieve success on the field and off it. A school classroom needs a teacher-leader who knows the curriculum and pursues the goal of ensuring that all students can excel academically, socially, and emotionally. Governments—local, state, and national—need political leaders who can fashion competing ideas and multiple interests into policies and practices that will promote equity and opportunity for all.

The Massachusetts learning standard on which the following modules are based refers to the "qualities of good leaders," but what does a value-laden word like "good" mean in political and historical contexts? "Effective leadership" is a more nuanced term. What is an effective political leader? In the view of former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, "A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be."

Examples of effective leaders include:

• Esther de Berdt is not a well-known name, but during the Revolutionary War, she formed the Ladies Association of Philadelphia to provide aid (including raising more than $300,000 dollars and making thousands of shirts) for George Washington's Continental Army.
• Mary Ellen Pleasant was an indentured servant on Nantucket Island, an abolitionist leader before the Civil War and a real estate and food establishment entrepreneur in San Francisco during the Gold Rush, amassing a fortune of $30 million dollars which she used to defend Black people accused of crimes. Although she lost all her money in legal battles and died in poverty, she is recognized today as the " Mother of Civil Rights in California ."
• Ida B. Wells , born a slave in Mississippi in 1862, began her career as a teacher and spent her life fighting for Black civil rights as a journalist, anti-lynching crusader and political activist. She was 22 years-old in 1884 when she refused to give up her seat to a White man on a railroad train and move to a Jim Crow car, for which she was thrown off the train. She won her court case, but that judgement was later reversed by a higher court. She was a founder of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Women.
• Sylvia Mendez , the young girl at the center of the 1946 Mendez v. Westminster landmark desegregation case; Chief John Ross , the Cherokee leader who opposed the relocation of native peoples known as the Trail of Tears; and Fred Korematsu , who challenged the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, are discussed elsewhere in this book.

The INVESTIGATE and UNCOVER modules for this topic explore five more women and men, straight and gay, Black and White, who demonstrated political leadership throughout their lives. ENGAGE asks who would you consider are the most famous Americans in United States history?

Modules for this Standard Include:

• INVESTIGATE: Frances Perkins, Margaret Sanger, and Harvey Milk - Three Examples of Political Leadership
• UNCOVER: Benjamin Banneker, George Washington Carver, and Black Inventors' Contributions to Math, Science, and Politics
• MEDIA LITERACY CONNECTIONS: Celebrities' Influence on Politics

4.7.1 INVESTIGATE: Frances Perkins, Margaret Sanger, and Harvey Milk - Three Examples of Political Leadership

Three individuals offer ways to explore the multiple dimensions of political leadership and social change in the United States: one who was appointed to a government position, one who assumed a political role as public citizen, and one who was elected to political office.

• Appointed: An economist and social worker, Frances Perkins was appointed as Secretary of Labor in 1933, the first woman to serve in a President Cabinet.
• Assumed: Margaret Sanger was a nurse and political activist who became a champion of reproductive rights for women. She opened the first birth control clinic in Brooklyn in 1916.
• Elected: Harvey Milk was the first openly gay elected official in California in 1977. He was assassinated in 1978. By 2020, a LGBTQ politician has been elected to a political office in every state.

Frances Perkins and the Social Security Act of 1935

An economist and social worker, Frances Perkins was Secretary of Labor during the New Deal—the first woman member of a President’s Cabinet. Learn more: Frances Perkins, 'The Woman Behind the New Deal.'

Francis Perkins was a leader in the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935 that created a national old-age insurance program while also giving support to children, the blind, the unemployed, those needing vocational training, and family health programs. By the end of 2018, the Social Security trust funds totaled nearly $2.9 trillion. There is more information at the resourcesforhistoryteachers wiki page Frances Perkins and the Social Security Act .

Margaret Sanger and the Struggle for Reproductive Rights

Margaret Sanger was a women's reproductive rights and birth control advocate who, throughout a long career as a political activist, achieved many legal and medical victories in the struggle to provide women with safe and effective methods of contraception. She opened the nation's first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York in 1916.

Margaret Sanger's collaboration with Gregory Pincus led to the development and approval of the birth control pill in 1960. Four years later, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court affirmed women's constitutional right to use contraceptives. There is more information at the resourcesforhistoryteachers wiki page Margaret Sanger and Reproductive Rights for Women .

However, Margaret Sanger's political and public health views include disturbing facts. In summer 2020, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York said it would remove her name from a Manhattan clinic because of her connections to eugenics, a movement for selective breeding of human beings that targeted the poor, people with disabilities, immigrants and people of color.

Harvey Milk, Gay Civil Rights Leader

In 1977, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California by winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the city’s legislative body.

To win that election, Harvey Milk successfully built a coalition of immigrant, elderly, minority, union, gay, and straight voters focused on a message of social justice and political change. He was assassinated after just 11 months in office, becoming a martyr for the gay rights movement. There is more information at a resourcesforhistoryteachers wiki page, Harvey Milk, Gay Civil Rights Leader .

Suggested Learning Activities

• What personal qualities and public actions do you think make a person a leader?
• Who do you consider to be an effective leader in your school? In a job or organization in the community? In a civic action group?
• How can you become a leader in your school or community?

Online Resources for Frances Perkins, Margaret Sanger, and Harvey Milk

• Frances Perkins , FDR Presidential Library and Museum
• Her Life: The Woman Behind the New Deal , Frances Perkins Center
• Margaret Sanger Biography , National Women's History Museum
• Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) , American Experience PBS
• Harvey Milk Lesson Plans using James Banks’ Four Approaches to Multicultural Teaching , Legacy Project Education Initiative
• Harvey Milk pages from the New York Times
• Teaching LGBTQ History and Why It Matters , Facing History and Ourselves
• Official Harvey Milk Biography
• Harvey Milk's Political Accomplishments
• Harvey Milk: First Openly Gay Male Elected to Public Office in the United States, Legacy Project Education Initiative

4.7.2 UNCOVER: Benjamin Banneker, George Washington Carver, and Black Inventors' Contributions to Math, Science, and Politics

Benjamin banneker.

Benjamin Banneker was a free Black astronomer, mathematician, surveyor, author, and farmer who was part of the commission which made the original survey of Washington, D.C. in 1791.

Benjamin Banneker was "a man of many firsts" ( Washington Interdependence Council, 2017, para. 1 ). In the decades before and after the American Revolution, he made the first striking clock made of indigenous American parts, he was the first to track the 17-year locust cycle, and he was among the first farmers to employ crop rotation to improve yield.

Between 1792 and 1797, Banneker published a series of annual almanacs of astronomical and tidal information with weather predictions, doing all the mathematical and scientific calculations himself ( Benjamin Banneker's Almanac ). He has been called the first Black Civil Rights leader because of his opposition to slavery and his willingness to speak out against the mistreatment of Native Americans.

George Washington Carver

Born into slavery in Diamond, Missouri around 1864, George Washington Carver became a world-famous chemist and agricultural researcher. It is said that he single-handedly revolutionized southern agriculture in the United States, including researching more than 300 uses of peanuts, introducing methods of prevent soil depletion, and developing crop rotation methods.

A monument in Diamond, Missouri, of a statue showing Carver as a young boy, was the first ever national memorial to honor an African American ( George Washington Carver National Monument ).

Benjamin Banneker and George Washington Carver are just two examples from the long history of Black Inventors in the United States. Many of the names and achievements are not known today - Elijah McCoy, Granville Woods, Madame C J Walker, Thomas L. Jennings, Henry Blair, Norbert Rillieux, Garrett Morgan, Jan Matzeliger - but with 50,000 total patents, Black people accounted for more inventions during the period 1870 to 1940 than immigrants from every country except England and Germany ( The Black Inventors Who Elevated the United States: Reassessing the Golden Age of Invention , Brookings (November 23, 2020).

You can learn more details about these innovators at the African American Inventors of the 19th Century page on the resourcesforhistoryteachers wiki.

• Create 3D digital artifacts (using TinkerCad or another 3D modeling software ) that represent Banneker's and Carver's contributions to math, science, and politics.
• Bonus Points: Create a board (or digital) game that incorporates the 3D artifacts and educates others about Banneker and Carver.
• Using the online resources below and your own Internet research findings, write a people's history for Benjamin Banneker or George Washington Carver.

Online Resources for Benjamin Banneker, George Washington Carver and Black Inventors

• Benjamin Banneker from Mathematicians of the African Diaspora , University of Buffalo
• Mathematician and Astronomer Benjamin Banneker Was Born November 8, 1731 , Library of Congress
• Benjamin Banneker, African American Author, Surveyor and Scientist, resourcesforhistoryteachers wiki page
• George Washingto n Car ver , National Peanut Board
• George Washington Carver, State Historical Society of Missouri
• 16 Surprising Facts about George Washington Carver , National Peanut Board

4.7.3 ENGAGE: Who Do You Think Are the Most Famous Americans?

In 2007 and 2008, Sam Wineburg and a group of Stanford University researchers asked 11th and 12th grade students to write names of the most famous Americans in history from Columbus to the present day ( Wineburg & Monte-Sano, 2008 ). The students could not include any Presidents on the list. The students were then asked to write the names of the five most famous women in American history. They could not list First Ladies.

To the surprise of the researchers, girls and boys from across the country, in urban and rural schools, had mostly similar lists: Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, and Benjamin Franklin were the top five selections. Even more surprising, surveys of adults from an entirely different generation produced remarkably similar lists.

The researchers concluded that a broad "cultural curriculum" conveyed through media images, corporate advertising, and shared information has a far greater effect on what is learned about people in history than do textbooks and classes in schools.

Media Literacy Connections: Celebrities' Influence on Politics

During elections, celebrities might endorse a political candidate or issue in hopes that their fans will follow in their footsteps. Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama for President in 2008 has been cited as the most impactful celebrity endorsement in history ( U.S. Election: What Impact Do Celebrity Endorsements Really Have? The Conversation , October 4, 2016).

Do celebrity endorsements make a real difference for voters? Researchers are undecided. In 2018, 65,000 people registered to vote in Tennessee after Taylor Swift (who had 180 million followers on Instagram) endorsed two Democratic Congressional candidates - one candidate won and the other lost. Swift's endorsement was followed by more than 212,000 new voter registrations across the country, mostly among those in the 18 to 24 age group. Perhaps what celebrities say has more impact on younger voters?

Can you think of some examples of celebrities who have shared their political views or endorsements on social media? Who are these celebrities? In what ways did they influence politics?

In these activities, you will analyze media endorsements by celebrities, and then develop a request (or pitch) to convince a celebrity to endorse your candidate for President in the next election.

• Activity 1: Analyze Celebrity Endorsements in the Media
• Activity 2: Request a Celebrity Endorsement for a Presidential Candidate
• As a class or with a group of friends, write individual lists of the 10 most famous or influential Americans in United States history.
• Explore similarities and differences across the lists.
• How many women or people of color were on the lists?
• Investigate the reasons for the similarities and differences.
• Returning to the Sam Wineburg study, "Why were Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and LGBTQ individuals left off the lists?" (see the full study here: " 'Famous Americans': The Changing Pantheon of American Heroes ")
• Research an individual's work and contributions, and in 200-250 words describe who they are, why you selected them, and what aspect of their work is important to the field. Within your description, include at least 2 links relevant to this individual ( Plan from Royal Roads University ).

Standard 4.7 Conclusion

Effective political leadership is an essential ingredient of a vibrant democracy. Unlike dictators or despots, effective leaders offer plans for change and invite people to join in and help to achieve those goals. Effective leaders work collaboratively and cooperatively, not autocratically. INVESTIGATE looked at three democratic leaders who entered political life in different ways: Frances Perkins, who was appointed to a Presidential Cabinet; Margaret Sanger, who assumed a public role as an advocate and activist; and Harvey Milk, who was elected to political office. UNCOVER reviewed the life and accomplishments of Benjamin Banneker and George Washington Carver. ENGAGE asked who people think are the most famous Americans in United States history.

The character of American democracy: Values-based leadership

Subscribe to governance weekly, jill long thompson jlt jill long thompson board chair and ceo, farm credit administration; former member of the u.s. house of representatives.

November 12, 2020

During the Watergate investigation, President Richard Nixon’s supporters would often argue that because they agreed with his policy positions, they could overlook his ethical and moral shortcomings. At that time a member of the U.S. House, Earl Landgrebe from my home state of Indiana, took this position to the extreme when he said, “Don’t confuse me with the facts” because he had made up his mind and would continue to support the president.

We hear a similar sentiment expressed today by supporters of President Donald Trump as they support his continuing claims that the election was fraudulent. This reflects a belief by some that ethical leadership is not important, or even relevant, so long as elected officials advance policies with which they agree. This kind of thinking is a threat to our democracy and our country.

Democracy is a form of government built on a foundation of ethical principles and it cannot survive unless those principles are honored and protected. Values matter because how we adopt laws is as important as the laws we adopt, and all of us are charged with protecting the self-governing principles that are the foundation of our great nation. Unethical leadership can undermine the democratic process, and even democracy itself.

Values-based leadership is essential to preserving and protecting democratic principles and there are at least three widely recognized moral virtues that are central to ensuring the governing process is democratic: truthfulness, justice, and temperance.

Truthfulness

When leaders lie, it is usually because the facts are not on their side and they do not want others to know the truth. They think the lie benefits them personally, usually at a cost to the rest of us. According to The Washington Post, The Fact Checker determined in August of this year that President Trump had made 22,000 false and misleading claims since taking office.

These untruths hurt our democracy because when our leaders deceive us, it becomes more challenging for the public to learn the facts. And that makes it more challenging for citizens to provide meaningful input. This undermines the all-important role of the citizenry in the policy-making process and it will most likely lead to the adoption of policies that are flawed because decisions based on falsehoods are usually bad decisions.

I came of age when the nation was deeply divided over our involvement in the Vietnam War and I very much wanted to believe that our political leaders were telling us the truth and that the anti-war protesters were wrong. But by the time I had completed my freshman year of college, critical content of the Pentagon Papers had been leaked to the press, confirming the very criticism the protesters were raising. Had the citizenry been told the truth, the course of history could have been changed for the better.

And today, we have lost tens of thousands of lives to COVID-19 that could have been saved had President Trump stated to the public what he said in his interviews with Robert Woodward.

Justice exists only when there is fairness in the process of governing. It requires those in leadership positions to consider the varied interests of all and to protect equality of participation. There must also be transparency.

Voter suppression of any kind is unjust and a threat to democracy. For example, how we draw congressional district maps influences the fairness of our elections. When congressional districts are construed in ways that concentrate voters of one political party in a smaller number of districts than is representative of the actual number of voters in that party, it can result in one party receiving a larger share of seats than votes.

As an example, in 2016 Republican candidates running for the U.S. House received 49.9 percent of the votes cast, while Democratic candidates received 47.3 percent of the votes cast. But Republicans won 55.2 percent, and Democrats won 44.8 percent of the seats in the House. In other words, Republicans got a “seats bonus.” Such gerrymandering suppresses the voices of voters across the country and clearly undercuts the most basic democratic principle of political equality.

Temperance is also central to democratic leadership. In democracy we do not each get our way, but we must respect the right we all have to work with our fellow citizens and address our challenges in a way that moves us forward as a people. Respect for the rights of others is essential. Good leaders do not divide and conquer, but rather, they bring people together through the democratic process. We are all in this together and we must all work together for the greater good of our nation.

Democracy is a principled form of government in which we all matter, and values-based leadership is central to preserving and protecting this great democratic experiment we call the United States of America.

Jill Long Thompson is a former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, former Under Secretary at U.S.D.A., and former Board Chair and CEO at the Farm Credit Administration. She is a visiting scholar with the Ostrom Workshop at Indiana University Bloomington and has authored a book, The Character of American Democracy, published by Indiana University Press on September 15, 2020. The opinions expressed in this essay are hers and do not necessarily reflect those of Indiana University.

Related Content

Elaine Kamarck

September 24, 2019

Vanessa Williamson

October 17, 2023

Michael Hais, Doug Ross, Morley Winograd

February 1, 2022

Campaigns & Elections Presidency

Governance Studies

Center for Effective Public Management

May 31, 2024

Daniel S. Schiff, Kaylyn Jackson Schiff, Natália Bueno

May 30, 2024

Online Only

10:00 am - 11:00 am EDT

The Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders: Quantitative Multiple-Case Assessments

Cite this chapter.

• Dean Keith Simonton  

Part of the book series: Jepson Studies in Leadership ((JSL))

1286 Accesses

3 Citations

A fundamental principle of political psychology is that psychology matters in the understanding of politics. Because both psychology and politics represent complex phenomena, with many manifestations, this tenet can adopt many different specific forms. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this chapter, two points stand out. First, an important subdiscipline of psychology deals with the personal characteristics of people. This subdiscipline is most commonly referred to as differential psychology, that is, the study of individual differences (Chamorro-Premuzic, Stumm, & Furnham, 2011). Second, a critical feature of politics is its leaders—the phenomenon of political leadership . Especially important are heads of state, whether presidents, prime ministers, monarchs, or dictators (Ludwig, 2002). These persons are reputed to have an exceptional influence, for good or ill, on their political system, whether democracy, autocracy, or oligarchy. Because political leaders remain persons, despite their exalted status in society, they too can vary in their personal characteristics. Furthermore, this variation can have consequences for their leadership, such as their ideology, decision making, or performance (Simonton, 1995). Hence, a central research topic must necessarily include the differential psychology of political leadership—the study of the personal characteristics of political leaders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Ballard, E. J., & Suedfeld, P. (1988). Performance ratings of Canadian prime ministers: Individual and situational factors. Political Psychology, 9 , 291–302.

Article   Google Scholar  

Balz, J. (2010). Ready to lead on day one: Predicting presidential greatness from political experience. PS: Political Science and Politics, 43 , 487–492.

Google Scholar  

Barber, J. D. (2008). The presidential character: Predicting performance in the White House (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership world-class level. Journal of Management, 13 , 7–19.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Stumm, S., & Furnham, A. (Eds.) (2011). The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences . New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cohen, J. E. (2003). The polls: Presidential greatness as seen in the mass public: An extension and application of the Simonton model. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33 , 913–924.

Copeland, G. W. (1983). When Congress and the president collide: Why presidents veto legislation. Journal of Politics, 45 , 696–710.

Costantini, E., & Craik, K. H. (1980). Personality and politicians: California party leaders, 1960–1976. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 , 641–661.

Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Craik, K. H. (1988). Assessing the personalities of historical figures. In W. M. Runyan (Ed.), Psychology and historical interpretation (pp. 196–218). New York: Oxford University Press.

Curry, J. L., & Morris, I. L. (2010). Explaining presidential greatness: The roles of peace and prosperity? Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40 , 515–530.

Davidson, J. R. T., Conner, K. M., & Swartz, M. (2006). Mental illness in U.S. presidents between 1776 and 1974: A review of biographical sources. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194 , 47–51.

Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and related performance. Leadership Quarterly, 8 , 51–65.

Deluga, R. J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 9 , 265–291.

Donley, R. E., & Winter, D. G. (1970). Measuring the motives of public officials at a distance: An exploratory study of American presidents. Behavioral Science, 15 , 227–236.

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.

Etheredge, L. S. (1978). Personality effects on American foreign policy, 1898–1968: A test of interpersonal generalization theory. American Political Science Review, 78 , 434–451.

Feldman, O., & Valenty, L. O. (Eds.). (2001). Profiling political leaders: Cross-cultural studies of personality and behavior . Westport, CT: Praeger.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences . London: Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Goethals, G. R. (2005). Presidential leadership. Annual Review of Psychology, 56 , 545–570.

Gottschalk, L. A., Uliana, R., & Gilbert, R. (1988). Presidential candidates and cognitive impairment measured from behavior in campaign debates. Public Administration Review, 48 , 613–619.

Hart, R. P. (1984). Verbal style and the presidency: A computer-based approach . New York: Academic Press.

Hermann, M. G. (1980a). Assessing the personalities of Soviet Politburo members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6 , 332–352.

Hermann, M. G. (1980b). Explaining foreign policy using personal characteristics of political leaders. International Studies Quarterly, 24 , 7–46.

Hermann, M. G. (2005). Assessing leadership style: A trait analysis. In J. D. Post (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political leaders (pp. 178–212). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Holmes, J. E., & Elder, R. E. (1989). Our best and worst presidents: Some possible reasons for perceived performance. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 19 , 529–557.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 , 364–396.

Kenney, P. J., & Rice, T. W. (1988). The contextual determinants of presidential greatness. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 18 , 161–169.

Knapp, R. H. (1962). A factor analysis of Thorndike’s ratings of eminent men. Journal of Social Psychology, 56 , 67–71.

Kynerd, T. (1971). An analysis of presidential greatness and “President rating.” Southern Quarterly, 9 , 309–329.

Lee, J. R. (1975). Presidential vetoes from Washington to Nixon. Journal of Politics, 37 , 522–546.

Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The price of greatness: Resolving the creativity and madness controversy . New York: Guilford Press.

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.

McCann, S. J. H. (1992). Alternative formulas to predict the greatness of U.S. presidents: Personological, situational, and zeitgeist factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 , 469–479.

McCann, S. J. H. (1995). Presidential candidate age and Schlesinger’s cycles of American history (1789–1992): When younger is better. Political Psychology, 16 , 749–755.

Miles, C. C., & Wolfe, L. S. (1936). Childhood physical and mental health records of historical geniuses. Psychological Monographs, 47 , 390–400.

Miller, N. L., & Stiles, W. B. (1986). Verbal familiarity in American presidential nomination acceptance speeches and inaugural addresses. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49 , 72–81.

Murray, R. K., & Blessing, T. H. (1983). The presidential performance study: A progress report. Journal of American History, 70 , 535–555.

Nice, D. C. (1984). The influence of war and party system aging on the ranking of presidents. Western Political Quarterly, 37 , 443–455.

Porter, C. A., & Suedfeld, P. (1981). Integrative complexity in the correspondence of literary figures: Effects of personal and societal stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40 , 321–330.

Post, F. (1994). Creativity and psychopathology: A study of 291 world-famous men. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165 , 22–34.

Post, J. M. (Ed.). (2003). The psychological assessment of political leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ridings, W. J., Jr., & McIver, S. B. (1997). Rating the presidents: A ranking of U.S. leaders, from the great and honorable to the dishonest and incompetent . Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press.

Ringelstein, A. C. (1985). Presidential vetoes: Motivations and classification. Congress & the Presidency, 12 , 43–55.

Rohde, D. W., & Simon, D. M. (1985). Presidential vetoes and congressional response: A study of institutional conflict. American Journal of Political Science, 29 , 397–427.

Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2004). Personality, character, & leadership in the White House: Psychologists assess the presidents . Washington, DC: Brassey’s.

Rubenzer, S. J., Faschingbauer, T. R., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Assessing the U.S. presidents using the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7 , 403–420.

Simon, A., & Uscinski, J. (2012). Prior experience predicts presidential performance. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 42 , 514–548.

Simonton, D. K. (1981). Presidential greatness and performance: Can we predict leadership in the White House? Journal of Personality, 49 , 306–323.

Simonton, D. K. (1983). Intergenerational transfer of individual differences in hereditary monarchs: Genes, role-modeling, cohort, or sociocultural effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 , 354–364.

Simonton, D. K. (1984a). Leader age and national condition: A longitudinal analysis of 25 European monarchs. Social Behavior and Personality, 12 , 111–114.

Simonton, D. K. (1984b). Leaders as eponyms: Individual and situational determinants of monarchal eminence. Journal of Personality, 52 , 1–21.

Simonton, D. K. (1985). The vice-presidential succession effect: Individual or situational basis? Political Behavior, 7 , 79–99.

Simonton, D. K. (1986a). Dispositional attributions of (presidential) leadership: An experimental simulation of historiometric results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22 , 389–418.

Simonton, D. K. (1986b). Presidential greatness: The historical consensus and its psychological significance. Political Psychology, 7 , 259–283.

Simonton, D. K. (1986c). Presidential personality: Biographical use of the Gough Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 , 149–160.

Simonton, D. K. (1987). Presidential inflexibility and veto behavior: Two individual-situational interactions. Journal of Personality, 55 , 1–18.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Personality, biography, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 , 928–936.

Simonton, D. K. (1991a). Latent-variable models of posthumous reputation: A quest for Galton’s G . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 , 607–619.

Simonton, D. K. (1991b). Personality correlates of exceptional personal influence: A note on Thorndike’s (1950) creators and leaders. Creativity Research Journal, 4 , 67–78.

Simonton, D. K. (1991c). Predicting presidential greatness: An alternative to the Kenney and Rice Contextual Index. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 21 , 301–305.

Simonton, D. K. (1992). Presidential greatness and personality: A response to McCann (1992). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 , 676–679.

Simonton, D. K. (1995). Personality and intellectual predictors of leadership. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 739–757). New York: Plenum.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Simonton, D. K. (1996). Presidents’ wives and First Ladies: On achieving eminence within a traditional gender role. Sex Roles, 35 , 309–336.

Simonton, D. K. (1998). Mad King George: The impact of personal and political stress on mental and physical health. Journal of Personality, 66 , 443–466.

Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4 , 425–451.

Simonton, D. K. (2001a). 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. (2001b). Predicting presidential greatness: Equation replication on recent survey results. Journal of Social Psychology, 141 , 293–307.

Simonton, D. K. (2002). Intelligence and presidential greatness: Equation replication using updated IQ estimates. Advances in Psychology Research, 13 , 143–153.

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Qualitative and quantitative analyses of historical data. Annual Review of Psychology, 54 , 617–640.

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: Vol. 1, Psychology and leadership (pp. 132–148). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Simonton, D. K. (2009a). The “other IQ”: Historiometric assessments of intelligence and related constructs. Review of General Psychology, 13 , 315–326.

Simonton, D. K. (2009b). Presidential leadership styles: How do they map onto charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership? In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in MultiLevel Issues: Vol. 8. Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and leadership (pp. 123–133). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Simonton, D. K. (2013). Presidential leadership. In M. G. Rumsey (Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadership (pp. 327–342). New York: Oxford University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (2014). Significant samples—not significance tests! The often overlooked solution to the replication problem. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8 , 11–12.

Simonton, D. K., & Song, A. V. (2009). Eminence, IQ, physical and mental health, and achievement domain: Cox’s 282 geniuses revisited. Psychological Science, 20 , 429–434.

Smith, C. P. (Ed.). (1992). Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Song, A. V., & Simonton, D. K. (2007). Studying personality at a distance: Quantitative methods. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 308–321). New York: Guilford Press.

Sorokin, P. A. (1926). Monarchs and rulers: A comparative statistical study. II. Social Forces, 4 , 523–533.

Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 , 439–455.

Suedfeld, P. (2010). The cognitive processing of politics and politicians: Archival studies of conceptual and integrative complexity. Journal of Personality, 78 , 1669–1702.

Suedfeld, P., & Bluck, S. (1993). Changes in integrative complexity accompanying significant life events: Historical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 , 124–130.

Suedfeld, P., & Leighton, D. C. (2002). Early communications in the war against terrorism: An integrative complexity analysis. Political Psychology, 23 , 585–599.

Suedfeld, P., & Rank, A. D. (1976). Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as a function of changes in conceptual complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 , 169–178.

Suedfeld, P., Corteen, R. S., & McCormick, C. (1986). The role of integrative complexity in military leadership: Robert E. Lee and his opponents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16 , 498–507.

Suedfeld, P., Guttieri, K., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Assessing integrative complexity at a distance: Archival analyses of thinking and decision making. In J. M. Post (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (pp. 246–270). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Ramirez, C. (1977). War, peace, and integrative complexity. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21 , 427–442.

Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393–400). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Suedfeld, P., Wallace, M. D., & Thachuk, K. L. (1993). Changes in integrative complexity among Middle East leaders during the Persian Gulf crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 49 , 183–199.

Tetlock, P. E. (1981a). Personality and isolationism: Content analysis of senatorial speeches. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 , 737–743.

Tetlock, P. E. (1981b). Pre-to postelection shifts in presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 , 207–212.

Tetlock, P. E. (1984). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of Commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 365–375.

Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Cognitive and rhetorical styles of traditionalist and reformist Soviet politicians: A content analysis study. Political Psychology, 10 , 209–232.

Tetlock, P. E., Bernzweig, J., & Gallant, J. L. (1985). Supreme Court decision making: Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological consistency of voting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 , 1227–1239.

Tetlock, P. E., Crosby, F., & Crosby, T. L. (1981). Political psychobiography. Micropolitics, 1 , 191–213.

Tetlock, P. E., Hannum, K. A., & Micheletti, P. M. (1984). Stability and change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cognitive versus rhetorical style hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 979–990.

Thoemmes, F. J., & Conway, L. G., III (2007). Integrative complexity of 41 U.S. presidents. Political Psychology, 28 , 193–226.

Thorndike, E. L. (1936). The relation between intellect and morality in rulers. American Journal of Sociology, 42 , 321–334.

Thorndike, E. L. (1950). Traits of personality and their intercorrelations as shown in biographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 41 , 193–216.

Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., Waldman, I. D., … Faschingbauer, T. J. (2013, October 8). The double-edged sword of grandiose narcissism: Implications for successful and unsuccessful leadership among U.S. presidents. Psychological Science , online first doi:10.1177/0956797613491970

Wendt, H. W., & Light, P. C. (1976). Measuring “greatness” in American presidents: Model case for international research on political leadership? European Journal of Social Psychology, 6 , 105–109.

Wendt, H. W., & Muncy, C. A. (1979). Studies of political character: Factor patterns of 24 U.S. vice-presidents. Journal of Psychology, 102 , 125–131.

Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive . New York: Free Press.

Winter, D. G. (1980). An exploratory study of the motives of southern African political leaders measured at a distance. Political Psychology, 2 , 75–85.

Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 196–202.

Winter, D. G. (2002). Motivation and political leadership. In L. Valenty & O. Feldman (Eds.), Political leadership for the new century: Personality and behavior among American leaders (pp. 25–47). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Winter, D. G. (2003). Measuring the motives of political actors at a distance. In J. M. Post (Ed.), The psychological assessment of political leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton (pp. 153–177). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Winter, D. G., & Carlson, D. G. (1988). Using motive scores in the psychobiographical study of an individual: The case of Richard Nixon. Journal of Personality, 56 , 75–103.

Woods, F. A. (1906). Mental and moral heredity in royalty . New York: Holt.

Woods, F. A. (1909, November 19). A new name for a new science. Science, 30 , 703–704.

Woods, F. A. (1911, April 14). Historiometry as an exact science. Science, 33 , 568–574.

Woods, F. A. (1913). The influence of monarchs . New York: Macmillan.

Zullow, H. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Pessimistic rumination predicts defeat of presidential candidates, 1900 to 1984. Psychological Inquiry, 1 , 52–61.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Copyright information.

© 2014 George R. Goethals, Scott T. Allison, Roderick M. Kramer, and David M. Messick

About this chapter

Simonton, D.K. (2014). The Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders: Quantitative Multiple-Case Assessments. In: Goethals, G.R., Allison, S.T., Kramer, R.M., Messick, D.M. (eds) Conceptions of Leadership. Jepson Studies in Leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137472038_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137472038_4

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, New York

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-47202-1

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-47203-8

eBook Packages : Palgrave Business & Management Collection Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

What makes a good political leader – and how can we tell before voting?

Senior Lecturer, School of Management, Massey University

Disclosure statement

Suze Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Massey University provides funding as a member of The Conversation NZ.

Massey University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

For many people, voting is not just a right, it’s an act of civic duty. Even more than that, some voters base their decisions on what they believe best serves society as a whole, not what might personally advantage them.

The trick, of course, is how to exercise that vote in a responsible, informed and considered manner. Understanding the policies of different parties is obviously a key part of that, in which case resources such as Policy.nz and Vote Compass can be helpful.

But what of the individual characteristics of candidates and would-be leaders? What can the research tell us about what to look for? Given they are “actors” on the political “stage”, how do we evaluate their performance?

Of course, leadership isn’t a solo act. Many things determine what leaders can and can’t do. But what makes them tick – how their personality or character informs their actions – is enduringly fascinating . In fact, we know a lot about the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that can help distinguish between good and bad leaders.

Confusing confidence with competence

Given “good” leadership is generally accepted as being both ethical and effective, it stands to reason “bad” leaders tend to fail on one or both counts. They either breach accepted principles of ethical or moral conduct, or they act in ways that detract from achieving desired results.

This distinction helps demystify leadership by highlighting that the qualities we least admire in others are also what scholars have long flagged as danger signs in leaders: arrogance, vanity, dishonesty, manipulation, abuse of power, lack of care for others, cowardice and recklessness.

Read more: Romantic heroes or ‘one of us’ – how we judge political leaders is rarely objective or rational

Notably, though, bad leaders can appear charming, confident and driven to achieve, despite seeking power for selfish reasons.

Numerous studies have identified the ways in which narcissists and what are sometimes called corporate psychopaths can be highly skilled at manipulating people into believing they’ve got what it takes, but will typically lead in destructive and dysfunctional ways. Other studies have shown the negative effects of “ Machiavellian ” leadership styles.

There is also a tendency to confuse competence – the actual knowledge and skills needed to perform a leadership role – with confidence. Good leaders tend to be relatively humble about their abilities and knowledge. This means they’re better listeners, more sensitive to others’ needs, and better able to collaborate effectively.

Read more: America's leaders are older than they've ever been. Why didn't the founding fathers foresee this as a problem?

Practical wisdom

None of this fascination with leadership is new. The Classical Greek philosopher Aristotle argued good leaders possess a range of character virtues in the “middle ground” between what he called the “vices” of excess or deficiency. Courage, for example, is the virtuous mid-point between the vices of recklessness and cowardice.

The modern character virtues leadership researchers emphasise include humanity, humility, integrity, temperance, justice, accountability, courage, transcendence, drive and collaboration.

Each attribute helps a leader deal more effectively with some aspect of their role. Humanity, for instance, enables a leader to be considerate, empathetic and compassionate. Temperance helps them remain calm, composed, patient and prudent, even in testing circumstances.

Deployed together, these character virtues help foster sound judgment, insight, decisiveness – allowing a leader to calmly handle complex, unfolding challenges.

For Aristotle, the ideal leader could demonstrate what he called “phronesis”, or practical wisdom. This wasn’t necessarily about delivering perfect, painless solutions. Indeed, phronesis might mean adopting the least-worst option – which is often the case when dealing with the complex task of running a country.

There is also no single personality “type” most suited to good leadership. But studies indicate those who are proactive, optimistic, believe in themselves and can manage their anxieties stand a better chance. Empathy, a sense of duty and a commitment to upholding positive social values also underpin the attributes of good leaders.

Evaluating political leadership

No leader will be perfect. But each character or personality flaw impedes their capacity for wise judgment and dealing with the demands of their role. A wise leader, therefore, is one who has deep and accurate insight into their personal foibles and has strategies to mitigate for those tendencies.

Political leaders will obviously seek to present their policies, parties and themselves in a positive light, something known as “ impression management ”. This is where critical questioning and fact checking by journalists and experts can play a vital role.

Read more: NZ Election 2023: from one-way polls to threats of coalition ‘chaos’, it’s been a campaign of two halves

But gauging a leader’s “true” personality or character is more difficult. And we first need to be aware that our impressions and evaluations of leaders are not entirely driven by reason or logic.

Secondly, we can look for recurring patterns of behaviour in different situations over time. We should pay particular heed to behaviour under pressure, when it becomes more difficult to “mask” true feelings and motives.

Thirdly, we can consider the values that underpin a leader’s policies, who benefits from them, and what messages these convey to the community at large.

In the long run, a leader’s results bear consideration. But we need to assess these fairly, accounting for what was beyond their control. We should be mindful to avoid “ hindsight bias ” – the tendency to imagine events were predictable because we know they’ve occurred.

It should be no surprise that what constitutes good leadership has been studied and debated for thousands of years. Leaders have power and we’ve always wanted them to use it wisely. An informed voting choice makes that more likely.

• New Zealand
• NZ Election 2023

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Contentious Politics and Political Violence
• Governance/Political Change
• Groups and Identities
• History and Politics
• International Political Economy
• Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
• Political Anthropology
• Political Behavior
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Philosophy
• Political Psychology
• Political Sociology
• Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies
• Politics, Law, Judiciary
• Post Modern/Critical Politics
• Public Opinion
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• World Politics
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Personality and political behavior.

• Matthew Cawvey , Matthew Cawvey Department of Political Science, University of Illinois
• Matthew Hayes , Matthew Hayes Department of Political Science, Indiana University
• Damarys Canache Damarys Canache Department of Political Science, University of Illinois
•  and  Jeffery J. Mondak Jeffery J. Mondak Department of Political Science, University of Illinois
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.221
• Published online: 25 January 2017

“Personality” refers to a multifaceted and enduring internal, or psychological, structure that influences patterns in a person’s actions and expressed attitudes. Researchers have associated personality with such attributes as temperament and values, but most scholarly attention has centered on individual differences in traits, or general behavioral and attitudinal tendencies. The focus on traits was reinvigorated with the rise of the Big Five personality framework in the 1980s and 1990s, when cross-cultural evidence pointed to the existence of the dimensions of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. Studies have found these five trait dimensions to be highly heritable and stable over time, leading researchers to argue that the Big Five exert a causal impact on attitudes and behavior. The stability of traits also contrasts with more dynamic individual-level characteristics such as mood or with contextual factors in a person’s environment. Explanations of human decision-making, therefore, would be incomplete without attention to personality traits.

With these considerations in mind, political scientists have devoted an increasing amount of attention to the study of personality and citizen attitudes and behavior. The goal of this research program is not to claim that personality traits offer the only explanation for why some citizens fulfill the basic duties of citizenship, such as staying informed and turning out to vote, and others do not. Instead, scholars have studied personality in order to understand why individuals in the same economic and political environment differ in their political attitudes and actions. And accounting for the consistent influence of personality can illuminate the magnitude of environmental factors and other individual-level attributes that do shift over time.

Research on personality and political behavior has explored several substantive topics, including political information, attitudes, and participation. Major findings in this burgeoning literature include the following: (1) politically interested and knowledgeable citizens tend to exhibit high levels of openness to experience, (2) ideological liberalism is more prevalent among individuals high in openness and low in conscientiousness, and (3) citizens are more likely to participate in politics if they are high in openness and extraversion.

Although the personality and politics literature has shown tremendous progress in recent years, additional work remains to be done to produce comprehensive explanations of political behavior. Studies currently focus on the direct impact of traits on political attitudes and actions, but personality also could work through other individual-level attitudes and characteristics to influence behavior. In addition, trait effects may occur only in response to certain attitudes or contextual factors. Instead of assuming that personality operates in isolation from other predictors of political behavior, scholars can build on past studies by mapping out and testing interrelationships between psychological traits and the many other factors thought to influence how and how well citizens engage the world of politics.

• political behavior
• personality
• comparative politics

Connecting Personality and Citizen Politics

Most of us have taken personality tests online, tests that purport to reveal matters such as which movie star, musical performer, TV character, or breed of dog we are most like. We also observe personality differences in our friends. We know which acquaintances tend to be outgoing, which are the most responsible, and which dissolve into nervous wrecks under the slightest of pressures. We probably can rate ourselves on these same criteria. These examples demonstrate that we encounter personality differences on a daily basis and that we tend to possess an intuitive understanding of what personality is and why it is important.

It is a small step from these everyday brushes with personality to appreciating how and why social scientists study the possible impact of personality on people’s attitudes and behaviors. Personality psychologists and researchers in many other fields have directed considerable effort toward defining personality, cataloguing personality traits, determining how best to measure those traits, learning about the origins of differences in personality, and gauging the extent to which personality influences how people think and act. Political scientists have conducted some of this research. Comparative political behavior scholars recognize that many factors contribute to differences in how citizens engage the political world. Increasingly, these scholars acknowledge that people’s fundamental psychological characteristics—that is, their personalities—are among those factors.

The present article provides a broad case for the value of incorporating personality in research on comparative political behavior. In developing this case, we address three issues. First, we examine what personality is. In the past 25 to 30 years, consensus has emerged that personality traits are central components, but not the only components, of personality. Moreover, consensus exists that the bulk of personality trait structure can be represented with information on a relative handful of dimensions.

The most prominent framework, and the one that has received the most attention in political science, is the Big Five, or Five-Factor, approach. This framework focuses on the trait dimensions of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. We explain the logic of this perspective, and discuss its relative strengths and limitations.

Second, we discuss why personality is thought to be important for political behavior. Applied research has linked variation in the Big Five trait dimensions to a staggering array of phenomena. Within the realm of citizen politics, the list includes everything from core political values to decisions about whether to display political yard signs. We recap some of the most important findings from this literature and explain why these effects are presumed to exist. Third, we offer some thoughts on how personality and politics might be studied most productively. Research in the past decade has identified links between personality traits and many aspects of comparative political behavior. Moving forward, it is important that we think about how best to integrate these insights with our broader accounts of the factors that influence political behavior. We argue that careful attention must be paid both to how personality is conceptualized and to how we theorize and test its role in politics.

As this article proceeds, we present the material in a nontechnical manner. Our goal is to provide a conceptual overview of personality and politics, not to discuss the intricacies of particular studies. That said, we include citations to both foundational works in this area and to illustrative examples of successful research. We hope that readers develop an understanding of what personality entails, why variation in personality traits may be consequential for political behavior, and how we can most fruitfully incorporate personality into our broader accounts of citizens’ political attitudes and actions.

What is Personality?

Research on political behavior seeks to understand why people think and act the way they do when it comes to politics: why they identify as liberals or conservatives, why they approve or disapprove of the president or parliament, why they did or did not vote in the most recent election, why they follow news about politics closely or not at all. Underlying most of this research is a concern with the quality of governance. Scholars hope that by understanding why people behave as they do, research can foster more capable citizens, ultimately bringing better elected officials and more representative policies.

Like all human behavior, political behavior is influenced by a complex array of factors. Some of these factors are external to the individual, such as the structure of a nation’s political system, or the occurrence of an economic downturn. Others are more personal, such as one’s level of intelligence or the decision to get married or change careers. We also can differentiate factors on the basis of whether they are relatively permanent and stable, or momentary and changing. An adult’s level of formal education and a nation’s selection of political institutions generally fall into the first category, whereas policy proposals and people’s emotional responses to political events are more likely to change over time.

With these distinctions in mind, most of us likely would assume that people’s personalities are best conceived of as personal attributes rather than as forces external to the individual. And they are stable and enduring rather than temporary and fleeting. Such an understanding of personality is consistent with what empirical research has shown. Appreciation for what this implies for whether and how personality may influence political behavior requires that we step back and consider both the meaning of personality and the causes of variation in personality across individuals.

Personality can be defined as a multifaceted and enduring internal, or psychological, structure that influences patterns of behavior (Mondak, 2010 ). Several aspects of this definition require explanation. First, personality is internal to the individual. We are not assigned our personalities at work or school; instead, they are part of us, and we carry them with us as we move from situation to situation. Importantly, conceiving of personality as an internal psychological structure implies that personality cannot be measured directly. We cannot crawl inside a person’s head and spot the extraversion. Instead, personality is measured indirectly, with information about the general patterns of thought and action assumed to be related to different components of personality. A second key point is that personality endures and is highly heritable. The heritability of personality means that much of the variation in personality across individuals is rooted in biology (e.g., Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 1997 ). To a large extent we are born with the tendency to be extraverted, to be conscientious, and so on.

A great deal of research also shows that personality as measured in early childhood corresponds closely with personality measured later in life. Personality does change incrementally over the life cycle; for example, people tend to become more conscientious and emotionally stable with age. But these changes happen to virtually everyone. Thus, if one friend is more conscientious than the other at age 15, she likely still will be more conscientious at age 50, even if both friends are more conscientious at 50 than they were at 15. When psychologists measure personality in individuals at repeated points over the course of several years, they observe very high correlations (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1988 ). Not only is personality itself stable over time, so too are its effects on political attitudes and behavior (Bloeser, Canache, Mitchell, Mondak, & Poore, 2015 ).

Beyond being internal to the individual and stable over time, two additional aspects of our definition of personality require elaboration. First, personality is multifaceted. The bulk of our discussion focuses on personality traits, the aspects of personality that have received the greatest scholarly attention. Personality traits are psychological characteristics of individuals, which means they are basic units of personality. Personality psychologists note that most of the thousands of adjectives used to describe people—terms such as punctual, gregarious, and polite—represent personality traits. Apart from traits, there is debate about personality’s components, but researchers agree that elements such as motives, values, and perhaps even intelligence, are part of personality (e.g., Caprara & Vecchione, 2013 ).

The last noteworthy aspect of our definition is that personality influences behavior. This, of course, is why scholars outside of the field of psychology care about personality. If personality influences behavior, then information about an individual’s personality may help us understand how the person acts, and with what success, in contexts such as school, the workplace, social relationships, and the world of politics. As is shown in the next section, a wealth of research has identified links between personality and virtually all matters of interest to students of comparative political behavior.

The Big Five

Because thousands of distinct personality traits have been identified (Allport & Odbert, 1936 ), trait psychology would be a hodgepodge without some sort of ordering framework. Personality psychologists have recognized this circumstance for decades and have proposed models of personality trait structure ranging in size from two or three trait dimensions to 16 or more. The Big Five, or Five-Factor, perspective emerged out of research conducted on behalf of the U.S. Air Force in the late 1950s (e.g., Tupes & Christal, 1958 ), although it was not until the late 1980s that this approach truly took off among personality psychologists (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1988 ). The derivation of the Big Five was empirical rather than theoretical. Researchers examined how people—in the earliest work, Air Force officers—rated themselves on a large number of adjectives and then administered a statistical technique, factor analysis, to determine how many underlying dimensions best represented the data’s structure. A five-factor structure was obtained. Today, the Big Five trait typology enjoys a dominant role in the field, along with corresponding popularity as a vehicle for applied research in political science and many other disciplines.

The Big Five trait dimensions are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. 1 We refer to these as trait dimensions rather than as traits because each is broad and encompasses several subsidiary facets. Researchers who make use of the Big Five contend that the framework captures the bulk of variation in personality trait structure. However, they do not assume that all aspects of personality, or even all personality traits, are represented by the Big Five. The Big Five approach thus constitutes a very good starting point for applied research on personality. But we should be aware of the possibility that, depending on our research questions, we might need to augment it with information on other traits. It is also possible that a framework superior to the Big Five eventually will emerge.

For students of comparative political behavior, an advantage of the Big Five is its cross-cultural applicability. Measures of the Big Five trait dimensions have been translated into dozens of languages, and researchers have administered these questionnaires throughout the world. More impressively, the same basic five-factor structure is observed in these applications (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1997 ). This does not mean that personality structures are exactly the same everywhere. It may be, for example, that an unmeasured sixth or seventh trait dimension is prominent in a given nation. At the very least, the evidence shows that the dimensions of openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism are present in people across a wide array of language groups, cultures, and nations.

To illustrate average levels of the Big Five across countries, we refer to the 2010 AmericasBarometer. This survey fielded personality questions to residents of 24 countries in North America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Respondents were asked two items for each of the Big Five. Their responses were logged, combined, and recoded to range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. 2 Figure 1 depicts the responses to the personality items in four AmericasBarometer countries: Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, and the United States. The dots in the figure represent the average score for that trait in the country, and the bars indicate the level of variation as measured by plus or minus one standard deviation. We find that answers vary somewhat from country to country, with Jamaicans providing slightly higher average responses for each of the Big Five than residents in the other three countries. Nevertheless, the degree of variation across individuals within each country is much greater than variation in the average response from one country to the next. This has two implications for cross-national research. First, in terms of personality, individuals of all types are found in each nation. Absent such variation, we might have questioned the value of obtaining information on personality, as there is little or no analytical benefit in studying “variables” that do not vary. Second, because there is considerably more variation within nations than between them, data on the Big Five facilitate the study of individual-level similarities and differences that transcend national boundaries.

Figure 1. The Big Five in Four Countries.

Note : Dots represent the average score for that trait in the respective country. Bars indicate the level of variation in the country (plus or minus one standard deviation).

We now turn to a brief discussion of each trait dimension.

Openness refers to a curiosity about the world and a corresponding willingness to learn about different perspectives and to participate in new activities. Individuals scoring high in openness to experience are described as being imaginative, analytical, and creative. Like all aspects of personality, openness is linked to behaviors we might view as desirable and others we might see as undesirable. For example, people with high levels of openness seek out information and thus tend to be well-informed (Mondak, 2010 ). However, these same individuals often show a heightened willingness to take risks, such as with respect to the consumption of drugs and alcohol (Booth-Kewley & Vickers, 1994 ).

Conscientiousness is a trait dimension that includes the disposition to be dependable, organized, and punctual and a volitional tendency to be hardworking and industrious. People with high levels of conscientiousness typically excel in domains such as school and the workplace (Barrick & Mount, 1991 ). Conscientiousness also is related to physical fitness, maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and the avoidance of personal risk (Booth-Kewley & Vickers, 1994 ).

Extraversion is the personality trait dimension with the longest history in academic research, with discussion of extraversion tracing back a full century. Although numerous other trait typologies preceded the emergence of the Big Five, nearly all have reserved a spot for extraversion (e.g., Eysenck & Wilson, 1978 ). Individuals scoring high in extraversion exhibit an inherent sociability. They are bold, outgoing, and talkative. Extraversion is associated with a preference for, and success in, activities that involve interaction with others (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991 ).

Agreeableness is the fourth Big Five trait dimension. Like extraversion, agreeableness is seen primarily in the context of individuals’ interactions with others. Adjectives used to represent those scoring high in agreeableness include “warm,” “kind,” “sympathetic,” and “generous.” High levels of agreeableness correspond with success in interpersonal relationships and collaborative ventures and with attachments to others such as those manifested in feelings of sense of community and trust (e.g., Lounsbury, Loveland, & Gibson, 2003 ).

Neuroticism , the final Big Five trait dimension, is also sometimes referred to by its opposite, emotional stability. Terms such as “tense” and “emotional” are used to represent neuroticism, whereas terms such as “calm” and “relaxed” indicate emotional stability. Like extraversion, research on neuroticism dates back a full century and explores a number of outcomes. High levels of neuroticism correspond with an increased risk of depression, whereas low levels correspond with certain career choices, such as becoming a surgeon or member of the clergy (Francis & Kay, 1995 ).

Research abounds on the meaning and significance of personality and on personality frameworks such as the Big Five. Given the enormity of the research record, we have presented a necessarily brief and simplified overview. This introduction hints at why political scientists increasingly consider personality when attempting to understand variation in people’s political attitudes and behaviors.

Why Study Personality and Political Behavior?

Differences in people’s personalities are hardly the only sources of variation in political behavior. To the contrary, we know that patterns of political behavior vary with demographic attributes, socioeconomic status, aspects of the social context, media exposure, enduring values and political orientations, and more. With that in mind, what is to be gained by adding personality to the mix? What would factoring in personality teach us about the bases of political behavior, and what, if anything, might attention to personality reveal about all of the other factors thought to matter for how citizens engage the political world? This section reviews what empirical research has shown regarding relationships between the Big Five and the sorts of variables of interest to students of comparative political behavior.

Personality variables should not be thought of as replacing other predictors of political behavior. Attention to personality does not imply that past research is somehow incorrect for focusing on variables such as age, income, interest in politics, and partisanship. Instead, it is more appropriate to suggest that personality researchers feel that past accounts have been incomplete because psychological factors have been downplayed or ignored. We noted earlier that the factors thought to influence political behavior can be differentiated on the basis of whether they are relatively permanent and stable or momentary and fleeting, and whether they are mostly internal or external to individuals. Personality traits are psychological structures that are relatively stable over long periods of time and that are mostly internal to individuals. 3 Attention to personality helps us represent this quadrant of influences on political behavior, but in doing so it in no way diminishes the importance of other predictors.

Political behavior has an inherently dynamic quality to it. People form new attitudes and change old ones. Events burst onto the political scene, captivating the public’s attention for some time, before eventually drifting away. Prominent parties alternate between majority and opposition status. Given this fluidity, it might seem odd to endeavor to explain political behavior via something as enduring and intransient as personality. After all, change cannot be explained with a constant. Although this is a sensible basis to question the utility of research on personality and politics, we see two reasons why such research is likely to be fruitful. First, by parsing out the underpinnings of political behavior that do not change, we may be able to gain greater insight on the workings of those that do. This was a central point in a study by Bloeser et al. ( 2015 ). Using data from the British Household Panel Survey, the authors demonstrated that personality traits exerted an inertial influence over the course of several years, even while many individuals’ attitudes and behaviors changed. If change occurs despite the anchoring tug of personality, it follows that other predictors produce even stronger dynamic effects than we have previously suspected.

A second rationale for attention to personality is rooted in the fact that people respond differently to the same external stimuli. For example, when new information becomes available about a given issue, some people may change their attitudes, but others may not. Likewise, all voters experience the same national economic conditions, but only some turn out to vote at election time. If we do not account for individual differences, then we impose the simplifying assumption that everyone responds to contextual factors in the same manner. Attention to personality can enrich our understanding of these circumstances and their effects. It could be, for instance, that variation in personality explains why some people update their opinion on an issue in response to new information, or why some citizens are politically engaged during poor economic times. Personality traits themselves may be relatively stable, but they still can help us to make sense of the differences we observe between individuals when people respond to similar situations.

Sorting political phenomena into a few simple groupings can help us get a sense of what types of personality effects we might observe. We will consider effects in three categories: the acquisition of political information; political values, orientations, and attitudes; and various forms of political participation. Although most research on the Big Five and political behavior dates back only about a decade, there is already a vast body of findings. Rather than recount each individual effect, we focus on findings that are especially sensible and intuitive, that have been seen consistently across multiple studies, and that are particularly intriguing or illuminating.

Political Information

Information arguably constitutes the lifeblood of democracy, and certainly information holds a central place in any meaningful discussion of citizen competence. If they are to make the sorts of high-quality decisions that foster political accountability, citizens must seek out objective sources of news about politics, they must process that information in a diligent and objective manner themselves, they must draw on that information when forming judgments about policies and about elected officials, and, ideally, they will use that information as the starting point for conversations about politics with their fellow citizens. We know, of course, that all citizens are not equal when it comes to the fulfillment of these tasks. At question is whether variation in personality partly accounts for the differences we observe in media use, knowledge about politics, and patterns of political discussion.

Of the Big Five trait dimensions, the one that is the most plausibly related to the acquisition of political information is openness to experience. Individuals with high levels of openness exhibit a general curiosity about the world, one that often manifests itself in a thirst for information on all subjects. Politics should not be any different. Evidence from multiple surveys reveals that openness corresponds with levels of attention to politics, levels of political knowledge, and the tendency of individuals to hold opinions on political issues. These relationships are observed with data on survey respondents’ self-reports, as well as survey interviewers’ ratings of respondents’ levels of political interest, knowledge, and opinionation (e.g., Gerber, Huber, Doherty, & Dowling, 2011 ; Mondak, 2010 ).

As to the social dimension of political information, many scholars have examined the effects of personality on political discussion (e.g., Gallego & Oberski, 2012 ; Gerber, Huber, Doherty, & Dowling, 2012 ; Hibbing, Ritchie, & Anderson, 2011 ; Mondak, Hibbing, Canache, Seligson, & Anderson, 2010 ). Openness again plays a role, with individuals high in openness being the most likely to have conversations about politics. Not surprisingly, a similar positive relationship exists between extraversion and political discussion. The characteristically talkative nature of extraverts brings them to take up multiple topics of conversation, including politics. One particularly important aspect of political discussion is participation in conversations in which disagreements are aired. Such conversations can help participants to learn about, and ultimately appreciate, the bases of viewpoints different from their own. Some evidence shows that the influence of personality can depend on the size of an individual’s discussion network. For extraverts, a large discussion network provides more opportunities for interaction and disagreement. The impact of extraversion on exposure to disagreement becomes more positive as one’s discussion network grows. Meanwhile, agreeable individuals generally prefer to associate with like-minded citizens. As a result, the impact of agreeableness on exposure to disagreement becomes more negative as the size of one’s discussion network increases.

Political Values, Orientations, and Attitudes

Research on political attitudes examines variation in people’s beliefs about all things political, from core moral and economic values to political ideology to appraisals of public officials and policies. In 2005 , political scientists’ views on these matters received a jolt when Alford, Funk, and Hibbing ( 2005 ) showed that political ideology is highly heritable—that is, that 50% or more of the variation across individuals in ideology stems from biological differences. This finding implies that young adults do not enter the political world as blank slates, but instead carry with them relatively intransient predispositions about that world, and especially predispositions to be ideologically liberal or conservative.

This finding gave rise to a flurry of interest in how biology comes to matter for ideology—few scholars suspect that the answer is something so simple and direct as a “liberal gene”—and the related question of whether internal psychological structures also predispose individuals toward particular political views. Personality psychologists had long argued that biology shapes personality, which, in turn, influences orientations such as political ideology. 4 The Alford et al. ( 2005 ) study reinvigorated interest in these relationships, particularly among political psychologists.

In applications of the Big Five to political dispositions and attitudes, the preponderance of attention has focused on openness and conscientiousness. Scholars have presumed that openness would correspond with the belief that a more active government would support social progress—an orientation in line with a traditional conception of ideological liberalism. Conversely, the cautiousness and restraint associated with conscientiousness presumably matches the belief that government should take small, prudent steps—hallmarks of traditional ideological conservatism. Using these hypothesized relationships as starting points, researchers have widened their inquiries by considering whether openness and conscientiousness are also predictors of values such as moral traditionalism and judgments regarding specific policies.

Although most research examining whether openness and conscientiousness influence political ideology has appeared only within the last decade, support for the expected openness-liberalism and conscientiousness-conservatism links already is voluminous. These relationships have been documented in multiple studies in Belgium, Germany, New Zealand, and especially the United States (e.g., Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010 ; Sibley, Osborne, & Duckitt, 2012 ). Of all the relationships scholars have examined between the Big Five and aspects of political behavior, the associations between openness and conscientiousness and political ideology arguably are the best established.

Consistent relationships involving Big Five trait dimensions also have been observed for other political attitudes and dispositions. Openness to experience and conscientiousness yield strong effects, again in opposing directions, on measures of moral traditionalism and moral judgment and attitudes regarding social, economic, and security issues (Gerber et al., 2010 ; Mondak, 2010 ). Extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism are also sometimes significant correlates of political views. However, these relationships appear more sporadic, and substantively less impressive, than the effects of openness and conscientiousness. Research on personality and political attitudes will benefit from the development of stronger and more cohesive theoretical rationales for why particular relationships should be expected, as well as continuing efforts to replicate initial findings across different periods of time and national political contexts.

Political Participation

The third category of research includes political participation. Participation involves a tremendous variety of actions—in essence, all manners in which individuals engage the political world that entail something more active than taking in information or forming an opinion (see van Deth, 2017 ). One grouping includes individualistic acts such as donating money to a candidate or cause or displaying bumper stickers on one’s car. These acts engage the political world, yet do not necessarily bring individuals into personal contact with others. Other forms of political participation involve interaction with other people: contacting public officials, attending social and political meetings, volunteering to work on campaigns, and joining political protests. Between these extremes is voter turnout, which requires no more social interaction than the brief conversations that occur at the polling place.

Scholars have posited that high levels of openness and extraversion affect most forms of political participation. Openness carries with it a drive to acquire and share information and to work toward solutions to perceived problems. Extraversion is expected to be positively linked with social forms of political participation, but not necessarily with more individualistic acts. This is because extraverts are thought to be drawn to political participation not by politics per se, but rather by the opportunity to interact with others.

In addition, it might seem that individuals high in conscientiousness would feel obligated to be good citizens, and thus to participate. Weighing against this is the reality that it is difficult for anyone to be conscientious at everything. If people prioritize their families and their jobs, for example, then political engagement might be cast aside. This suggests that some conscientious individuals—those who feel a duty to be politically engaged or who feel that political participation will be fruitful—will be especially likely to participate. However, other people high in conscientiousness might direct their energies elsewhere. Last, for acts of participation outside of the mainstream, such as engaging in political protest, a negative relationship with conscientiousness should be expected, because the follow-the-rules nature of individuals scoring high on this trait dimension should discourage them from bucking the system.

The empirical record provides strong, although less than universal, support for these expectations. Many tests of the relationships between openness and various forms of political participation have shown significant positive links, including to individualistic acts such as donating to candidates and social acts such as attending rallies (e.g., Ha, Kim, & Jo, 2013 ; Mondak et al., 2010 ). However, in some instances the relationships are substantively weak, and other tests have failed to find significant relationships. Several cross-national studies have identified relationships between extraversion and both conventional and unconventional social forms of political participation. Extraversion generally has not been found to be related to individualistic forms of political engagement, and the impact of this trait dimension on the semi-individualistic act of voting is inconsistent across studies.

Conscientiousness shows a strong negative relationship to participation in political protests (Mondak, Canache, Seligson, & Hibbing, 2011 ; Mondak et al., 2010 ). For conventional participation, the evidence reveals conditional effects. Conscientious individuals who feel that their voices will be heard—meaning they rate high in external efficacy—are especially likely to attend a rally, work on a campaign, and engage in other activities, but conscientiousness is inconsequential among individuals low in efficacy (Mondak, 2010 ). Another conditional effect is seen in a study of citizen response to jury summonses (Bloeser, McCurley, & Mondak, 2012 ). High conscientiousness is found to be positively related to summons compliance, but only among individuals who see jury service as a civic obligation.

This section briefly reviewed research on the relationships between the Big Five and variables pertaining to political information, attitudes, and participation. Research in these areas is growing quite rapidly, and thus it is important to keep in mind that we only have provided illustrative examples of what has been found, not an exhaustive review. The relationships we have noted hopefully provide a good sense of the sorts of applied projects on personality and politics that scholars are conducting, along with the early insights from this research. Although the first wave of research has yielded a wealth of intriguing findings, we see the potential for even greater value.

How to Incorporate Personality in Research on Political Behavior

When new research streams emerge, there is a tendency for scholars to leap before they look. After a key initial study or two, new ones come flooding in. Although this can be an exciting time for researchers, this pell-mell approach is not necessarily the most conducive to scientific progress. With a bit of reflection and careful planning, scholars can map out more cohesive and forward-looking research agendas. With those goals in mind, the present section suggests some basic perspectives and principles that might improve research on personality and political behavior.

Our first suggestion is that researchers not lose sight of their dependent variables. The fundamental purpose of studying political behavior is to improve our understanding of how, and how well, people perform the tasks of citizenship, ideally with the goal of contributing to the betterment of democratic governance. Attention to our explanatory variables, including personality traits, is a means toward those ends. The value of applied research on personality is that it adds depth and nuance to our understanding of key aspects of human behavior. There is a subtle but important difference between striving to identify dependent variables that are influenced by personality and calling on personality as part of our effort to explain variation in certain dependent variables. The latter mindset is preferable because it keeps us focused on explaining political behavior, and it deters us from trying to fit our research questions to our preferred predictors. Ideally, a researcher will ask not “What political behaviors does personality predict?” but, instead, “Given my interest in explaining variation in (political knowledge, ideology, protest behavior, etc.), might it be that people’s personalities play a role?” With this perspective, we will not be disappointed when personality turns out to be unrelated to some phenomena, and we will continue to be motivated to push forward and improve the quality of our explanations.

Our second suggestion is that students of personality and politics not lose sight of their other independent variables. Given that the bottom line is to improve our understanding of the bases of political behavior, it would be counterproductive to cast aside old independent variables just because new ones have become available. We have argued that personality traits are central among variables, and certainly among psychological variables, that can be classified as constituting individuals’ core enduring characteristics. Even if personality traits represented the entirety of this quadrant of predictors—and they do not—it still would be the case that short- and long-term environmental influences, and short-term personal attributes such as mood, would merit consideration in any holistic model of political behavior. Human behavior is complex, and no one variable, or even one class of variables, will provide more than a partial explanation.

A corollary to the previous point is that researchers must thoughtfully combine personality traits and other variables in their empirical models. If the Big Five are heritable and precede individual-level predictors of political information, attitudes, or participation, then attitudes and other personal attributes could mediate the relationship between personality and the outcome of interest. Running a single regression with all independent variables, therefore, could overlook potential mediation and underestimate the effects of personality (Mondak et al., 2010 ). Instead, we encourage political psychologists to keep the possibility of mediation in mind by developing and testing hypotheses about the intricate pathways between personality and political behavior. 5

Third, researchers must explore formal interactions between traits and other antecedents of political behavior. We might theorize that political participation is influenced by variables such as personality, education, wealth, the availability of discretionary time, and the salience of politics in a person’s local context. This would lead us to include measures of each of those constructs in our statistical models. But these factors, and others, do not operate in isolation from one another or solely in terms of mediation from personality to political behavior. For example, if politics is particularly lacking in salience in a given context, perhaps only a few diehard super-citizens will be politically engaged. Conversely, if politics is highly salient, perhaps virtually everyone will participate. From these scenarios, it follows that the explanatory power of variables such as personality, education, or the availability of discretionary time might be the greatest when the salience of politics is between these two extremes. Similarly, it is conceivable that at some point the lack of discretionary time can become so severe as to trump all other factors. Variation in personality or education may not matter to the person who is working 80 hours per week, or who is the live-in caregiver for a gravely ill relative, because these commitments severely constrain the possibility of political engagement.

This discussion has implications for theory-building, as conditional relationships require that scholars devote careful consideration to the ways in which psychological factors and other sorts of variables may magnify or mute one another’s effects. The field needs to move toward development of richer theories. There are many ways that such theory-building can proceed, but the essential requirement of each is that when contemplating the potential impact of any given variable, we ask questions about whether that impact should be consistent across individuals. Should the impact be expected to be roughly the same for everyone, or, instead, should it be expected to vary systematically as a function of characteristics of the individual, the period in time under consideration, or the social and political context? Thinking through the logic of variable effects is much more challenging than assuming our factors all operate in manners wholly isolated from one another, but such effort is essential in order to offer comprehensive accounts of the antecedents of political behavior.

This attention to conditional effects suggests the need not only for more nuanced theories, but also for more intricate empirical research. When cataloguing the possible variable effects of our predictors, the systematic sources of variation we envision become testable hypotheses. To examine those hypotheses, we first must be sure to use appropriate research designs—if the time period and the social context might matter, then we have to make sure we have data from multiple time periods and multiple contexts—and then we must construct statistical tests that permit us to test whether two or more variables do, in fact, interact. This is especially important in the case of personality variables because the expression of personality effects is always contingent on people’s other characteristics and on the features of the particular situations people are in. 6

Our final point pertains to the value of broad-scale models of personality. A great deal of current research, including much of our own, makes use of the Big Five approach. We are not wedded to the Big Five to the exclusion of other trait taxonomies, and we recognize that improved frameworks are likely to be developed. But we do advocate that applied research on personality and politics make use of broad frameworks, even if only as a starting point, rather than homing in on the one or two personality traits that seem to be the closest matches to our dependent variables.

Two interrelated benefits come with use of broad personality taxonomies. The first is that such an approach contributes to a cumulative understanding of the role of personality. Thousands of adjectives describe personality traits. If different teams of scholars each focus on the one or two traits seemingly most pertinent to their research questions, those scholars inevitably will speak past one another. There will be no unifying framework to help us see how one set of findings connects to the next. This was the state of research on personality and politics in the 1960s and 1970s, giving the field what noted political psychologist Paul Sniderman ( 1975 , p. 16) referred to as “a jerry-built appearance.” Looking back on that same era, personality psychologists bemoaned the field’s lack of a common language. Whether it is the Big Five or some alternate, the use of a broad model of personality trait structure steers us away from these problems.

A second advantage of the use of holistic models is that doing so helps to avoid the generation of tautological findings. If we want to identify the factors that influence why some people choose to drive red sports cars, a measure of whether people like red sports cars would not be especially useful. Liking red sports cars is undoubtedly correlated with driving them, but pinpointing that correlation would teach us little. Instead, it would merely raise deeper questions about why people like red sports cars. The identified relationship would provide the illusion of understanding, but in actuality it only would kick the can down the road. Unfortunately, some research in political psychology resembles this example. For instance, research on the underpinnings of political tolerance has pointed to dogmatism as a possible influence, with dogmatism measured by the extent to which people agree or disagree with statements such as “A group which tolerates too many differences of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long.” The upshot of that work is that intolerance “predicts” intolerance—a true tautology. Similarly, and unsurprisingly, other research shows that a psychological predisposition toward authoritarianism strongly predicts citizens’ attitudes toward authoritarian leaders. 7 We can avoid such tautologies by using models that encompass a large portion of personality trait structure and that include independent variables that are conceptually distinct from the behaviors and attitudes we are seeking to explain. 8

The issues discussed in this section hopefully will encourage scholars to consider the most productive ways to study personality and politics. Our purpose in offering these suggestions is not to chastise researchers who have followed different courses. In our view, all work that pays serious attention to personality helps to add psychological realism to our explanations of political behavior. Moreover, given the still early state of the newest wave of research in this area, it is understandable that there have been both hits and misses. We are convinced that scholars working in this area can look forward to dramatic advances in the near future. With sufficient reflection on how best to study personality and politics, those advances hopefully will be larger in scope and sooner in coming.

Each of us possesses psychological tendencies, or personality traits, that help give rise to our characteristic ways of acting and thinking. We might be generous, impulsive, contemplative, or cantankerous. As political scientists, we care about personality because we seek to identify the many factors that lead to differences in how people engage the political world, and we expect personality traits to be among those factors. Personality is a fundamental source of trans-situational consistency in behavior within individuals and of systematic variation in behavior across individuals. 9 As such, research on personality can help us to understand basic differences in human behavior, including behavior that takes place in the realm of politics.

We have outlined a rationale for why personality traits can be important variables in research on comparative political behavior. More specifically, we have discussed the origins and content of the popular Big Five model of personality trait structure, we have reviewed that model’s applications in the study of political behavior, and we have offered a series of suggestions we feel may help future research in this area to be more fruitful.

One goal of this article is to present the logic of applied studies on personality and politics in the hope that readers will think both creatively and critically about the value of such research. But a second, and perhaps more important, goal is to situate personality within the expansive array of factors that shape human behavior. Personality matters. But so, too, do many other attributes of individuals and the contexts they inhabit. Personality is a piece of the puzzle, but true progress on any puzzle requires not only that we identify the pieces but also that we discover how they go together. We encourage students of comparative political behavior to consider the possible impact of psychological differences, and especially to do so in a manner that acknowledges that those differences are part of a complex, multifaceted, and dynamic analytical landscape.

• Alford, J. R. , Funk, C. L. , & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review , 99 , 153–167.
• Allport, G. W. , & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study . Psychological Monographs , 47 (Whole No. 211).
• The Americas Barometer by the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) .
• Barrick, M. R. , & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis . Personnel Psychology , 44 , 1–26.
• Bloeser, A. J. , Canache, D. , Mitchell, D. , Mondak, J. J. , & Poore, E. R. (2015). The temporal consistency of personality effects: Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey . Political Psychology , 36 , 331–340.
• Bloeser, A. J. , McCurley, C. , & Mondak, J. J. (2012). Jury service as civic engagement: Determinants of jury summons compliance . American Politics Research , 40 , 179–204.
• Booth-Kewley, S. , & Vickers, R. R. (1994). Associations between major domains of personality and health behavior . Journal of Personality , 62 , 281–298.
• Caprara, G. V. , & Vecchione, M. (2013). Personality approaches to political behavior. In L. Huddy , D. O. Sears , & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2d ed., pp. 23–58). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Costa, P. T. , & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 , 853–863.
• Eysenck, H. J. , & Wilson, G. D. (1978). The psychological basis of ideology . Lancaster, U.K.: MTP Press.
• Francis, L. J. , & Kay, W. K. (1995). The personality characteristics of Pentecostal ministry candidates . Personality and Individual Differences , 18 , 581–594.
• Gallego, A. , & Oberski, D. (2012). Personality and political participation: The mediation hypothesis . Political Behavior , 34 , 425–451.
• Gerber, A. S. , Huber, G. A. , Doherty, D. , & Dowling, C. M. (2011). Personality traits and the consumption of political information . American Politics Research , 39 , 32–84.
• Gerber, A. S. , Huber, G. A. , Doherty, D. , & Dowling, C. M. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits . American Journal of Political Science , 56 , 849–874.
• Gerber, A. S. , Huber, G. A. , Doherty, D. , Dowling, C. M. , & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts . American Political Science Review , 104 , 111–133.
• Ha, S. E. , Kim, S. , & Jo, S. H. (2013). Personality traits and political participation: Evidence from South Korea . Political Psychology , 34 , 511–532.
• Hibbing, M. V. , Ritchie, M. , & Anderson, M. R. (2011). Personality and political discussion. . Political Behavior , 33 , 601–624.
• Hirsh, J. B. , DeYoung, C. G. , Xu, X. , & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 , 655–664.
• Jost, J. T. , Glaser, J. , Kruglanski, A. W. , & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition . Psychological Bulletin , 129 , 339–375.
• Lounsbury, J. W. , Loveland, J. M. , & Gibson, L. W. (2003). An investigation of psychological sense of community in relation to Big Five personality traits . Journal of Community Psychology , 31 , 531–541.
• McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness . Psychological Bulletin , 120 , 323–337.
• McCrae, R. R. , & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal . American Psychologist , 52 , 509–516.
• McCrae, R. R. , Yik, M. S. M. , Trapnell, P. D. , Bond, M. H. , & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 , 1041–1055.
• Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior . New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Mondak, J. J. , Canache, D. , Seligson M. A. , & Hibbing, M. V. (2011). The participatory personality: Evidence from Latin America . British Journal of Political Science , 41 , 211–221.
• Mondak, J. J. , Hibbing, M. V. , Canache, D. , Seligson, M. A. , & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior . American Political Science Review , 104 , 85–110.
• Riemann, R. , Angleitner, A. , & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and environmental influences on personality: A study of twins reared together using the Self‐ and Peer Report NEO‐FFI Scales . Journal of Personality , 65 , 449–475.
• Sibley, C. G. , Osborne, D. , & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a threat–constraint model . Journal of Research in Personality , 46 , 664–677.
• Sniderman, P. M. (1975). Personality and democratic politics . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Tupes, E. C. , & Christal, R. E. (1958). Stability of personality trait rating factors obtained under diverse conditions . USAF WADC Technical Note No. 58–61. Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U.S. Air Force.
• van Deth, J. (2017). What is political participation? . In W. R. Thompson (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of politics .

1. A sample Big Five questionnaire can be found at http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/ .

2. We logged the responses to address concerns about socially desirable responding. For more on this matter, see Mondak ( 2010 ).

3. There is at most only scant evidence that everyday occurrences can alter an individual’s personality. Nonetheless, we describe personality as “mostly” rather than “wholly” internal to individuals because extreme environmental shocks—occurrences such as moving from one country to another very different one during one’s formative years (McCrae, Yik, Trapnell, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998 )—can imprint lasting changes on at least the expression of personality traits.

4. Hans Eysenck, one of the foremost figures in research on personality psychology, posited that biology influences broad psychological structures such as personality traits, which, in turn, affect more concrete constructs such as political ideology and attitudes. In short, personality plays a mediating role between biology and political views (e.g., Eysenck & Wilson, 1978 , pp. 219, 308). Similar perspectives are seen among leading proponents of the Big Five. For example, Robert McCrae is an important figure in the development of the Five-Factor framework. McCrae sees the Big Five trait dimensions as primarily rooted in biology and argues that an observed relationship between openness to experience and ideological liberalism signals the workings of a “psychological cause” on an “ideological effect” (1996, p. 326).

5. For empirical examinations of personality and mediation in political science, see Gallego and Oberski ( 2012 ) and Mondak et al. ( 2010 ).

6. Applied personality research is beginning to examine the conditional effects of personality from a theoretical and empirical perspective. For examples, see Bloeser et al. ( 2012 ), Mondak ( 2010 ), and Sibley et al. ( 2012 ).

7. To be sure, not all personality research on authoritarianism focuses on tautological findings. Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway’s ( 2003 ) prominent review of personality and political conservatism, for instance, identifies a number of significant nonredundant relationships involving personality variables associated with authoritarianism (e.g., the correlation between need for cognitive closure and self-reported conservatism).

8. Researchers interested in the aspects and facets of the Big Five thus should be cautious of generating tautological findings or ignoring past work on the main factors. Nevertheless, studies on trait aspects and facets can be valuable if they seek to corroborate, challenge, or clarify past findings based on the broad dimensions of the Big Five. Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu, and Peterson ( 2010 ), for instance, argued that previous studies had obtained null findings for the relationship between agreeableness and political ideology because they had failed to account for the conflicting influences of the trait dimension’s politeness and compassion aspects. According to Hirsh and his colleagues, politeness (compassion) is associated with higher scores of the conservative (liberal) value of order-traditionalism (egalitarianism).

9. If you can always count on Alice to be well prepared, that exemplifies trans-situational consistency. No matter the context, Alice behaves similarly. If you can always count on Alice to be well prepared and on Amber to be unprepared, that exemplifies systematic variation between individuals. No matter the context, Alice and Amber behave differently.

Related Articles

• Personality, Politics, and Religion
• Voter Information Processing and Political Decision Making

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 04 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|91.193.111.216]
• 91.193.111.216

Character limit 500 /500

What it takes to be a Political leader and important qualities of a Good Leader

Management is doing things right; Leadership is doing the right things.

– Peter Drucker

Mark Skousen says, “We shall never change our political leaders until we change the people who elect them.” Hence its important as citizens to elect the right leader who can create transformation.

But surprisingly today’s politicians say, “They are going to do one thing while they intend to do another. Then they do neither what they said nor what they intended.”

What it takes to be a good political leader?

A good political leader is one who is capable to take decisions, determined to work for the betterment, has the willingness to manage & rectify issues and importantly stand up for what is right. A political leader should not be worried about his/her position, power and authority. He should always work for the growth of the society and should value his citizens. Every political leader should inherit the skills and research capabilities to think and act towards future growth. A successful leader, should have five major virtues: Discipline, Trustworthiness, Courage, Humaneness, Intelligence.

Of all the leadership roles, political leaders are always on top of everyone’s mind because they are in the news always for one reason or the other. Around the world there are many aspiring political leaders but unfortunately, there are few leaders who live up to the ethics and principles. 

“The future lies with those wise political leaders who realize that the great public is interested more in Government than in Politics.”

– Franklin D. Roosevelt

To better understand leaders visit

Click here.

In India, most of the political leaders lack the basic and important leadership qualities such as accountability, transparency, availability and integrity. Some of these leaders even indulge in corruption and other illegal activities. In the present generation the word “ political leaders ” has a negative opinion on the citizens, which is not a surprise. However, the present developments show us that the upcoming young leaders are following the leadership ideals. We are seeing some positive changes in Indian politics, which is welcoming.

Having responsible politicians in the governing body is important as they are the decision makers of the country, state and other public affairs. They have the power to manage, distribute the economic resources, build relationships with stakeholders and make decisions that can have a great impact on the well-being of a nation. As a responsible citizens we expect our politicians to focus more on long-term plans for the wellness of the nation than the short-term plans. 

Responsibility is one of the most important leadership qualities. Most political leaders point fingers at other leaders rather than taking the responsibility upon them. Leaders should acknowledge other leaders contribution towards society. They should accept their own faults/ failures /mistakes and should always work towards their betterment.

A leader who is honest, accountable and takes responsibility for his/her own decisions and actions has the quality to become a great leader.

“Not all civil servants admire strong political leadership. But if you want to change things for the better, you need strong political leadership”. – Harriet Harman

Important Qualities of a good political leader:

• He/she must be capable of making tough and brave decisions for better future of public.
• He/she should have the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said rather than just tell what people like.
• He/she should work for people’s well-being rather than fighting for their better political positions.
• He/she must listen to the people and represent them faithfully.
• He/she should be loyal to the people he/she represents. And he/she should be loyal to other leaders so that they can work together and face problems together.
• Regardless of political parties and opinions, one should work with a range of other peoples to achieve the greatest good for the general public.
• He/she should resist themselves from various temptations of the political arena.
• He/she should be humble and down to earth. He/she should consider that he is just a leader and not owner of the people he represents.

Importance of leadership in society:

• Leadership is instrumental for social change. Overcoming social problems or modernizing and abolishing social norms has been impossible without the right kind of leadership.
• Leaders work for goodness of society, respect their people’s voice, creates a positive and happy society, and keep these people motivated and inspired.
• Leadership will emphasize the importance of education, picking the right career, working hard and focusing on performance.
• Some communities and societies are often remembered by their leaders and its exceptional social phenomenon that one leader can’t shape the future of the general public. They make them feel closer to each other and strengthen their bonds.
• Leader has a capable of visualize the people needs from different angles and plan things accordingly. This would enable proper distribution of development and ensure productive results.

www.myleaders.in

Characteristics of a Good Leader Argumentative Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

What makes a good leader of a country?

A leader can be defined as someone who leads others. According to Greer, “a leader can be someone who is in charge or commands others in an organization or a country” (30). Leadership cannot be based solely on an individual’s responsibility. It is important to add that a leader is not just about politics.

Thus, leaders can be found in every sector including sports, entertainment, and corporate sector among other areas. The argument about leadership focus on: what are the right qualities? What should the leaders do to strengthen these qualities? How are these qualities developed? This paper seeks to argue the qualities that ultimately define a good leader in a country.

To answer the question on what makes a good leader appropriate, it is important to acknowledge that traditional qualities that have defined a good leader such as aptitude, strength, determination, and vision are not sufficient in today’s world. In this changing world, a leader- in addition to the listed qualities- needs a high degree of emotional intelligence.

A look at history can reveal a number of highly skilled and intelligent leaders who took over leadership of their country only for them to perform dismally. Therefore, it can be concluded that finding the right leader is an art and science. Notably, “although leaders may share general qualities, each leader has a personal style of doing things. Some leaders are passive and analytical while others are very proactive and confrontational” (Daft and Lane 52).

Another important thing to acknowledge is that a leader, especially in a country or state, will often face different situations that will often require different approaches. While pursuing diplomacy, the leader will be required to be a sensitive negotiator; while consoling victims of a disaster, the leader will need to show empathy and comfort; when dealing with state enemies, the leader is needed to have a forceful authority.

The general conclusion, in my opinion, is that, to be leader, intelligence, hard work, and vision are important aspects to consider. However, even with all these, a leader should have the emotional intelligence to be successful and sustain the leadership status that is made possible by the primary characteristics listed.

There are various aspects of emotional intelligence that are critical to good leadership. According to Goleman, “they include self-awareness, enthusiasm and responsiveness. Others include group skills and self-regulation” (21). Researchers have carried out studies in the corporate world, and the results have shown that emotional intelligence is often what distinguishes the outstanding leader.

The first component I analyze is the aspect of self-awareness. This refers to the ability to have a deep understanding of one’s emotions, strengths, weaknesses, motivational factors. To be self aware means that one is honest with his or herself. It also implies that the individual is neither critical of others nor unrealistic.

Further, individuals who are self aware can predict how different emotions will affect them and the performance of their work. For example, a leader who has self awareness may know that interviews with the press often make him or her nervous. Therefore, it is prudent to avoid such interviews and choose other methods of communication.

The same self awareness can be applied when it comes to ideals and values in which an individual believes. It has often been said that a leader who does not believe in anything will fall for anything. Therefore, the leader with self-awareness will be able to turn down an investor’s request to set up a big industry in the country if that investment will hurt the environment.

Weak leaders who lack self awareness will accept to do something, but after two or three years down the line, they will rescind their decision. It can be noted that people who have self awareness are coherent and articulate. They are able to speak openly and precisely tackle the areas they are addressing. They are also able to describe themselves accurately (Northouse 154).

The other component of emotional intelligence is self regulation. From the onset, it is important to acknowledge that emotions are part human life. Although humans cannot do away with emotions, it is possible to control and manage them.

Self regulation is the ability to manage and control one’s feelings in order to make one free from distractions. In this case, individuals should also be able to direct these feelings to a useful channel. For example, a leader may witness a shambolic presentation by members of his cabinet to a key investor.

With the disappointment, the leader may feel the urge to kick a chair or bang the table which will bring a negative side of him to the investors. Therefore, self-regulation is the ability to apologize to the investor and carefully select the words that will authoritatively, yet humbly explain to the members of the cabinet the areas that will need to be corrected. Another example is when the leader of a country faces a threat of attack from another country.

In such a delicate matter, one wrong move can cost the country in many ways. However, if the leader maintains calmness, does not panic, and can prepare the relevant stakeholders to deal with the problem, then the effect is different, and the damage can be controlled.

Self-regulation is also a strong pillar of integrity. Thornton noted, “on many occasions, people with integrity are often caught in decisions that lack integrity” (p.13). Although such leaders have integrity, they lack self-regulation, which often enhances integrity. An example is a leader who is faced with a crisis and has no solution for the crisis.

In the heat of things, the leaders may decide to apply a solution that is outside the law. Thus, although the action may have been intended to help the country, lack of self regulation may lead the leader to undermine his own integrity. The third aspect of emotional intelligence is motivation. It is almost an unwritten rule that a good leader should have motivation. In this context, motivation refers to the urge to achieve.

A motivated leader is one who is never contented with the status quo. They are always striving to do better things and doing them differently. Such leaders often raise the performance bar, and they keep track of the scores. In this case, a good example is Thomas Sankara, the slain leader of Burkina Faso from Africa. Sankara became the leader of Burkina Faso at a time when the country was reliant on donor funds.

Uncomfortable, with the status quo, he led his countrymen on an overdrive to practice farming to a level that had hitherto been unseen. The country was for the first time able to feed all its population without the aid from foreign countries. The same leader introduced a government policy requiring all top government officials to stop the usage of the extravagant Mercedes Benzes. Instead, government officials were encouraged to use the modest Volkswagen vehicles so as to save money for increment of teacher’s salaries.

The fourth component of emotional integrity is empathy. The uniqueness of this component is that, unlike the aforementioned components, this component is very easy to identify and recognize. However, the modern world will rarely reward a leader in business or politics on account of empathy. In this case, the conventional understanding of empathy is to be able to take other peoples’ feelings and give them priority as if they were one’s own.

In this context, empathy refers to the ability of the leader to consider the interests of all stakeholders when making decisions. The last component is the idea of social skills. The two components are related as they are concerned with the ability to establish meaningful relationships with other people. A leader is always leading and managing people. Thus, a good leader should be able to get along with these people.

From the discussion, it is clear that, to lead a country, a great team is what will deliver great leadership. However, in every country, there is a leader. Some are led by a monarch, others by dictators, or others like the United States by a democratically elected leader. In monarchs and dictatorships, leaderships will tend to be highly concentrated around an individual.

On the other hand, democracies allow power to be decentralized to other institutions like the parliament, judiciary and the executive. The common denominator is that, whether the power is decentralized or centralized, the leader or leaders of the country need to possess certain qualities to lead the country effectively. The argument put forward is that, apart from the conventional qualities, a good leader of a country should possess the quality of emotional intelligence.

Works Cited

Daft, Richard, and Patricia Lane. The Leadership Experience . Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western, 2008. Print.

Goleman, Daniel. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ . London: Bloomsbury, 1996. Print.

Greer, Eddie. “Dare To Lead: Continuous Learning Creates The Best Leaders.” Professional Safety, 56.6 (2011): 30-31. Print.

Northouse, Peter. Leadership: Theory and Practice . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2010. Print.

Thornton, Grant. What makes a good leader? 2008. Web. www.grant-thornton.co.uk/pdf/20-leadership-report.pdf

• Qualities That Make You a Good Leader
• Intelligence in What Makes a Leader? by D. Goleman
• Individual Presentation and Plan: Developing Self-Awareness
• Political Firsts: Hiram Rhodes Revels and Romualdo Pacheco
• Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards
• Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy: Partners or Opponents?
• Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia
• A Critical Evaluation of Criteria for a Successful Presidency from a Citizen’s Perspective
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 18). Characteristics of a Good Leader. https://ivypanda.com/essays/qualities-of-a-good-leader/

"Characteristics of a Good Leader." IvyPanda , 18 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/qualities-of-a-good-leader/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Characteristics of a Good Leader'. 18 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Characteristics of a Good Leader." June 18, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/qualities-of-a-good-leader/.

1. IvyPanda . "Characteristics of a Good Leader." June 18, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/qualities-of-a-good-leader/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Characteristics of a Good Leader." June 18, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/qualities-of-a-good-leader/.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• ISQ Data Archive
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About International Studies Quarterly
• About the International Studies Association
• Editorial Team
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, populism in comparative and international politics, leadership style and personality of populist leaders, political leaders and lta in fpa, methodology and data, results and discussion.

• < Previous

The Personality Traits of Populist Leaders and Their Foreign Policies: Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Consuelo Thiers, Leslie E Wehner, The Personality Traits of Populist Leaders and Their Foreign Policies: Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump, International Studies Quarterly , Volume 66, Issue 1, March 2022, sqab083, https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqab083

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This paper seeks to advance the study of the nexus of populism and foreign policy by showing the connection between the personality traits of the leader and the foreign policy behavior of the state that they represent. It focuses on the political personality profiles of two populist leaders who can be characterized as antiplural, Hugo Chávez and Donald Trump, as a way to empirically further substantiate the recent research agenda on populism in world politics. The paper builds the two populist leaders’ political profiles through the use of the leader trait analysis approach. It contends that there are patterns in populist leaders’ personalities that can act as key drivers of their noncooperative and conflict-inducing behavior in foreign policy. The results show the characteristics that appear as the strongest predictors of their behavior in the international arena are their low task orientation and high focus on relationships.

Este artículo busca avanzar el estudio del nexo entre populismo y política exterior al demostrar la relación entre los rasgos de personalidad del líder y el comportamiento del Estado en política exterior al que dicho líder representa. El artículo analiza los perfiles de personalidad política de dos líderes populistas que pueden ser caracterizados como antiplurales; Hugo Chávez y Donald Trump. El estudio de los rasgos de personalidad de estos dos líderes es una forma de fundamentar de manera empírica la reciente agenda de investigación sobre el populismo en la política mundial. En este estudio, se detallan los perfiles políticos de ambos líderes populistas mediante el uso del enfoque de análisis de rasgos de líderes (LTA). Se sostiene que existen patrones en las personalidades de los líderes populistas que pueden ayudar a explicar su tipo de comportamiento no cooperativo e, incluso, conflictivo en política exterior. Los resultados demuestran que los rasgos que aparecen como los predictores más fuertes de su comportamiento en el ámbito internacional son su baja orientación hacia la tarea y su alto enfoque en las relaciones interpersonales.

Cet article cherche à faire progresser l’étude de la relation entre populisme et politique étrangère en montrant la relation entre traits de caractère du dirigeant et comportement en politique étrangère de l’État qu'il représente. Il se concentre sur les profils de personnalité politique de deux dirigeants populistes qui peuvent être caractérisés comme antipluralistes, Hugo Chávez et Donald Trump, afin de continuer à étayer empiriquement le récent programme de recherche sur le populisme dans les politiques mondiales. Cet article établit les profils politiques des deux dirigeants populistes en utilisant une approche méthodologique d'analyse des traits de caractère des dirigeants. Il soutient qu'il existe des modèles dans les personnalités des dirigeants populistes qui peuvent agir comme des facteurs clés de leur comportement non coopératif et conflictuel en politique étrangère. Les résultats montrent que les caractéristiques qui apparaissent comme prédicteurs les plus forts du comportement de ces dirigeants dans l'arène internationale sont leur faible centration sur la tâche et leur forte concentration sur les relations.

The phenomenon of populist leadership has received increasing attention in international relations (IR). Part of this attention is due to the international actions of former US president Donald Trump (2017–2021). However, populist leadership has a long tradition in Latin America too. While Trump undermined the stability of the liberal international order and his actions have been depicted as illogic ( Drezner 2020 ), the same can also be said about the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez (1999–2013). He escalated tensions with the United States to fuel his socialist project at home and competed with Brazil as a regional power by offering alternative models of regional order and institutions. Chávez also threatened to withdraw Venezuela's membership of the Organization of American States on different occasions. He even mobilized troops on the border with Colombia to support his ally Ecuador instead of adopting a mediating role, as other South American countries did. Similarly, Trump's relations with the world have been characterized as unpredictable and erratic ( Drezner 2020 ). His actions would undermine the stability of the liberal international order when, for instance, he withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran, affecting the stability of the Middle East and the security of the United States’ key allies in the region. Trump also adopted economic nationalism, targeted friends and foes through tariff wars, and withdrew the United States from key climate change accords. He also shamed NATO member states for not contributing enough to the costs of this institution and threatened on several occasions to withdraw US participation of it.

These examples show that some antiplural populist leaders tend to adopt noncooperative, conflict-driven, and even hostile behavioral patterns in the international system. Their somewhat unpredictable and sometimes erratic behavior also amplify the difficulties for other states to establish stable patterns of cooperation with these leaders. How, then, can IR scholarship make sense of these types of behaviors by certain populist leaders? While some of these behaviors can be attributed to the ideologies that align with populist projects, such as nationalism, socialism, and even a fierce defense of sovereignty, these approaches can be complemented with studies also offering an assessment of the psychology of populist leaders.

While not all populist leaders’ foreign policy behavior can be explained by personality traits alone, we contend that the latter can help understand their noncooperative and conflict-inducing actions in the international system. We understand this type of behavior as a series of threats and actions taken by the leader that undermine collaboration between states within multilateral institutions, as well as the actions that undermine bilateral relations—ranging from the use of threats, to coercive measures, to possible military action. Thus, this paper addresses the following question: Are there patterns in populist leaders’ personalities that can act as key drivers of their noncooperative and conflict-inducing behavior?

We argue that the tendency of populists to react in hostile ways to regional and international peers and institutions starts from the psychological characteristics of the leader, and not just from the type of ideology driving the populist government around notions of people versus elite and the general will. We tackle the research question with the leadership trait analysis (LTA) framework pioneered by Hermann (1980 , 2003) . This approach is an at-a-distance assessment technique to study the personality profiles of leaders through the use of seven traits. Within this framework, we argue that populists’ personal characteristics tend to differ from other world leaders; further, in line with the populist triad “people–elite–general will,” these individuals’ reasons for seeking power play a relevant role in the populist leadership style seen.

We focus on Trump and Chávez as cases from the Global North and Global South, respectively. Most of the existing studies on populist foreign policy center exclusively on leaders from either the Global North or the Global South but not on both in tandem (e.g., Chryssogelos 2017 ; Destradi and Plagemann 2019 ; Plagemann and Destradi 2019 ; Wojczewski 2019a , 2019b ; Wehner and Thies 2021 ). The study of Trump and his unpredictable behavior has been analyzed as a unique case in IR (see Drezner 2020 ). However, when compared with other cases from the Global South such as the one of Chávez, we can draw important lessons on the importance of personal characteristics for understanding states’ international behavior through the figure of the leader. A study that brings together these two cases is but an initial step and calls for more comparative work to be done on populist leaders beyond their individual ideologies. In fact, an agent-centered perspective like the one adopted here can also contribute to and complement recent debates in IR on revisionism and the patterns of instability vis-à-vis the international liberal order that populist leaders tend to bring with their actions (e.g., see Nye 2017 ; Ikenberry 2018 ; Jervis et al. 2018 ; Adler-Nissen and Zarakol 2020 ; Lake, Martin, and Risse 2021 ).

The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows: First, we assess the different conceptualizations of populism in comparative and international politics and show their lack of attention to the personal attributes of the leader. Second, we offer a brief theorization on leadership in general and populist leadership in particular, as well as outline our expectations in light of the analytical benefits of LTA. Third, we specify our research design. Fourth, we conduct an empirical analysis to determine populist leaders’ personality traits that can help explain their noncooperative and conflict-inducing foreign policy behavior, which seems detrimental to the stability of the international liberal order. Fifth and finally, we offer a comparison of our cases and identify some avenues for future research on populist figures’ personalities and their attitudes toward the international order at the interplay of foreign policy analysis (FPA) and IR debates.

The study of populism in international politics has been built out of the different theories of the phenomenon within comparative politics. The most used approaches have been the ideational and discursive ones, while not much ink has been expended on the study of populism as a political strategy in international politics. In the ideational strand, populism is defined as a “thin-centered” ideology that usually coexists with “thicker” ideologies such as socialism or liberalism or even other “thinner” ones like nationalism ( Mudde and Kaltwasser 2017 ; Destradi and Plagemann 2019 ). Meanwhile, the discursive approach follows the work of Laclau (2005) , in which the phenomenon of populism becomes a structuring discourse for a new reality as a consequence of dislocation in the hegemonic discourse. People, elite, and general will are empty signifiers that are filled with meaning by the discursive practice of the leader (see Laclau 2005 ). In the political strategy approach, the leader articulates a political strategy to connect with the people as a way to achieve and then retain political power. If anything, the leader goes beyond their own core beliefs to perform a strategic act that consolidates their power—depending on the opportunities they create and the context they face ( Weyland 2001 ).

These three classical understandings of populism in comparative politics share a common core: the triad of people, elite, and general will. “The people” is an abstract and diffuse social construction that gives plenty of room for the populist leader to stretch, manipulate, and construct its meaning. “The elite” is usually the political and economic elite of the country; when it comes to the global dimension, references are to a “cosmopolitan elite” ( Wehner and Thies 2021 ). Thus, populism for some leaders is about rescuing the native values of the country and people in contrast to a cosmopolitan elite that rules and undermines the people as sovereign of a given country or region (see Chryssogelos 2020 ). Finally, “general will” reflects the populist leader's belief that only they know what the people desire and want (see Mudde and Kaltwasser 2017 ). This triad is thus expected to be present and manifest in the rhetoric of the populist leader, and, above all, in the foreign policy behavior of the state under their mandate ( Wehner and Thies 2021 ). The internationalization of this triad in global politics is what makes the latter populist in nature.

The above-explained three streams of research in comparative politics have been brought into the study of populism in international politics too. Although populist leadership is a present and pressing phenomenon in different national settings around the world, the eventual manifestations of it, specifically in the international politics of a given country, have only recently started to receive academic attention (see Chryssogelos 2017 ; Destradi and Plagemann 2019 ; Stengel, MacDonald, and Nabers 2019 ; Wehner and Thies 2021 ). Not much has been said, then, on the relationship between the personality profiles of populist leaders and their international behavior. Most of the scholarly interest in populism and international politics has revolved around whether there is a relationship between the two, what kind of influence populism has on international politics, how populist leaders undermine and are a threat to the liberal order, and the type of discourses and ideologies that populist leaders advance internationally (see Chryssogelos 2017 ; Destradi and Plagemann 2019 ; Stengel, MacDonald, and Nabers 2019 ). In fact, the personality traits of the so-called populist leader and whether they account for the foreign policy patterns of a given state have not yet received due scholarly attention.

Drezner (2020) advances the study of the psychological aspects informing the leadership style of Trump. He shows how his unique personality traits intersected with the growing prerogatives that the US presidency enjoys as an institution. Drezner uses three traits to study Trump's presidential style: quick temper, short concentration span, and poor impulse control. The conclusion is that: “As President, Trump has acted like many toddlers: he is bad at building structures, but fantastic at making a complete mess of existing ones” ( Drezner 2020 , 400). While this work shows the potential to develop a research agenda on the psychology of populist leaders, its claim that Trump's personality traits are unique makes using it in comparisons with other leaders difficult. Likewise, Destradi and Plagemann (2019) show how populist leaders tend toward the personalization of the foreign policy-making process. They also posit that the impact populist projects have on global politics depends on an ideology being in play. It is thus the combination of thin–thick ideology that explains foreign policy behavior, rather than existing personality traits. Nevertheless, Destradi and Plagemann (2019) call in their study for more empirical analysis to uncover the political personality profiles of populist leaders.

Despite the above-mentioned calls for psychological studies on populist leaders in international politics, the research focus has been so far on whether there is such a thing as a “populist foreign policy” and, if this is indeed the case, what distinguishes it from a nonpopulist one. Verbeek and Zaslove (2017) assess the relationship between populism and foreign policy and conclude there is no one type thereof. The core ideology informing the populist project is key for the different types of foreign policy seen. The ideology that populism is paired with is thus integral to elucidating whether a populist foreign policy is for or against the liberal order ( Wehner and Thies 2021 ). Similarly, Stengel, MacDonald, and Nabers (2019) provide an understanding of the manifestations of populism in world politics and highlight the different existing gaps in the study of the nexus of populism and foreign policy—but without directly referring to leaders’ traits, profiles, and belief systems.

Other works using the thin-centered concept of populism also go in a different direction from that of the leader figure and their personal characteristics. Sagarzazu and Thies (2019) look at the populist rhetoric of Chávez as driven by anti-imperialist notions. Further, the type of discourse and rhetoric that populist actors unfold in the foreign policy realm is also crucial in the researching thereof ( Wojczewski 2019a ; Zeemann 2019 ). Others evaluate the utility of the concept of “populism” and tend to characterize it at the international level as “antiplural” ( Chryssogelos 2017 ; Plagemann and Destradi 2019 ). Moreover, some have analyzed populist movements that seek to advance an anticosmopolitan agenda and thus target and undermine the European Union integration project ( Stavrakakis et al. 2017 ; Ivaldi 2018 ). More recently, the journal Foreign Affairs has become home to a number of analyses of how populist leaders are a threat to liberal democracy and thus the current international order ( Zakaria 2016 ; Colgan and Keohane 2017 ; Nye 2017 ).

Özdamar and Ceydilek (2020) are an exception here, as they unpack the sociocognitive aspects of different populist leaders in Europe using the operational code analysis framework to establish whether these individuals are overall cooperative or hostile toward other actors. However, this study includes only one leader who has made it to power in a European country: Viktor Orbán in Hungary. The rest of the cases—such as Marine Le Pen (France), Geert Wilders (Netherlands), Nigel Farage (Britain), Jimmie Åkesson (Sweden), Frauke Petry (Germany), and Norbert Hofer (Austria)—have not made it to power as head of state and/or government. Therefore, unlike this study, we intend to assess the personality traits of two populist leaders who did make it to power—as it is here where they were formally able to put their own imprint on the foreign policy-making process and thus affect both regional and international orders.

Thus, the international politics literature goes in different directions per the varying concepts and theories of populism articulated within comparative politics. Above all, these works tend to overlook such leaders’ characteristics and personality traits. If populists advance antiplural, anticosmopolitan, and antidemocratic agendas, or possibly quite the opposite, then in all these cases the leader's characteristics may have some degree of influence on the decision-making processes—and thus they should be considered as a key aspect in the study of the nexus of populism and international politics. Likewise, personality traits are expected to shape, affect, and thus explain how populism as a strategy, discourse, and thin ideology is advanced in the international realm.

It is hard to think about populist leaders without associating them with specific characteristics and a particular style of rule. The study of populist leadership styles has drawn scholarly attention from numerous fields and perspectives. For instance, these individuals’ particular communication style and rhetoric have been widely described ( Jagers and Walgrave 2007 ; Bos and Brants 2014 ; Ahmadian, Azarshahi, and Paulhus 2017 ; Ernst et al. 2019 ; Nai 2021 ). Heinisch (2003) refers to populists’ style as generally drawing on agitation, spectacular acts, exaggeration, and calculated provocations, as well as also being characterized by using recourse to commonsense arguments, stereotyping, and extreme emotions to induce fear. On the other hand, Bos and Brants (2014) describe the populist style as a case of being straightforward, emphasizing decisiveness, and criticizing others.

Populist leadership has been usually conflated with charismatic leadership and the idea of a strongman/strongwoman leading the masses while possessing the capacity to impose decisions in a top-down manner ( Weyland 2001 ). However, there is much greater variety in leadership types among populists than just the strongman/strongwoman. Populist leaders need to be creative in differentiating themselves from the established elite that they question, and they do so by highlighting their outsider status from political life through gender, ethnic, and professional markers ( Mudde and Kaltwasser 2017 ). Thus, populism refers to leadership as the need for “the most extraordinary individuals to lead the most ordinary of people” ( Taggart 2000 , 1).

From a psychological perspective, some scholarly work has been done to unravel the specific personality traits of populist leaders, although not by using LTA. For instance, Nai and Martínez i Coma (2019) use personality inventories to assess populist leaders, finding that they score low on agreeableness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness. These leaders also scored higher on extraversion, narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Some specific work has already been conducted on the two leaders addressed in this paper. Fortunato, Hibbing, and Mondak (2018) stress the relevance of Trump's personality, indicating that his campaign was about his personality, the voter's own one, and the connection between the two. Similarly, Nai and Maier (2018) also assessed Trump's personality during his election campaign and found that he was rated very low on agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, average on openness, and very high on extraversion and the “dark triad” (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism).

Meanwhile, research conducted on Chávez's personality using well-established psychological tools is less prolific. However, it is possible to find references to his leadership style to explain his political behavior and support from constituents. Weyland (2003) argues that Venezuela's domestic crisis created a psychological need to believe in salvation and a potential bearer of it. These problems allowed for situational charisma, which Chávez used to boost his populist leadership style. Weyland (2003) also suggests that Chávez's support depended partially on his own personal characteristics, such as crude diction and belligerent rhetoric. In addition, Chávez's oratorical and improvisation skills are usually recognized as relevant features of his leadership style. Frajman (2014) refers to Chávez's charisma and strong personality as elements that helped maintain an emotionally charged connection with his followers. He stresses here Chávez's loquaciousness and overconfidence, as he would talk to the public weekly for hours on end for over a decade.

While the studies presented above are helpful to understand the need to determine and unpack the key psychological features that help explain populists’ behavior, these traits have hitherto not been directly connected to their international politics. Populist leaders, especially those that rely on antiplural and antiliberal rhetoric, are presented as undermining the international order, as their actions enhance patterns of noncooperation. In other words, understanding how the personality traits of such antiplural leaders inform their international choices becomes paramount.

The assessment of political leaders has a long tradition in FPA. One of the first works to initiate the systematic analysis of leaders as decision-makers in foreign policy appeared in 1954 with Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin ( Hudson 2002 ; Levy 2003 ; Hermann 2009 ). It acknowledges the importance of focusing on decision-makers, for it is the way individuals perceive or interpret events that determines the behavior of a particular state and its foreign policy decisions ( Levy 2003 ; Hermann 2009 ). The study of personality or political behavior makes sense when we consider the central axiom of political psychology, namely that the actions taken by a leader are shaped and channeled by their personality and particular perceptions, memories, judgments, goals, means of expression, and emotional self-regulation ( Winter 2003 ).

Hudson (2013) has argued that in the field of IR what happens between nations originates from decisions made by humans, whether acting individually or collectively. Thus, the foundations of IR are the human beings who make those decisions, who cannot be thought of either as strict rational actors or as abstract entities equivalent to the state ( Hudson 2013 ). People thus affect how international issues are framed, the options considered, the choices made, and what is ultimately implemented ( Hermann 2009 ). Consequently, the study of political leaders has been approached from different perspectives. These studies have focused on leaders’ personal characteristics, cognitions, motives, and psychobiographical analysis ( George 1969 ; Holsti 1970 ; Hermann 1980 ; Levi and Tetlock 1980 ; Post 2003 ; Malici and Malici 2005 ; Dyson 2006 ; Schafer and Walker 2006a ; Kesgin 2013 ; van Esch and Swinkels 2015 ; Cuhadar et al. 2017 ; Thiers 2021 ).

Within studies emphasizing personality traits, the LTA model—whose leading proponent is, as noted, Hermann—classifies leaders’ predominant strategies and styles in approaching foreign policy issues. Leadership style is defined as “the ways in which leaders relate to those around them, whether constituents or other leaders—how they structure interactions and the norms, rules, and principles they use to guide such interactions” ( Kaarbo and Hermann 1998 , 244). LTA has produced robust and reliable results in the study of both leaders’ traits and the influence of such traits on foreign policy (see Kaarbo 2018 ). Hermann (2003) recognizes seven specific traits that are useful in assessing leadership style: (1) belief that one can control events; (2) need for power; (3) conceptual complexity; (4) self-confidence; (5) tendency to focus on problem-solving versus maintenance of the group; (6) distrust; and (7) in-group bias (see  table 1 ).

Personality traits in LTA

Source : Hermann (2003) .

These sets of traits on their own or as pairs or triplets, as presented in  table 2 , will be critical to assess potential similarities and differences between Trump and Chávez in shedding further light on their respective tendencies to adopt noncooperative and conflict-inducing behavior at the international level. As outlined earlier in the paper, noncooperative behavior refers to a series of threats and actions taken by the leader that undermine collaboration between states in multilateral institutions (be they regional or international) as well as the actions that undermine bilateral relations, ranging from the use of threats, to coercive measures, to possible military action. Additionally, Hermann (2003) proposes three questions that can be used to build a profile of leadership styles. Each question addresses some of the personality traits mentioned earlier.

Questions for identifying personality traits

As shown in our literature review, populist leaders tend to exhibit a personalistic approach to advancing policy-making processes. They have also been depicted as rogue actors who undermine international cooperation, installing themselves as representatives of the people versus an established elite and acting on behalf of the general will. Thus, we expect to find differences between these leaders and the average world leader's personality traits. We also expect to see similar patterns in the personality traits that drive leaders to prioritize building relationships and taking actions that sustain the nexus leader–people at the expense of more cooperative relationships with other international actors and domestic elite groups that do not follow the premises of the populist project.

Within the three dimensions proposed by Hermann (2003) ( table 2 ), the traits that could best help explain populists’ foreign policy behavior are the ones that correspond to the third question about leaders’ motivations for seeking office. Leaders may be driven by an internal focus (a problem), a specific cause, an ideology, or a set of interests, or by the desire for feedback such as acceptance, power support, or acclaim from those in their surrounding environment (a relationship) ( Hermann 2003 ). In assessing motivation, the focus is put on why the leader sought office and their need to preserve and secure the group ( Hermann 2003 ). Considering Hermann's (2003) framework, we expect that populist leaders—in this case, Chávez and Trump—share a focus on relationships (low task orientation), high in-group bias, and high levels of distrust.

Task orientation versus relationships : Leaders who are highly focused on achieving a given task emphasize moving the group forward toward a goal, push the group to work on solving a particular problem, and are willing to sacrifice a high level of morale in the group for accomplishing that task ( Hermann 2003 ). Conversely, relationship-oriented leaders are sensitive to what people want; they emphasize group maintenance, retain constituents’ loyalty, and keep morale high ( Hermann 2003 ). Populist leaders’ main characteristic is their personal and direct relationship with the people that they represent. Moreover, as soon as the leader feels betrayed by their people and closer group, the populist tends to redefine the meaning of the people and inner circle of advisors. Shaming the ones who are no longer part of the group is part of the leader's repertoire. Thus, we expect both Chávez and Trump to have a stronger focus on relationships compared to their task orientation. We consider populist leaders to be more prone to maintaining their followers (the people) in foreign policy issues, which may explain why their decisions seem less cooperative and, at times, utilitarian and erratic. Our expectation is also in line with the results obtained by Kesgin (2020) , who compared Israel's prime ministers and found that leaders who are labeled as hawks have a strong relationship focus compared to dovish peers.

In-group bias : Leaders who present high scores on this trait have a strong emotional attachment to the in-group (social, political, ethnic) and are prone to perceive only the good aspects of their group and deny their weaknesses ( Hermann 2003 ). They are concerned when other groups, organizations, or countries try to meddle in their own group's internal affairs ( Hermann 2003 ). These leaders tend to see the world in “us versus them” terms, which is in line with the description of populists. While we expect to find high levels of in-group bias in the case of both Chávez and Trump, research on this trait and its relationship with conflict-inducing foreign policy behavior has had mixed results. For instance, Shannon and Keller (2007) found that in-group bias is a good predictor of leaders’ willingness to violate international norms. On the other hand, and at odds with his original prediction, Kesgin (2020) found that this trait does not help distinguish between hawkish and dovish leaders. Lazarevska, Sholl, and Young (2006) compared the verbal expressions of terrorist and nonterrorist leaders to identify common characteristics in their communication styles. Contrary to their expectations, they found that individuals in the terrorist group have lower in-group bias scores than nonterrorist political leaders do.

High distrust of others : This is another relevant trait that could help explain populist leaders’ noncooperative and sometimes hostile international behavior. Leaders who score high in distrust are more suspicious about the motives and actions of others, especially those who are seen as competitors. These leaders tend to be vigilant and hypersensitive to criticism. Distrust has been widely associated with noncooperative and conflict-inducing behavior in foreign policy. For instance, Kesgin (2020) found that distrust is one of the traits that can, in fact, help differentiate between hawkish and dovish leaders. Shannon and Keller (2007) identified high distrust as the most important predictor of leaders’ willingness to violate international rules. Wesley (2013) linked George W. Bush's unusually high levels of distrust with his incorrect belief about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, which led to the 2003 US invasion. Through the analysis of British prime ministers, Foster and Keller (2020) show that those high in distrust are particularly likely to initiate militarized state disputes when levels of economic deterioration increase. All these studies support the assumption that populist leaders will score high on this trait.

The LTA approach involves a content analysis technique developed to address the difficulty and sometimes impossibility of conducting a conventional psychological evaluation of political leaders. Hermann (2008) indicates that the content analysis method provides a tool to collect information about leaders’ beliefs, motives, and relationships with equals, subordinates, and constituents. This at-a-distance approach's central premise is that psychological characteristics can be assessed through the systematic analysis of what leaders say. Hermann's (2003) assumption is that the more often leaders use certain words and phrases, the more significant such content is to them. Hence, the LTA model is quantitative and uses frequency counts ( Hermann 2003 ). Hermann's technique has produced a sample of 284 world political leaders to date, generating norms that allow for comparisons between them across both time and space ( Cuhadar et al. 2017 ). LTA has also produced norming groups separated into world regions to be able to conduct more specific comparisons.

Following Hermann's (2003) guidelines, our analysis is based on spontaneous verbal material, including interviews and press conferences given by Chávez and Trump. Unlike with official speeches, leaders tend to be less in control of what they say during interviews; hence, they are more likely to show themselves as they really are ( Hermann 2003 ). In the case of Trump, we collected all his spontaneous remarks from January 2017 to January 2021 as found on the White House website in the section “Remarks.” Several of these remarks started with a brief speech, but we only drew on his answers to the follow-up questions usually posed by the press. We analyzed 1,073,473 words across 517 documents.

In the case of Chvez, we use spontaneous remarks delivered during his mandate from 1999 to 2012. We also utilized translated material found on LexisNexis's database as well as our own translations of spontaneous remarks originally delivered in Spanish. The verbal material was retrieved from the Venezuelan Ministry of Communication and Information and the Todo Chávez website. 1 We analyzed 190,345 words across fifty-two documents. We use material from all years of Chávez's and Trump's respective presidencies to ensure that the profiles are not context-specific ( Hermann 2003 ). While there is a difference in terms of the number of words analyzed in both profiles, the total in both cases largely surpasses the reliability requirement of fifty interview responses of 100 words or more in length ( Hermann 2003 ). Considering the research question, this study employed the sample of 284 world political leaders as the norming group to establish comparisons between Chávez and Trump and other decision-makers.

The data were analyzed using Profiler Plus (version 7.3.15), a software tool developed by Social Science Automation Inc. This software automates the assessment of the seven traits of the LTA model. Among the advantages of this automation are the possibility of managing large amounts of data in a short period of time, increased reliability, and decreased researcher bias.

As stressed earlier, at-a-distance assessment techniques work under the assumption that psychological characteristics can be inferred based on people's verbal expressions ( Schafer and Walker 2006b ). The use of LTA is thus grounded in the idea that the way political leaders speak will provide information about their personality traits. Both assumptions may raise some issues about the validity of these techniques. One argument that questions the validity of at-a-distance techniques is that leaders’ psychological characteristics cannot be accurately assessed employing verbal material ( Schafer 2014 ). However, this contention is questionable as regular psychological assessments in clinical contexts are mostly conducted by analyzing what people say about themselves or the situation they are facing. As Schafer (2014) notes, the linguistic is simply another form of behavior, thus being the basis of many forms of psychological analysis. Moreover, at-a-distance techniques have been widely utilized to conduct research in this field, providing broad-based validity—particularly construct validity ( Schafer 2014 ). Regarding the question of authorship, LTA examines spontaneous verbal material to minimize the “speechwriter effect.” Finally, to tackle leaders’ possible attempts to deceive or their “impression management,” this study employs a large number of utterances surpassing the basic requirements for performing this sort of assessment. This work also covers different dates, contexts, and audiences, which also helps circumvent leaders’ possible attempts to deceive.

Tables 3 and  4 show the scores for Chávez and Trump on each of the seven personality traits plus their Z scores compared to the means for a norming group of world leaders. The low, high, and moderate categories are based on the standard deviation from the mean score. If the score obtained exceeded one standard deviation above the mean for the sample of the norming group, the leader is considered high on the trait in question ( Hermann 2003 ). Likewise, if the score is one standard deviation below the norming group, the leader is considered low on the trait at hand ( Hermann 2003 ). The categories of “lean high” or “lean low” were utilized when the scores were more than 0.5 standard deviations below or above the mean one.

Chávez's LTA scores

Trump's LTA scores

The results show that both Chávez and Trump present unusual profiles when compared to other world leaders. In the case of Trump, only two of the seven traits are within the norming group's average scores (need for power and in-group bias). This unusual profile speaks of a self-confident and distrustful leader who also presents reduced task orientation compared to other world leaders.

In the case of Chávez, three out of seven traits fall within the average scores for the norming group (conceptual complexity, self-confidence, and distrust). This profile shows a leader who believes he can control events, presenting a lower need for power and reduced task orientation compared to other world leaders. This finding supports the claim about populists’ profile and behavior differing from the average world leader. In this sense, populists’ personalistic approach and their depiction as rogue actors who undermine cooperation can be in part linked to their atypical leadership profile compared to other world leaders. While more research needs to be conducted to understand the exact effect of overall unusual leadership profiles on foreign policy decisions, there are some indications in the literature that the “extreme” manifestation of personality traits may increase the likelihood of these individuals engaging in low-quality decision-making, which in turn increases the prospect of ending up with policy fiascos (see Brummer 2016 ).

To answer our research question, we use the scores presented in  tables 3 and  4 to determine patterns in Chávez's and Trump's respective personality traits. These results support one of our three initial expectations. Compared to the sample of world leaders, both Chávez and Trump demonstrate a low focus on task fulfillment ( Z = −1.1 and −1.4, respectively), confirming that they are mainly motivated by establishing relationships, retaining the loyalty of their constituents, and keeping the morale of the group high ( Hermann 2003 ). Camaraderie, loyalty, and commitment to the group are qualities highly valued by these types of leaders ( Hermann 2003 ).

The relevance that both Chávez and Trump attribute to achieving high morale and a sense of unity within their group can be clearly linked to one of the main observable characteristics of populist figures: namely their focus on building close ties with their followers and on promoting and defending the people they represent against a national and external elite. This interpretation also aligns with the idea that populist foreign policy enhances the nexus between the leader figure and the people (see Destradi and Plagemann 2019 ). In this sense, “the people” is a diffuse social construction that gives the leader plenty of room to manipulate and define its meaning and decide what groups and specific sets of people are in/out of this social category ( Wehner and Thies 2021 ).

Contrary to our expectations, high level of distrust is not a characteristic that both of these leaders share. Chávez shows an average level of distrust ( Z  = 0.5), indicating that he is moderate and does not stand out compared to other world leaders on this trait. On the other hand, Trump displays high levels of distrust toward others compared to the sample of world leaders ( Z  = 2.3). This trait can help explain Trump's predisposition to be suspicious about the motives and actions of others, especially those perceived as competitors or to be working against his cause or ideology. High levels of distrust can also justify his sensitivity to criticism and hypervigilant stance in foreign policy matters, as well as his tendency to do things on his own to avoid disruption and sabotage ( Hermann 2003 ). Due to Trump's marked distrust toward others, he was more prone to perceive other actors as threats to his goals and thus to pursue more defensive strategies in foreign policy issues. Given his wariness of others, forming alliances and building loyalty with followers became relevant parts of his foreign policy decisions. On the other hand, Chavez's moderate levels of distrust could have allowed him to engage more actively in joint enterprises with allies that shared similar ideologies and interests.

At odds with our expectations, in-group bias, which is associated with nationalism, is not a trait that appears to explain these two leaders’ less cooperative and conflict-inducing foreign policy behavior. Chávez leans low in this trait, while Trump obtains an average score compared to other world leaders ( Z = −0.9 and −0.5, respectively). According to Hermann's (2003) description, this result shows that while both leaders were still interested in the maintenance of their in-group, they were more willing to categorize people based on the nature of the situation at hand, so the “we–them” categorization remained fluid and ever-changing depending on the context.

The combination of scores on distrust and in-group bias sheds light on leaders’ motivation in how they act toward the world at large ( Hermann 2003 ). In the case of Chávez, his leaning-low scores on in-group bias and average distrust speak of a leader able to recognize the opportunities and threats in the environment and envision win–win agreements ( Hermann 2003 ). This could explain his interest in creating and strengthening regional schemes such as ALBA, Petrocaribe, and Banco del Sur. These enterprises, developed with like-minded leaders, acted as a mechanism to both promote the benefits of his socialist model and protect it against external threats through loyal alliances. In the case of Trump, his scores cannot be clearly located within Hermann's categories and definitions; considering his results on each trait, however, it can be argued that he proved himself capable of establishing a working relationship with other groups, but would be extremely cautious and vigilant about others’ behavior in the international arena. This combination could make him more prone to changing his mind quickly when it came to international cooperation and hence appear more erratic and unpredictable.

One of the reasons we expected these populist leaders to score high in their levels of in-group bias was the association we made between this trait and leaders’ reduced ability to perceive the good aspects of other groups—overrating their own skills and capacities, which could induce poorer decision-making and result in conflict-prone foreign policy behavior. However, as mentioned earlier, research on this trait has produced mixed results. In the context of groupthink, Schafer and Crichlow (2010) problematize the idea of high in-group bias as a clear driver of poor decision-making. They find that leaders who score high on in-group bias are likely to engage in decision-making that features fewer faults. One of the reasons for this is that for groups to solve problems and coordinate complex policies, leaders must believe in and support their group in order to help them carry out decision-making in superior ways ( Schafer and Crichlow 2010 ). In this sense and contrary to our initial reasoning, populist leaders’ tendency to pursue noncooperative and conflict-inducing behavior can result from low levels of in-group bias—especially in the case of Chávez. However, this issue needs further research to arrive at more accurate conclusions.

The analysis of Chávez's and Trump's profiles reveals other similarities and differences worth mentioning, as they have implications for the way they led their respective countries. Both leaders display leaning-high scores on their belief in the ability to control events (Chavez Z  = 0.7; Trump Z  = 0.6), meaning that they perceived that they could exercise some degree of control over the situations in which they found themselves ( Hermann 2003 ). Leaders scoring high on this trait are likely to pursue active policy agendas, seeking to exert control over policymaking, and are less prone to delegate tasks to others ( Shannon and Keller 2007 ). In times of crises, leaders strong on this belief are more prone to take a central role in the decision-making process ( van Esch and Swinkels 2015 ).

Regarding the trait need for power, both leaders’ scores differ. Trump's scores are average ( Z = −0.2), meaning that he does not stand out in his need for power compared to other world leaders. On the other hand, Chávez's need for power is lower than other world leaders ( Z = −1.3). This score indicates that Chávez tended to have less of a requirement to be in charge and was inclined to make an effort to empower others, engender high morale, a sense of team spirit, and goal clarity ( Hermann 2003 ). These results make sense if we consider that a central element in Chávez's rhetoric was the relevance he attributed to empowering the people who had been oppressed by the political system in Venezuela before he came to power. While these results may seem at first sight counterintuitive, they make sense when combined with these leaders’ high focus on relationships. The average and low scores obtained by Trump and Chávez on need for power can be explained by the particular relationship that exists between populist leaders and their followers. In line with the aforementioned people–elite–general will triad, the actions of populist leaders are framed as representing the general will of the people, not as a personal enterprise to seek power.

Moreover, as indicated in  table 2 , leaders’ scores on the ability to control events and the need for power are indicators of whether they respect or challenge constraints. Considering Chávez's and Trump's leaning-high scores on the belief they could control events and their low and moderate scores on need for power, respectively, it can be argued that both were inclined to take charge of what happens and challenge constraints, but they would not be as successful in reading how to manipulate the people and exert the desired influence ( Hermann 2003 ). Leaders with these characteristics tend to be too direct and open in their use of power, which undermines their capacity to have an impact on people ( Hermann 2003 ). This combination of traits can help explain the overall perception of these leaders as extremely power-oriented. While exerting power and influencing people are common goals among political leaders, Chávez's and Trump's straightforward style made them less successful in leveraging this influence either in their favor or in a subtle manner. Research has also shown that when self-confidence scores are lower than conceptual complexity ones, the leader may feel overwhelmed or become anxious in dealing with the world's complexities ( Schafer and Crichlow 2010 ), which can explain poor decision-making.

We also found differences in the following traits: conceptual complexity and self-confidence. While Chávez's scores on both traits are within the averages of world leaders ( Z  = 0.3 and Z = −0.3, respectively), meaning that these characteristics do not stand out compared to other leaders, Trump's conceptual complexity leans high ( Z  = 0.8) and his self-confidence is higher than other world leaders ( Z  = 1.4). While Trump's leaning-high scores on conceptual complexity may seem contradictory as high levels on this trait are usually associated with leaders who are able to analyze contextual information and consider multiple perspectives when solving a problem, high complexity may also lead to a leader who is overwhelmed by information in the surrounding environment ( Schafer and Crichlow 2010 ).

In this sense, high scores could produce problems in decision-making as a result of “undue equivocation, mixed signals to advisors and international actors or putting off important matters” ( Schafer and Crichlow 2010 , 61). In terms of self-confidence, high scores on this trait reflect a strong sense of self-importance and confidence in their ability to cope with the presenting environment ( Hermann 2003 ). These types of leaders rely on their own worldviews and instincts, and feel less threatened by their surroundings ( van Esch and Swinkels 2015 ). High scores on this trait have also been associated with a predisposition to making decisions that end up with fiascos (see Brummer 2016 ). Thus, Trump's scores on both traits speak about a leader who feels overly confident but tends to be overwhelmed by the events around him, which may lead to poor decision-making.

Combining conceptual complexity and self-confidence provides information on leaders’ openness to contextual information ( table 2 ). Leaders who are high in both conceptual complexity and self-confidence, as in the case of Trump, are generally open to such information. When leaders are so, they can be quite strategic in their behavior, focusing their attention on what is feasible at any given point in time ( Hermann 2003 ). Likewise, these types of leaders like to become the center of any information network, allowing them to be in the middle of all decisions ( Hermann 2003 ). An interesting characteristic of leaders who score high on both traits is that their behavior can be perceived as highly erratic and changeable, and their actions may seem indecisive and chameleon-like as they are considering different options in order to arrive at a final choice ( Hermann 2003 ).

On the other hand, while Chávez's scores are within the mean of world leaders according to the LTA framework he can still be classified as a leader open to incoming information as his conceptual complexity score is higher than his self-confidence one. His moderate scores indicate that Chávez was pragmatic and responsive to external information ( Hermann 2003 ). Considering the scores of both leaders on this trait, it can be argued that populists do not necessarily always see the world in black-and-white terms. On the contrary, these preliminary findings show that to retain the loyalty of their followers, populist leaders need to be able to identify and consider different options before making binding decisions in the realm of foreign policy.

Furthermore, populist leaders should be open to incoming information and have the capacity to change strategy if that is deemed necessary to keep the nexus with the people of the populist project as the main priority. While this may differ from the overall public perception of these leaders as obstinate and closed to new information, the results are in line with their capacity to take advantage of and capitalize on people's discontent, distrust, and polarization to achieve their political goals. This characteristic, along with their pragmatism, can, for instance, partially explain the tendency to retract promises and change orientation observed for some populist leaders. These individuals tend to modify their positions as long as they can still maintain a strong relationship with their followers after doing so. The degree of openness to contextual information in the case of Trump supports what scholars and policy analysts have described as his erratic and fluctuating behavior and decisions in foreign policy (see Cohen 2019 ; Destradi and Plagemann 2019 ; Drezner 2020 ). At the same time, this ability to evaluate options and change position if necessary is something that Chávez mastered in Venezuela's relationship with the US and Latin American peers (see Raby 2011 ).

This paper has brought a political psychology and agent-centered approach to studying populist leaders’ behavior in IR. Employing the LTA framework, this contribution intended to shed light on further possible explanations for populist leaders’ noncooperative and conflict-prone actions in the international arena. While not representing conclusive evidence, the findings lend weight to the idea that populist leaders’ foreign policy behavior is explained not only by ideological positions but also by personal characteristics that might, in fact, increase the likelihood of engaging in less cooperative and more conflict-inducing behavior in foreign policy. These findings complement the existing IR literature that shows how populists adopt revisionist positions, and furthermore affect the systemic stability of the international liberal order by taking up specific ideas and ideologies.

While the LTA results confirmed only one of our initial expectations, the study has nevertheless still yielded interesting findings that can contribute to the literature on populism in IR. First, populists’ profiles tend to differ from the average world leader as the former display more extreme personality traits, helping explain their unusual behavior. However, more research needs to be done to better understand the connection between these extreme traits and noncooperative and conflict-prone foreign policy behavior. Although high scores may help explain such behavior, by no means do they suggest that all leaders who present extreme traits are populists. These results do provide, though, a pattern of key relevance when studying populist leaders.

The analysis of Trump's and Chavez's scores shows that the characteristics that appear as the strongest predictors of these leaders’ noncooperative and conflict-prone behavior in the international arena are their low task orientation and high focus on relationships. In this sense, the impact of populism on foreign policy can be linked with these leaders’ tendency to enhance the nexus with the people in standing against an elite at home and abroad. Populist leaders give priority to the building and fueling of the group mentality, helping explain their actions in the international arena. The priorities of maintaining group morale and focusing on building relationships tend to confirm that populist leaders are less keen on using the foreign policy bureaucratic apparatus and prefer to rely more on a reduced group of people who can be considered part of their group instead. However, if the trusted people of the group disappoint the leader, they become political opponents; the leader blames and shames them, as they are no longer considered members of the inner circle.

This study also showed other characteristics common to Chávez and Trump that could shed further light on populist behavior in foreign policy terms. Both leaders leant high in their belief that they could control events, making them more prone to carrying out an active foreign policy agenda and taking center stage in decision-making processes. This characteristic is easily observable for both of these leaders. While Trump and Chávez tended to challenge constraints, they were less successful in using their power to persuade people within their inner circle as they appeared too direct.

This characteristic can be linked to their erratic relationship with their advisors and close collaborators. Both leaders had a track record of publicly ousting teammates, collaborators going rogue, and infamous controversies with former close associates. Moreover, both leaders demonstrated openness to new information, being in line with their capacity and willingness to change foreign policy as many times as necessary to keep up the bond with the people they claimed to represent. In this sense, both leaders indeed showed the ability to adapt and respond to the audience of people who sustained them in power when taking foreign policy decisions. As anecdotic as it may sound, the tariff policy of Trump toward China and his renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement tended to enhance his follower group's morale—as did the slogans “America First” and “Make America Great Again.” Similarly, Chávez's selective rhetorical attacks—especially against the United States as the “Empire”—also generated cohesion and increased the leader–people bond in the face of a national and regional elite whose behavior was constructed as helping promote the extension of US influence within both Venezuela and Latin America.

This study has opened up new avenues of research in the study of populist foreign policy. Leaders’ personality traits matter and, as seen, are overall consistent with the existing literature on populist foreign policy. Nevertheless, more empirical analysis of other cases is needed to substantiate or challenge these findings. Focus on building relationships with the identified group of people and a close group of advisors (believers in the project) seems to be critical in the way the populist leader approaches foreign policy. Thus, new research should explore whether this apparent homogeneity in the group affects, and if so how, the decision-making process regarding foreign policy. This policy field may be prone to in-group dynamics, as divergence from the populist leader's expectations may mean exclusion from that group.

This paper represents only an initial step in marrying mind and action in the study of populism in world politics and the tendency of these leaders to act in a noncooperative way. The scrutiny of the personality traits of Chávez and Trump has shown that beyond the eventual impact of the head of government on the world at large, as the key agent in the foreign policy of their state, what the populist leader is doing when making foreign policy—whether bilaterally or multilaterally—is to continue solidifying their own understanding of the nexus leader–follower per the triad people, elite, and the general will.

Consuelo Thiers is a postdoctoral researcher at Ghent University, Belgium. Her research interests lie in the area of political psychology, foreign policy analysis, psychological approaches to security, the study of enduring rivalries in Latin America, and leadership analysis.

Leslie E. Wehner is a Reader in Foreign Policy Analysis at the University of Bath, UK. His research focuses on role theory in international relations, emerging powers, leaders and leadership in foreign policy, and the nexus of populism and foreign policy.

Authors’ note: We would like to thank Ryan Beasley, Johannes Plagemann, and Detlef Nolte as well as the editors and reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback on previous versions of this article. The data underlying this article are available on the ISQ Dataverse at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/isq .

This website compiles the interviews, press conferences, and writings of Venezuela's former leader. It belongs to the Institute of Higher Studies of the Supreme Commander Hugo Rafael Chávez Frias's Thought, created by the Venezuelan government in July 2013 to preserve and disseminate his legacy ( http://www.todochavezenlaweb.gob.ve ).

Adler-Nissen Rebecca , Zarakol Ayşe . 2020 . “ Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents .” International Organization 75 ( 2 ): 611 – 34 .

Google Scholar

Ahmadian Sara , Azarshahi Sara , Paulhus Delroy L. . 2017 . “ Explaining Donald Trump via Communication Style: Grandiosity, Informality, and Dynamism .” Personality and Individual Differences 107 : 49 – 53 .

Bos Linda , Brants Kees . 2014 . “ Populist Rhetoric in Politics and Media: A Longitudinal Study of the Netherlands .” European Journal of Communication 29 ( 6 ): 703 – 19 .

Brummer Klaus . 2016 . “ ‘Fiasco Prime Ministers’: Leaders’ Beliefs and Personality Traits as Possible Causes for Policy Fiascos .” Journal of European Public Policy 23 ( 5 ): 702 – 17 .

Chryssogelos Angelos . 2017 . “ Populism in Foreign Policy .” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics . July 27, 2017. Accessed September 9, 2021. https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-467 .

Chryssogelos Angelos . 2020 . “ State Transformation and Populism: From the Internationalized to the Neo-Sovereign State? ” Politics 40 ( 1 ): 22 – 37 .

Chryssogelos Angelos 2019 . “ America's Long Goodbye: The Real Crisis of the Trump Era .” Foreign Affairs 98 ( 1 ): 138 – 46 .

Colgan Jeff D. , Keohane Robert O. . 2017 . “ The Liberal Order Is Rigged: Fix It Now or Watch It Wither .” Foreign Affairs 96 ( 3 ): 36 – 44 .

Cuhadar Esra , Kaarbo Juliet , Kesgin Baris , Ozkececi-Taner Binnur . 2017 . “ Personality or Role? Comparisons of Turkish Leaders across Different Institutional Positions: Personality or Role? ” Political Psychology 38 ( 1 ): 39 – 54 .

Destradi Sandra , Plagemann Johannes . 2019 . “ Populism and International Relations: (Un)Predictability, Personalisation, and the Reinforcement of Existing Trends in World Politics .” Review of International Studies 45 ( 5 ): 711 – 30 .

Drezner Daniel W. 2020 . “ Immature Leadership: Donald Trump and the American Presidency .” International Affairs 96 ( 2 ): 383 – 400 .

Dyson Benedict . 2006 . “ Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair's Iraq Decisions .” Foreign Policy Analysis 2 ( 3 ): 289 – 306 .

Ernst Nicole , Blassnig Sina , Engesser Sven , Büchel Florin , Esser Frank . 2019 . “ Populists Prefer Social Media over Talk Shows: An Analysis of Populist Messages and Stylistic Elements across Six Countries .” Social Media + Society 5 ( 1 ): 1 – 14

Fortunato David , Hibbing Matthew V. , Mondak Jeffery J. . 2018 . “ The Trump Draw: Voter Personality and Support for Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican Nomination Campaign .” American Politics Research 46 ( 5 ): 785 – 810 .

Foster Dennis M. , Keller Jonathan W. . 2020 . “ Single-Party Government, Prime Minister Psychology, and the Diversionary Use of Force: Theory and Evidence from the British Case .” International Interactions 46 ( 2 ): 227 – 50 .

Frajman Eduardo . 2014 . “ Broadcasting Populist Leadership: Hugo Chávez and Aló Presidente .” Journal of Latin American Studies 46 ( 3 ): 501 – 26 .

George Alexander L. 1969 . “ The ‘Operational Code’: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making .” International Studies Quarterly 13 ( 2 ): 190 – 222 .

Heinisch Reinhard . 2003 . “ Success in Opposition–Failure in Government: Explaining the Performance of Right-Wing Populist Parties in Public Office .” West European Politics 26 ( 3 ): 91 – 130 .

Hermann Margaret . 1980 . “ Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders .” International Studies Quarterly 24 ( 1 ): 7 – 46 .

Hermann Margaret . 2003 . “ Assessing Leadership Style: Trait Analysis .” In The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders , edited by Post Jerrold M. , 178 – 212 . Ann Arbor, MI : The University of Michigan Press .

Google Preview

Hermann Margaret . 2008 . “ Content Analysis .” In Qualitative Methods in International Relations a Pluralist Guide , edited by Klotz Audie , Prakash Deepa , 151 – 67 . New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Hermann Margaret . 2009 . “ Policymakers and Their Interpretations Matter .” In From the Mind to the Feet: Assessing the Perception-to-Intent-to-Action Dynamic , edited by Kunzar Lawrence , Astorino-Courtois Allison , Canna Sarah , 52 – 58 . Maxwell Air Force Base, AL : Air University Press .

Holsti Ole . 1970 . “ The ‘Operational Code’ Approach to the Study of Political Leaders: John Foster Dulles’ Philosophical and Instrumental Beliefs .” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 3 ( 1 ): 123 – 57 .

Hudson Valerie M. 2002 . “ Foreign Policy Decision-Making: A Touchstone for International Relations Theory in the Twenty-First Century .” In Foreign Policy Decision-Making (Revisited) , edited by Snyder Richard , Bruck H.W. , Sapin Burton , Hudson Valerie , 1 – 20 . New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Hudson Valerie M. . 2013 . Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory , 2nd edition. Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield Publishers .

Ikenberry G. John . 2018 . “ The End of Liberal International Order? ” International Affairs 94 ( 1 ): 7 – 23 .

Ivaldi Gilles. 2018 . “ Contesting the EU in Times of Crisis: The Front National and Politics of Euroscepticism in France .” Politics 38 ( 3 ): 278 – 94 .

Jagers Jan , Walgrave Stefaan . 2007 . “ Populism as Political Communication Style: An Empirical Study of Political Parties’ Discourse in Belgium .” European Journal of Political Research 46 ( 3 ): 319 – 45 .

Jervis Robert , Gavin Francis , Rovner Joshua , Labrosse Diane . 2018 . Chaos in the Liberal Order: The Trump Presidency and International Politics in the Twenty-First Century . New York : Columbia University Press .

Kaarbo Juliet . 2018 . “ Prime Minister Leadership Style and the Role of Parliament in Security Policy .” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20 ( 1 ): 35 – 51 .

Kaarbo Juliet , Hermann Margaret . 1998 . “ Leadership Styles of Prime Ministers: How Individual Differences Affect the Foreign Policymaking Process .” The Leadership Quarterly 9 ( 3 ): 243 – 63 .

Kesgin Bariş . 2013 . “ Leadership Traits of Turkey's Islamist and Secular Prime Ministers .” Turkish Studies 14 ( 1 ): 136 – 57 .

Kesgin Bariş . 2020 . “ Features of Foreign Policy Birds: Israeli Prime Ministers as Hawks and Doves .” Cooperation and Conflict 55 ( 1 ): 107 – 26 .

Laclau Ernesto . 2005 . On Populist Reason . New York : Verso .

Lake David A. , Martin Lisa L. , Risse Thomas . 2021 . “ Challenges to the Liberal Order: Reflections on International Organization .” International Organization 75 ( 2 ): 225 – 57 .

Lazarevska Elena , Sholl Jayne , Young Michael D. . 2006 . “ Links among Beliefs and Personality Traits: The Distinctive Language of Terrorists .” In Beliefs and Leadership in World Politics: Methods and Applications of Operational Code Analysis , edited by Schafer Mark , Walker Stephen G. , 171 – 84 . New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Levi Ariel , Tetlock Philip E. . 1980 . “ A Cognitive Analysis of Japan's 1941 Decision for War .” Journal of Conflict Resolution 24 ( 2 ): 195 – 211 .

Levy Jack . 2003 . “ Political Psychology and Foreign Policy .” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology , edited by Huddy Leonie , Sears David , Levy Jack , 253 – 82 . New York : Oxford University Press .

Malici Akan , Malici Johnna . 2005 . “ The Operational Codes of Fidel Castro and Kim Il Sung: The Last Cold Warriors? ” Political Psychology 26 ( 3 ): 387 – 412 .

Mudde Cas , Kaltwasser Cristóbal Rovira . 2017 . Populism: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Nai Alessandro . 2021 . “ Fear and Loathing in Populist Campaigns? Comparing the Communication Style of Populists and Non-Populists in Elections Worldwide .” Journal of Political Marketing 20 ( 2 ): 219 – 50 .

Nai Alessandro , Maier Jürgen . 2018 . “ Perceived Personality and Campaign Style of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump .” Personality and Individual Differences 121 : 80 – 83 .

Nai Alessandro , Martínez i Coma Ferran . 2019 . “ The Personality of Populists: Provocateurs, Charismatic Leaders, or Drunken Dinner Guests? ” West European Politics 42 ( 7 ): 1337 – 67 .

Nye Joseph . 2017 . “ Will the Liberal Order Survive? The History of an Idea .” Foreign Affairs 96 ( 1 ): 10 – 16 .

Özdamar Özgür , Ceydilek Erdem . 2020 . “ European Populist Radical Right Leaders’ Foreign Policy Beliefs: An Operational Code Analysis .” European Journal of International Relations 26 ( 1 ): 137 – 62 .

Plagemann Johannes , Destradi Sandra . 2019 . “ Populism and Foreign Policy: The Case of India .” Foreign Policy Analysis 15 ( 2 ): 283 – 301 .

Post Jerrold . 2003 . “ Assessing Leaders at a Distance: The Political Personality Profile .” In The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders , edited by Post Jerrold , 69 – 104 . Ann Arbor, MI : The University of Michigan Press .

Raby Diana. 2011 . “ Venezuelan Foreign Policy Under Chávez, 1999–2010: The Pragmatic Success of Revolutionary Ideology? ” In Latin American Foreign Policies: Between Ideology and Pragmatism , edited by Gardini G. , Lambert Peter , 159 – 77 . New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Sagarzazu Iñaki , Thies Cameron G. . 2019 . “ The Foreign Policy Rhetoric of Populism: Chávez, Oil, and Anti-Imperialism .” Political Research Quarterly 72 ( 1 ): 205 – 14 .

Schafer Mark . 2014 . “ At-a-Distance Analysis .” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership , edited by Rhodes R.A.W. , t'Hart Paul , 296 – 313 . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Schafer Mark , Crichlow Scott . 2010 . Groupthink versus High-Quality Decision Making in International Relations . New York : Columbia University Press .

Schafer Mark , Walker Stephen G. . 2006a . “ Democratic Leaders and the Democratic Peace: The Operational Codes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton .” International Studies Quarterly 50 ( 3 ): 561 – 83 .

Schafer Mark , Walker Stephen G. . 2006b . “ Operational Code Analysis at a Distance: The Verbs in Context System of Content Analysis .” In Beliefs and Leadership in World Politics: Methods and Applications of Operational Code Analysis (Advances in Foreign Policy Analysis) , edited by Schafer Mark , Walker Stephen G. , 25 – 51 . New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Shannon Vaughn P. , Keller Jonathan W. . 2007 . “ Leadership Style and International Norm Violation: The Case of the Iraq War .” Foreign Policy Analysis 3 ( 1 ): 79 – 104 .

Stavrakakis Yannis , Katsambekis Giorgos , Nikisianis Nikos , Kioupkiolis Alexandros , Siomos Thomas . 2017 . “ Extreme Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Revisiting a Reified Association .” Critical Discourse Studies 14 ( 4 ): 420 – 39 .

Stengel Frank A. , MacDonald David B. , Nabers Dirk , eds. 2019 . Populism and World Politics: Exploring Inter- and Transnational Dimensions , 1st edition. New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Taggart Paul . 2000 . Populism . Buckingham : Open University Press .

Thiers Consuelo . 2021 . “ One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: The Steering Effects of Operational Code Beliefs in the Chilean-Bolivian Rivalry .” In Operational Code Analysis and Foreign Policy Roles , edited by Schafer Mark , Walker Stephen G. , 129 – 48 . London : Routledge .

van Esch Femke , Swinkels Marij . 2015 . “ How Europe's Political Leaders Made Sense of the Euro Crisis: The Influence of Pressure and Personality .” West European Politics 38 ( 6 ): 1203 – 25 .

Verbeek Bertjan , Zaslove Andrej . 2017 . “ Populism and Foreign Policy .” In The Oxford Handbook of Populism , edited by Kaltwasser Cristóbal Rovira , Taggart Paul , Espejo Paulina Ochoa , Ostiguy Pierre , 384 – 405 . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Wehner Leslie E. , Thies Cameron G. . 2021 . “ The Nexus of Populism and Foreign Policy: The Case of Latin America .” International Relations 35 ( 2 ): 320 – 40 .

Wesley Renfro . 2013 . “ Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest. George W. Bush and Iraqi WMD .” Psicología Política 47 : 19 – 38 .

Weyland Kurt . 2001 . “ Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics .” Comparative Politics 34 ( 1 ): 1 – 22 .

Weyland Kurt . 2003 . “ Economic Voting Reconsidered: Crisis and Charisma in the Election of Hugo Chávez .” Comparative Political Studies 36 ( 7 ): 822 – 48 .

Winter David . 2003 . “ Measuring the Motives of Political Actors at a Distance .” In The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders , edited by Post Jerrold , 153 – 77 . Ann Arbor, MI : The University of Michigan Press .

Wojczewski Thorsten . 2019a . “ Populism, Hindu Nationalism, and Foreign Policy in India: The Politics of Representing ‘the People’. ” International Studies Review 22 ( 3 ): 396 – 422 .

Wojczewski Thorsten . 2019b . “ Trump, Populism, and American Foreign Policy .” Foreign Policy Analysis 16 ( 3 ): 292 – 311 .

Zakaria Fareed . 2016 . “ Populism on the March: Why the West Is in Trouble .” Foreign Affairs 95 ( 6 ): 9 – 15 .

Zeemann Jan . 2019 . “ Populism beyond the Nation .’” In Populism and World Politics: Exploring Inter- and Transnational Dimensions , 1st edition, edited by Stengel Frank A. , MacDonald David B. , Nabers Dirk , 25 – 54 . New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2478
• Print ISSN 0020-8833
• Copyright © 2024 International Studies Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Published April 1, 2024
• 9 Minute Read

The Characteristics of a Good Leader

Leaders shape our teams, organizations, communities, and world.

We need good leaders to help guide us and make the essential decisions, big and small, that keep things moving forward.

Our society is usually quick to identify a bad leader, but how can you identify a good one? What would most people say are the qualities of a good leader?

What Good Leadership Looks Like

Based upon our decades of research and experience working with leaders at thousands of organizations around the world, we’ve found that the best leaders consistently possess certain fundamental qualities and skills. Here are 12 essential leadership traits.

12 Essential Leadership Qualities

• Self-Awareness
• Communication
• Learning Agility
• Collaboration

1. Self-Awareness

While this is a more inwardly focused trait, self-awareness and humility are paramount qualities of leadership. The better you understand yourself and recognize your own strengths and weaknesses, the more effective you can be as a leader. Do you know how other people view you and understand how you show up at work and at home? Take the time to learn about the 4 aspects of self-awareness and how to strengthen each component.

Treating people with respect on a daily basis is one of the most important things a leader can do. It helps ease tensions and conflict, fosters trust, and improves your effectiveness.  Creating a culture of respect  is about more than just the absence of disrespect. Respectfulness can be shown in many different ways, but it often starts with showing you truly value others’ perspectives and making an effort to build belonging in the workplace — both critical components of supporting equity, diversity, and inclusion.

3. Compassion

Compassion is one of the most powerful and important acts of leadership. It’s more than simply showing empathy or even listening and seeking to understand — as compassion requires leaders to act on what they learn. After someone shares a concern or speaks up about something, they won’t feel truly heard if their leader doesn’t then take some type of meaningful action on the information, our researchers have found. This is the core of compassionate leadership , and it helps to build trust, increase collaboration, and decrease turnover across organizations.

Motivating others and garnering commitment are essential parts of leadership. Purpose-driven leaders ensure they connect their team’s daily tasks and the values of individual team members to the overall direction of the organization. This can help employees find meaning in their work — which increases engagement, inspires trust, and drives priorities forward. You’ll want to communicate the vision in ways that help others understand it, remember it, and go on to share it themselves.

5. Communication

Effective leadership and effective communication are intertwined . The best leaders are skilled communicators who can communicate in a variety of ways, from transmitting information and storytelling to soliciting input and using active listening techniques . They can communicate well both orally and in writing, and with a wide range of people from different backgrounds, roles, levels, geographies, and more. The quality and effectiveness of communication among leaders at your organization will directly affect the success of your business strategy, too.

6. Learning Agility

Learning agility is the ability to know what to do when you don’t know what to do. If you’re a “quick study” or are able to excel in unfamiliar circumstances, you might already be learning agile. But anybody can foster and increase learning agility through intentional practice and effort. After all, great leaders are really great learners.

7. Collaboration

The most effective leaders can work with a variety of colleagues of different social identities , locations, roles, and experiences. As the world has become more complex and interconnected, good leaders find themselves spanning boundaries and learning to work across various types of divides and organizational silos. When leaders value and embrace collaboration, whether within their teams or cross-functionally, several benefits arise — including increased innovation, higher-performing teams, and a more engaged and empowered workforce.

8. Influence

For some people, “influence” may sound unseemly. But as a leader, you must be able to influence others to get the work done — you cannot do it all alone. Being able to persuade people through thoughtful use of appropriate influencing tactics is an important trait of inspiring, effective leaders. Influence is quite different from manipulation, and it needs to be done authentically and transparently. It requires high levels of emotional intelligence and trust.

9. Integrity

Integrity is an essential leadership trait for the individual and the organization. It’s especially important for top-level executives who are charting the organization’s course and making countless other significant decisions. Our research has found that leader integrity is a potential blind spot for organizations , so make sure you reinforce the importance of honesty and integrity to managers at all levels.

10. Courage

It can be hard to speak up at work, whether you want to voice a new idea, provide feedback to a direct report, or flag a concern for someone above you. That’s part of the reason courage is a key leadership trait — it takes courage to do what’s right! Leaders who promote high levels of psychological safety in the workplace enable their people to speak up freely and share candid concerns without fear of repercussions. This fosters a  coaching culture that supports courage and truth-telling . Courage enables both team members and leaders to take bold actions that move things in the right direction.

11. Gratitude

Being thankful can lead to higher self-esteem, reduced depression and anxiety, and better sleep. Sincere gratitude can even make you a better leader. Yet few people regularly say “thank you” in work settings, even though most people say they’d be willing to work harder for an appreciative boss. The best leaders know how to show frequent gratitude in the workplace .

12. Resilience

Resilience is more than the ability to bounce back from obstacles and setbacks — it’s the ability to respond adaptively to challenges. Practicing resilient leadership means you’ll project a positive outlook that will help others maintain the emotional strength they need to commit to a shared vision, and the courage to move forward and overcome setbacks. A good leader focuses on resilience, both taking care of themselves and also prioritizing leading employee wellbeing , too — thereby enabling better performance for themselves and their teams.

Download a PDF action guide and summary of these characteristics of a good leader, so you always have a visual reminder available of these 12 qualities of good leadership.

Develop the Characteristics of a Good Leader in Yourself & Others

Our 3 core beliefs about leadership & leadership development.

At the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL)®, we’ve been researching the qualities of a good leader and the role of leadership for over 5 decades. Here are 3 of our core beliefs about good leaders and effective leadership.

Good leaders are made, not born.

First, we believe that leaders are made, not born. Put another way, leadership is a skill that can be developed . Good leaders are molded through experience, continued study, intentional effort, and adaptation. So you can strengthen any of these 12 characteristics of a good leader, if you’re open to growth, use your experiences to fuel development , and put in the time and effort toward self-improvement.

Similarly, organizations can help their people hone these top leadership qualities by providing ample opportunities for training, offering support for learning from challenges, and providing access to coaching and mentoring programs .

Leadership is a social process.

It’s also essential to recognize that  leadership is less about one strong or charismatic individual, and more about a group of people working collectively to achieve results together . If you demonstrate several of the characteristics of a good leader, but fail to grasp this key point, chances are you won’t get very far on your own. You may be well-liked and respected, but it will be challenging to accomplish team or organizational goals. At CCL, we like to say that the  outcomes of leadership are about creating direction, alignment, and commitment, or DAC , within a group.

Good leadership never stops.

Also, we believe that leadership isn’t a destination, it’s a journey   — it’s something that you’ll have to work at regularly throughout your career, regardless of what level you reach in your organization or what industry you work in. Different teams, projects, and situations will provide different challenges and require different leadership qualities and competencies to succeed. So you will need to be able to continue to apply these leadership characteristics in different ways throughout your career. Just continually keep learning and growing, and you’ll be an agile learner with a long career .

We Can Help You Develop the Qualities of a Good Leader

Organizations can strengthen leadership qualities and foster deeper levels of engagement at work through providing a variety of on-the-job learning experiences, mentoring, and formal development opportunities. At CCL, we have many award-winning leadership solutions with clients around the world, and we’d be honored to work with you and your organization as well.

But individuals don’t have to wait to begin strengthening these leadership characteristics within themselves. If you decide you want to work proactively on developing your leadership qualities and skills,  download our action guide & visual summary  of this content. And get our tips on how to  convince your boss to make an investment in you  and your future. We’re here to support you every step of the way on your journey to becoming a better leader!

Ready to Take the Next Step?

After you download the 12 Characteristics of a Good Leader , keep on learning and growing: never miss our exclusive leadership insights and tips — subscribe to our newsletters to get our research-based articles, webinars, resources, and guides delivered straight to your inbox. 

Keep these qualities of a good leader top of mind in the future: download a PDF summary of this article as an action guide and visual reminder of the leadership qualities to nurture in yourself, on your team, and at your organization in the future.

• PDF & Print-Friendly Version

Based on Research by

With over a decade of experience in education, Micela provides internal research and evaluation support to build our capacity as a provider of evidence-based leadership solutions in the field of education. She is particularly interested in youth leadership development, using research and evaluation to help improve program implementation, and the role of trust as a critical ingredient for organizational change. She has also co-authored 2 books on youth leadership development: Social-Emotional Leadership: A Guide for Youth Development and Building Bridges: Leadership for You and Me .

Stephanie is a researcher with a background in developmental and educational psychology. Her research at CCL focused primarily on promoting equitable and inclusive organizational cultures, exploring collective leadership through networks, and enhancing motivation and empowerment for leaders across their professional journeys.

Table of Contents

Don't miss a single insight! Get our latest cutting-edge, research-based leadership content sent directly to your inbox.

Related Topics

What to explore next.

With over 30 pages of insights gleaned from our research, this collection of resources includes actionable tips and team discussion questions to help you become a (better) leader with a focus on compassion, wellbeing, and belonging.

This introduction to our leadership philosophy explains how direction, alignment, and commitment (the elements of our DAC framework) are key in how leadership works, connecting exponential potential with collective progress.

Want to set yourself apart as a leader? Arm yourself with these 6 essential skills. Our global research study found that organizations will need these 6 key qualities that their leaders presently lack.

Do you know how to effectively communicate at work? It's the core of everything we do, and yet many of us have significant room for improvement. Get our top tips for leaders.

Stepping into a management role requires a fundamental shift of identity. Learn how to be an effective boss and succeed in your new role with our leadership tips for first-time managers.

Related Solutions

Learn more about our flagship Leadership Development Program (LDP)®, the most widely known and longest-running leadership development training in the world.

Professional leadership coaching deepens and sustains leadership development. Learn more about our world-class leadership coaching services.

Learn more about our leadership training courses, which are targeted to develop the skills leaders need to succeed at all levels of your organization.

At the Center for Creative Leadership, our drive to create a ripple effect of positive change underpins everything we do. For 50+ years, we've pioneered leadership development solutions for everyone from frontline workers to global CEOs. Consistently ranked among the world's top providers of executive education, our research-based programs and solutions inspire individuals in organizations across the world — including 2/3 of the Fortune 1000 — to ignite remarkable transformations.

Advertisement

After Trump’s Conviction, a Wary World Waits for the Fallout

Already braced for uncertainty about the U.S. election, countries in Europe and Asia are now even more unclear about the future of American diplomacy.

• Share full article

By Hannah Beech and Paul Sonne

• May 31, 2024

The world does not vote in American presidential elections. Nor do its jurors play a part in the American judicial system. Nevertheless, the conviction of Donald J. Trump on all 34 felony counts in a hush-money trial in a New York court on Thursday has again made clear how consequential what happens in the United States is for the rest of the planet.

Many America-watchers are grappling with the same questions posed by people in the United States: Can Mr. Trump still run for president? (Yes.) And if so, will the guilty verdicts cut into the support from his political base? (Unclear.)

Foreign observers also began wondering if Mr. Trump, already a volatile force, would become even less likely to stay within the guardrails of normal politics and diplomacy if he won the presidency again in November.

Mr. Trump’s supporters in anti-immigrant, right-wing nationalist circles abroad quickly jumped to his defense. Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Kremlin-friendly prime minister, called Mr. Trump “a man of honor” in a post on X and said the American people should deliver their own verdict in November.

Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and the leader of the hard-right League party, expressed “solidarity and full support,” and called Mr. Trump a “victim of judicial harassment.”

“This verdict is a disgrace,” Nigel Farage, the pro-Brexit campaigner and Trump supporter, who is honorary president of Reform UK, a small right-wing party in Britain, wrote on social media. “Trump will now win big.”

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia did not immediately respond to the verdict but has seized on the situation more broadly to undermine American influence. Mr. Putin last year called the various proceedings against Mr. Trump political “ persecution ” and said they had revealed the “rottenness of the American political system, which cannot pretend to teach others about democracy.”

His spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, reiterated the point on Friday in response to the verdict, saying it was clear to the entire world that the U.S. authorities were trying to eliminate political rivals “by all possible legal and illegal means.”

The convictions by a Manhattan jury come as the question of American engagement has become central in several global crises.

In Ukraine, the war effort against Russia has been stymied after Republicans in Congress delayed American military aid for months.

In Europe, leaders reliant on the United States for their defense are jittery about a return to a more acrimonious relationship with Washington and a possible withdrawal of American support for hardening defenses against Russia.

In Asia, where the Biden administration perceives a growing Chinese threat and worries about a possible invasion of Taiwan, American allies are concerned about the sanctity of defense treaties that have long girded the regional security order.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump has said he would encourage Russia to attack any NATO member that doesn’t pay sufficiently for its defense and has questioned whether the United States should defend South Korea, a treaty ally that hosts a large American military presence. He is considering the Ohio senator J.D. Vance, one of Washington’s most vociferous opponents of military aid for Ukraine, as a possible running mate.

Foreign analysts worry that Mr. Trump’s favored currency, unpredictability, could again shake up the global order.

Concern about his possible return to the White House is particularly palpable in Germany, the object of Mr. Trump’s ire for much of his first term and the host of more than 35,000 U.S. troops.

Andrea Römmele, vice president of the Hertie School, a public policy-focused graduate school in Berlin, said many Germans watching the Trump verdict were relieved to see that even a former president was not above the law in the United States. But she said Germans remained very anxious about a Trump victory.

“I think everyone is much more prepared to think the unthinkable,” she said.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland, whose right-wing domestic opponents accuse him of using the judiciary to settle political scores, hailed the conviction of Mr. Trump in New York as “an American lesson” for Polish politicians.

“The law determines guilt and punishment, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a president or a minister,” Mr. Tusk said in a message posted on X. A veteran centrist, Mr. Tusk took office after an October election that ousted a nationalist government that cultivated close ties with Mr. Trump during and after his time in the White House.

Still, on Friday, most foreign governments, forced to surf every shift in the American political mood, reacted cautiously.

“I would like to refrain from commenting on matters related to judicial procedures in other countries,” Yoshimasa Hayashi, Japan’s chief cabinet secretary, said at a news conference in Tokyo on Friday.

In Britain, where a national election campaign is underway, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak refused to discuss the Trump case. His Labour Party opponent, Keir Starmer, a former top prosecutor, said he respected the court’s decision and called the situation unprecedented.

“Ultimately whether he is elected president will be a matter for the American people and obviously, if we’re privileged to come in to serve, we would work with whoever they choose as their president,” Mr. Starmer told BBC Radio Scotland.

Mao Ning, a spokeswoman for China’s foreign ministry, declined to comment on the verdict. She said she hoped whoever was elected president would “be committed to developing healthy and stable China-U. S. relations.”

The possibility of Mr. Trump’s return to the White House is a source of anxiety for U.S. allies in Asia that rely on Washington for their defense.

When Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan made a state visit to Washington in April, President Biden called relations between the countries the most important bilateral alliance in the world. With American concern rising over China’s expanding military footprint, Mr. Biden has strengthened American defense partnerships with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and others in Asia.

By contrast, while president, Mr. Trump called for Japan, which hosts more than 50,000 American troops on its soil, to pay $8 billion for the upkeep of American bases there. (It never happened.)

Still, the fundamental tension in regional geopolitics — the contest between the United States and China — will continue no matter who wins the American presidential election.

“Beijing has no illusion about Trump or Biden, given their anti-China solid stance,” said Lau Siu-kai, an adviser to the Chinese government on Hong Kong policy. “Beijing is all set for a more intense confrontation with the U.S. over technology, trade and Taiwan.”

Officials in China’s embassy in the United States and its consulates around the country are most likely scrambling to assess how the verdict could affect the election, said Willy Lam, an analyst of Chinese politics at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington.

“The majority of Xi Jinping’s advisers now think a Trump presidency might be worse for U.S.-China relations,” Mr. Lam said of China’s top leader. “If Trump were to win, given the now peculiar circumstances of his victory, he might gravitate towards unpredictable actions to assert his authority.”

There is a sense in Asia that the region is perennially overlooked and underappreciated by U.S. presidents, particularly as crises in Europe and the Middle East have monopolized Mr. Biden’s attention. That sentiment was also felt acutely during Mr. Trump’s presidency, and for American partners in Asia it was made worse by his affinity for regional strongmen.

In addition to occasional expressions of admiration for Mr. Putin and Kim Jong-un of North Korea, Mr. Trump invited to the White House a former army chief who led a coup in Thailand and installed himself as prime minister. Mr. Trump drew accolades from Rodrigo Duterte, formerly the president of the Philippines and now under investigation by the International Criminal Court over his deadly war on drugs.

The Philippines is now led by the son of the longtime dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos, who died in exile in Hawaii. He has reoriented the country away from China back toward the United States.

In at least one regard — the prosecution of former leaders — the rest of the world is far ahead of the United States. South Korea, where four former presidents have been convicted of corruption and abuse of power, has made something of a national sport of imprisoning disgraced leaders. The former French presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac were convicted of corruption.

Jacob Zuma, the former president of South Africa, has been charged with money laundering, among other crimes. And Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was sentenced to years in prison for corruption after leading Brazil. His convictions were eventually annulled. He is again president of the country.

Reporting was contributed by Stephen Castle, Elisabetta Povoledo, Roger Cohen, Zixu Wang, Andrew Higgins, Camille Elemia , Choe Sang-Hun , Motoko Rich , Alexandra Stevenson , Sui-Lee Wee and Sameer Yasir .

An earlier version of this article misstated the length of Rodrigo Duterte’s term in office. It was six years, not eight years.

How we handle corrections

Hannah Beech is a Times reporter based in Bangkok who has been covering Asia for more than 25 years. She focuses on in-depth and investigative stories. More about Hannah Beech

Paul Sonne is an international correspondent, focusing on Russia and the varied impacts of President Vladimir V. Putin’s domestic and foreign policies, with a focus on the war against Ukraine. More about Paul Sonne

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Trial

Guilty Verdict : Donald Trump was convicted on all 34 counts  of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal that threatened his bid for the White House in 2016, making him the first American president to be declared a felon .

What Happens Next: Trump’s sentencing hearing on July 11 will trigger a long and winding appeals process , though he has few ways to overturn the decision .

Reactions: Trump’s conviction reverberated quickly across the country  and around the world . Here’s what voters , New Yorkers , Republicans , Trump supporters  and President Biden  had to say.

The Presidential Race : The political fallout of Trump’s conviction is far from certain , but the verdict will test America’s traditions, legal institutions and ability to hold an election under historic partisan tension .

Making the Case: Over six weeks and the testimony of 20 witnesses, the Manhattan district attorney’s office wove a sprawling story  of election interference and falsified business records.

Legal Luck Runs Out: The four criminal cases that threatened Trump’s freedom had been stumbling along, pleasing his advisers. Then his good fortune expired .

Report: The World Reacts to Trump’s Guilty Verdict

Create an FP account to save articles to read later and in the FP mobile app.

ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

World Brief

• Editors’ Picks
• Africa Brief

China Brief

• Latin America Brief

South Asia Brief

Situation report.

• Flash Points
• War in Ukraine
• Israel and Hamas
• U.S.-China competition
• U.S. election 2024
• Biden's foreign policy
• Trade and economics
• Artificial intelligence
• Asia & the Pacific
• Middle East & Africa

Analyzing India’s Election Results

Ones and tooze, foreign policy live.

Spring 2024 Issue

Print Archive

FP Analytics

• In-depth Special Reports
• Issue Briefs
• Power Maps and Interactive Microsites
• FP Simulations & PeaceGames
• Graphics Database

FP at NATO’s 75th Summit

Nato in a new era, fp security forum, fp @ unga79.

By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.

Your guide to the most important world stories of the day

Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent

The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week

Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy

Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day

One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture

Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors

A curated selection of our very best long reads

The World Reacts to Trump’s Guilty Verdict

Chinese and russian state media mirrored trump’s talking points on the trial..

• United States
• Robbie Gramer

Former U.S. President Donald Trump was convicted by a New York jury on Thursday of felony charges for falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to an adult film star as part of an effort to illegally influence the 2016 election. The verdict, which found the presumptive Republican presidential nominee guilty on all 34 charges, sent political shockwaves through the United States as the 2024 election cycle gains steam.

But the historic court case also captivated readers well beyond U.S. borders. Below, we’ve rounded up the international reactions to the verdict.

Germany: The news dominated newspaper coverage in Germany and across Europe, with many outlets giving the conviction front-page, above-the-fold treatment. The coverage broadly mirrored that of U.S. outlets, with more ink spent speculating on how the guilty verdict would galvanize Trump’s supporters than reflecting on the historic nature of the conviction itself.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine simply trumpeted : “Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.” Leading newspaper Der Spiegel upped the ante with the headline “Guilty!” repeated 34 times. Tabloid Bild covered all the bases by asking, “Victory for Justice, or Dark Day for America?”

United Kingdom: Trump’s guilty verdict was splashed across the front pages of top newspapers and tabloids including the Daily Telegraph , the Times , the Scotsman , the Mirror , and the Daily Star (the last of which proclaimed with its trademark subtlety, “Orange Manbaby Is Guilty on All Counts”). The Financial Times asserted that the verdict “puts America’s political system on trial,” while the Economist led with a banner headline: “Guilty as charged: The disgrace of a former American president.”

But the magazine also argued that the case was “counter-productive” ahead of the U.S. presidential election. The “prosecution has done more to help than hurt Mr Trump’s chances of winning back the White House, and, as the insurrection of January 6th 2021 ought to have made clear, that is a greater hazard to the rule of law than any fraudulent book-keeping,” the Economist concluded.

France: In France’s Le Monde , the verdict led the day as well, with the flagship French daily noting that the echo of that one word—guilty—“speaks both of the vitality of the state of law put to the test and of the unprecedented challenge that is emerging for American democracy.” Another French daily, Libération , highlighted that although the verdict frees Trump from the burden of having to report to court almost daily as he has had to do over the past month, he will continue to be “weighed down with the aura of being a repeat offender, unanimously condemned by a jury of 12 regular citizens.” Trump’s sentencing is scheduled for July 11.

Switzerland: Swiss newspapers cut to the chase, with prominent coverage in Zurich’s Tages-Anzeiger noting that “Trump’s political comeback will now become a campaign of revenge.”

Poland: Poland’s Gazeta Wyborcza put the verdict into local terms, highlighting Polish President Donald Tusk’s conclusion that “Polish politicians must learn the lesson from America.”

Spain: Spain gave front-page treatment to Trump’s conviction in all the major dailies , though right-leaning outlets, otherwise engaged in ousting Spain’s current prime minister, had less time to spend on judicial comeuppance abroad.

Russia : Russian state-funded media outlet RT led its coverage with a quote from Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, calling the trial a “kangaroo court.” Another state propaganda outlet, Sputnik , echoed Trump’s talking points, calling the trial “rigged” and “disgraceful.”

Hungary: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a friend to both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump, has consolidated control over Hungary’s media landscape as part of the country’s worrying backslide from democracy, even as he is lionized by factions of the U.S. Republican Party and some far-right political groups in Europe. The pro-government daily Magyar Hirlap led its coverage with photos of Trump supporters waving flags as the former president’s motorcade departed Manhattan. Its other top U.S.-focused news story was on claims that a plan by U.S. President Joe Biden to ease restrictions on marijuana use “could endanger the lives of millions.”

China: The Chinese state-run tabloid Global Times led its English-language coverage with the slightly garbled headline “Trump convicted in hush money case, ‘to exacerbate political extremism, social unrest’” and threaded its coverage with quotes from Chinese academics such as: “The attitudes of both parties further reflect the rottenness of American politics, and that the law now seems to be used as a political weapon.”

Israel: The Trump verdict hardly made a dent in two of Israel’s leading papers, the Jerusalem Post and Times of Israel , where coverage of the ongoing war in Gaza still dominates the news cycle. Ynet , another popular Israeli news outlet, topped its coverage with: “‘Hang Them All!’: The Rage of Trump Supporters and the Women Voters Who Might Abandon Him.”

The left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz covered the political fallout of the trial through reactions from influential Jewish political groups in the United States, noting that Matthew Brooks, the CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition, had decried the verdict as a “political prosecution of a political opponent.”

Haaretz also noted that shortly after the verdict, Trump lashed out at the district attorney who prosecuted the case, Alvin Bragg, calling him a “Soros-backed DA” in reference to the Jewish billionaire philanthropist and Holocaust survivor George Soros. The newspaper explained that Soros’s name “has been frequently used as an antisemitic dog whistle” and quoted Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, as saying that Trump’s invocation of such “antisemitic, racist, and bigoted tropes” is “intended to undercut our democracy and fuel political violence.”

A Nation of Alternative Realities

Trump’s felony conviction shows that no man is above the law, but it also deepens the United States’ war with itself.

It’s Actually Common to Indict Leaders of Democracies

From the archives: Trump is just one among dozens of world leaders who have faced criminal charges since 2000.

Qatar: Al Jazeera had multiple front-page stories on Trump’s trial on its website, from the moment the verdict came to an explainer on what it will mean for the U.S. elections. Al Jazeera correspondent John Hendren argued that the verdict will only energize Trump’s base: “It is interesting to see that so far nothing has really tainted his appeal among his die-hard supporters.”

Nigeria: The Vanguard , a leading Nigerian newspaper, led its headline coverage of the case with a quote from Biden’s campaign: “No one is above the law.” The newspaper added that “Trump’s historic conviction — which would have been a knockout blow in any other election year — is undoubtedly a brighter spot for Biden after weeks of polling showing him neck and neck nationally with Trump.”

South Africa: One country where the Trump verdict hardly made any waves was South Africa, which is in the midst of its own national elections, where the ruling African National Congress party is on track to lose its majority for the first time since the country became a democracy in 1994. There were no stories on Trump in some of the country’s top papers—the Johannesburg Star , the Mail & Guardian , or the Sunday Times —as they focused on their own election.

India: This was the case in India, too, where the country is poised to announce its national election results next week. None of India’s top newspapers, including the Times of India , Hindustan Times , the Hindu , and the Indian Express , prioritized coverage of the Trump trial.

Argentina: Clarín gave the trial—helpfully labeled “pornogate”—some coverage, with emphasis on the “fuel” it will provide to Trump’s campaign.

Mexico: Mexico’s biggest daily found space amid the country’s own presidential race to highlight Trump’s becoming the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a felony.

Robbie Gramer is a diplomacy and national security reporter at Foreign Policy . Twitter:  @RobbieGramer

Keith Johnson is a reporter at  Foreign Policy  covering geoeconomics and energy. Twitter:  @KFJ_FP

Join the Conversation

Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log In .

Subscribe Subscribe

View Comments

Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.

Not your account? Log out

Please follow our comment guidelines , stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs.

Change your username:

I agree to abide by FP’s comment guidelines . (Required)

Confirm your username to get started.

The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.

Sign up for Editors' Picks

A curated selection of fp’s must-read stories..

You’re on the list! More ways to stay updated on global news:

Biden’s Foreign-Policy Problem Is Incompetence

Mexico elects first female president in landslide election, who pays for climate action, why is xi not fixing china’s economy, the u.s. needs a new purpose in the middle east, editors’ picks.

• 1 Now Is Not the Time to Negotiate With Putin
• 2 Why Is Xi Not Fixing China’s Economy?
• 3 The U.S. Needs a New Purpose in the Middle East
• 4 Mexico Elects First Female President in Landslide Election
• 5 Biden’s Foreign-Policy Problem Is Incompetence
• 6 Europe’s Green Moment Is Over

Biden’s Biggest Foreign-Policy Problem in Gaza, Ukraine, and Elsewhere Is Incompetence

Mexico presidential election results: claudia sheinbaum wins to become first female leader, global industry taxes can fund climate change adaptation, china's economic policy failures have 4 possible explanations, u.s. middle east policy: why washington shouldn't pivot away from the region, more from foreign policy, what produced the china miracle.

A powerful new book challenges conventional wisdom about the role of the state in Beijing’s rise.

Why Realists Oppose the War in Gaza

If you’re surprised by the movement’s position, you never really understood it.

Consulting Firms Have Stumbled Into a Geopolitical Minefield

The era of free-flowing information is over.

The Man Who Would Help Trump Upend the Global Economy

As a potential U.S. Treasury secretary, Robert Lighthizer has more than trade policy to revolutionize.

Now Is Not the Time to Negotiate With Putin

Europe’s green moment is over.

Sign up for World Brief

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.

Lok Sabha election results: 'This tally will increase and we will cross 300', says BJP MP Manoj Tiwari

BJP MP and party's candidate from North East Delhi, Manoj Tiwari says, "I would like to thank PM Modi, top leadership and the people of the constituency. They all have blessed me well. We are winning all the seven seats of Delhi. We are forming the govt in the country as well. Certainly, it's not something that we have expected but this tally will increase and we will cross 300. NDA is united and will move forward together in the service of the people of the country."

Lok Sabha election results: SKM leads in Sikkim, Congress gets fewer votes than NOTA

Indra Hang Subba, the Sikkim Krantikari Morcha (SKM) candidate, has taken a commanding lead in the solitary Lok Sabha constituency in Sikkim, according to the most recent data provided by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Subba has amassed 1,56,836 votes, putting him 78,170 votes ahead of his closest rival, Bharat Basnett of the Citizen Action Party-Sikkim, who has secured 78,666 votes. Prem Das Rai, representing the Sikkim Democratic Front (SDF), currently holds the third position with 75,464 votes. Surprisingly, Gopal Chettri, the Congress candidate, has received a mere 2,190 votes, which is even lower than the number of votes cast for the "None of the Above" (NOTA) option. The latest figures reveal that 2,433 voters have chosen to exercise their right to reject all the candidates by opting for NOTA, surpassing the votes garnered by the Congress candidate.

Lok Sabha election results: DMK leaders TR Baalu, Kanimozhi lead; Union minister L Murugan trailing

DMK-led INDIA bloc continued its lead in Tamil Nadu with the front leading in 37 seats of the 39 Lok Sabha seats in the state. Senior DMK leaders TR Baalu, Kanimozhi and A Raja are leading against their respective rivals by margins of more than 50,000 votes. Union minister and former Tamil Nadu state president of the BJP, L Murugan is trailing. Kanimozhi is leading from her Thoothukudi seat by a margin of around 1,25,000 votes over her nearest AIADMK rival Sivasamy Velumani, while T.R. Baalu is leading by more than 1,00,000 votes in Sriperumbudur. Former Union minister and senior leader, A Raja is leading from Nilgiris seat by a margin of around 69,000 votes against his nearest rival and Union minister L Murugan.

Lok Sabha election results: Congress's Shashi Tharoor vs BJP's Rajeev Chandrasekhar

After trailing for a while behind BJP candidate Rajeev Chandrasekhar in the Thiruvananthapuram Lok Sabha seat, Congress' Shashi Tharoor has regained the lead. During the initial hours of counting, the fight between Chandrasekhar and Tharoor was neck-and-neck with each taking a lead of a few thousand votes.

Lok Sabha election results: Amit Shah gains decisive lead of over 6 lakh votes in Gandhinagar Lok Sabha seat

Bharatiya Janata Party leader and Union Home Minister Amit Shah has gained an unassailable lead of 6.15 lakh votes over his nearest Congress rival Sonal Patel in the Gandhinagar Lok Sabha seat in Gujarat, officials said on Tuesday. Shah has so far got 7.96 lakh votes, while Patel received 1.81 lakh votes, they said.

Lok Sabha election results: BJP fails to open account in Tamil Nadu, DMK leads in 21 constituencies; Annamalai trails

As the counting of votes is underway in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)-Congress combine was seen sweeping the Lok Sabha Elections in the state while the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) failed to open its account in the state. All 39 seats in Tamil Nadu voted in a single phase on April 19 in Lok Sabha polls. The voter turnout of 72.09 per cent was recorded in the state. The DMK is leading on 21 seats, Congress is leading on nine seats, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi on two seats, the Communist Party of India on two seats, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on two seats and Pattali Makkal Katchi, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Indian Union Muslim League is leading on 1 each.

UP Election Results 2024: BJP trailing in Faizabad constituency where Ayodhya is located

Counting trends showed BJP trailing in the Faizabad constituency. The city Ayodhya is located in what was formerly known as Faizabad district. Faizabad district was officially renamed Ayodhya in 2018. However, the Lok Sabha seat is still called Faizabad. More than five hours after counting started, BJP's candidate Lallu Singh is trailing behind Samajwadi Party candidate Awadhesh Prasad. The lead margin was around 12,778 votes as of 2:30pm.

Lok Sabha election results: 'BJP is winning all five Lok Sabha seats', says Uttarakhand CM Pushkar Singh Dhami

Uttarakhand chief minister Pushkar Singh Dhami says, "Under the leadership of PM Modi, the government brought several schemes for the welfare of poor, farmers, youth. NDA alliance is getting the majority and we are forming the government. In Uttarakhand, BJP is winning all five Lok Sabha seats."

Lok Sabha election results: Former Punjab CM and Congress candidate Charanjit Singh Channi wins from Jalandhar

Former Punjab chief minister and Congress candidate Charanjit Singh Channi has won from Jalandhar Lok Sabha seat and defeated BJP candidate Sushil Kumar Rinku by a margin of 1,75,993 votes.

Lok Sabha election results: Priyanka Gandhi congratulates Kishori Lal Sharma as he gains huge lead over Smriti Irani

'Kishori bhaiya, I never had any doubts, I was sure from the beginning that you will win. Hearty congratulations to you and my dear brothers and sisters of Amethi!', Priyanka Gandhi said after Kishori Lal Sharma gained huge lead over BJP leader Smriti Irani in Amethi.

Lok Sabha election results: PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti concedes defeat

"Respecting the verdict of the people I thank my PDP workers & leaders for their hard work & support despite all the odds. My deepest gratitude to the people who voted for me. Winning & losing is part of the game & wont deter us from our path. Congratulations to Mian sahab for his victory," Mehbooba said in a post on X.

Lok Sabha election results: TMC's Mahua Moitra leading in Krishnanagar with over 60k votes

TMC's Mahua Moitra, who is seeking re-election from West Bengal's Krishnanagar seat, is leading with a vote margin of over 60k votes against BJP candidate Amrita Roy, as per ECI. Bharatiya Janata Party's Amrita Roy has so far garnered 238294 votes. In the 2019 Lok Sabha election, Mahua Moitra won from Krishnanagar Lok Sabha seat by winning 614,872 votes. West Bengal BJP chief Sukanta Majumdar contesting from the Balurghat Lok Sabha seat is trailing by a margin of 1,86,823 votes against TMC candidate Biplab Mitra, as per the ECI. Meanwhile, Trinamool Congress General Secretary and West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee's nephew and candidate from Diamond Harbour seat, Abhishek Banerjee is leading from the seat with a margin of 4,31,736 votes.

Lok Sabha election results 2024: 'Would like to thank people of Amethi, Gandhi family', says Congress's Kishori Lal Sharma

Speaking to reporters in Uttar Pradesh's Amethi, Sharma said, "I would like to thank the people of Amethi and the Gandhi family". "However, let the counting conclude. We will talk after that", he added. Amethi is one of the most-watched seats of all the 543 Lok Sabha constituencies. The exit polls forecasted a tough fight between BJP's Irani and Gandhi family loyalist- KL Sharma.

Lok Sabha election results: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi leading by over 2,00,000 votes

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi surpasses 2019 victory margin of his mother Sonia Gandhi in Rae Bareli seat, leads by 2,22,219 votes.

Lok Sabha election results: Omar Abdullah concedes defeat, says time to accept the inevitable

"I think it’s time to accept the inevitable. Congratulations to Engineer Rashid for his victory in North Kashmir. I don’t believe his victory will hasten his release from prison nor will the people of North Kashmir get the representation they have a right to but the voters have spoken and in a democracy that’s all that matters," Abdullah said in a post on X.Omar Abdullah is contesting from J&K's Baramullah constituency.

Lok Sabha election results: Former CM Omar Abdullah trails in Baramulla constituency of J&K

Former CM Omar Abdullah of Jammu & Kashmir National Conference (JKNC) trails in Baramulla constituency of J&K; Independent Abdul Rashid Sheikh leads. Baramulla constituency went into polling in the fifth phase of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, on May 20th. Voter turnout was recorded at 58.17 per cent.

Lok Sabha election results: 'BJP-led NDA will form the government once the final results are out', says Anurag Thakur

"The NDA is leading in the entire nation and I am confident that the BJP-led NDA will form the government once the final results are out. The country needs a strong government and an honest leader," says Union minister and BJP candidate from Himachal Pradesh's Hamirpur seat Anurag Thakur on poll trends.

Election results 2024: Union minister Nitin Gadkari is leading from Nagpur Lok Sabha

As the counting is underway, according to the latest trend, Union minister Nitin Gadkari is leading from the Nagpur Lok Sabha seat in Maharashtra. According to the latest data from the Election Commission of India, the BJP candidate from the Nagpur seat is leading.

Lok Sabha election results 2024: According to trends, NDA leading on 297 seats, INDIA bloc at 225

Election results 2024: BJP's Rae Bareli candidate against Rahul Gandhi concedes defeat

BJP candidate from Raebareli, Dinesh Pratap Singh, has conceded defeat midway through the counting of votes.In a post on social media, Singh who is challenging Rahul Gandhi in Raebareli, wrote “I worked very hard but there were some lapses for which I apologise to the people of Raebareli. I thank my workers and apologise to the people of Raebareli. We worked hard but the result is not in our hands. The people are like God and their decision is appropriate. I want to assure the people that I will always be there to serve them.”Singh posted this message when the vote difference between him and Rahul Gandhi crossed one lakh.

Election results 2024: 'NDA is going to get around 290 seats', says BJP leader Raman Singh

Former Chhattisgarh CM & BJP leader Raman Singh says, "After the counting of voters for 6-7 rounds, NDA is going to get around 290 seats. BJP-led NDA will form its government in the country. BJP will also reach around 270 seats. In Odisha and Andhra Pradesh too, BJP will form its government."

Election results 2024: AAP's Hayer leads in Sangrur, SAD nominee Simranjit Singh Mann trails

AAP candidate Gurmeet Singh Meet Hayer is leading in Punjab's Sangrur Lok Sabha seat against SAD (Amritsar) nominee Simranjit Singh Mann, according to the Election Commission. Hayer was leading by a comfortable margin of 1,48,772 votes against sitting MP Mann, according to the Election Commission data. Sangrur parliamentary constituency is considered as the AAP's citadel. Counting of votes for the 13 Lok Sabha seats in Punjab is underway amid tight security arrangements.

Lok Sabha election results: AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi leads in Hyderabad

All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi leads by 1,19,079 votes from Hyderabad constituency. The political atmosphere in the Hyderabad Lok Sabha constituency is charged as K Madhavi Latha of the BJP poses a significant challenge to the long-standing dominance of AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi, a four-term sitting MP.

Election results 2024: Sonia Gandhi arrives at residence of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra as counting underway

Congress Parliamentary Party Chairperson Sonia Gandhi arrived at the residence of the party's general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Tuesday.Meanwhile, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was also seen leaving from the residence of Sonia Gandhi at 10, Janpath.Rahul Gandhi is leading from Uttar Pradesh's Raebareli Lok Sabha seat with a margin of 1,64,249 votes. He is also leading from Wayanad Lok Sabha seat in Kerala.The latest trends by the Election Commission on 542 Lok Sabha seats show that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) crossing the halfway mark with the BJP leading on 242 seats and winning one seat.

Lok Sabha election results: Rahul Gandhi leading by huge margin in Wayanad and Rae Bareli

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appears to have cemented his victory in the Wayanad Lok Sabha seat by attaining a huge lead of over 2 lakh votes against his rivals. Meanwhile, in Rae Bareli, the Congress leader is leading by more than 1.5 lakh votes.

Lok Sabha trends: BJP short of majority, its NDA alliance likely to cross halfway mark with fewer MPs

Early trends from counting of votes on Tuesday threw up disappointing results for the BJP-led NDA in the Lok Sabha elections, which appears to be losing heavily in its strongholds of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan although it is expected to form the government with about 290 seats. On its own, the Bharatiya Janata Party appeared to be falling below the majority mark with leads in 236 seats despite significant gains in Odisha, Telangana and Kerala, giving some solace to the party after the unexpected losses in the Hindi belt. Its rival INDIA alliance, forged together by their common dislike for the BJP and its ideology, was leading in about 230 seats. In the last elections, the BJP had 303 seats on its own, while the NDA had over 350. The final numbers are also likely to be far short of the "400-paar" predictions by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and "370-paar" for BJP. The exit poll results, which had given a thumping majority for the NDA, were completely junked by the results.

Election results 2024: Exit poll predictions failing, says CPM leader Brinda Karat as early trends show INDIA alliance's better performance

As the Election Commission put out trends from the counting of votes in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections on Tuesday morning, CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat slammed the exit polls that predicted a third term for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. She said the initial trends suggested that the exit poll predictions were failing. "The race is in its initial stages right now. INDIA bloc has performed well in the initial stages. But like I said, this is only the beginning...The exit polls and the initial picture that was painted earlier is failing 100 per cent." CPI(M) General Secretary Sitaram Yechury also alleged that the exit polls were conducted to influence the share market to make money. "Exit poll was done to influence the share market and those who wanted to make money in the share market yesterday made money. Now the reality is coming in front of you. Now let the full results come, after that, we will tell you. INDIA alliance is doing well," Yechury said.

Election results 2024: Union minister Annapurna Devi leading in Jharkhand's Koderma Lok Sabha seat

Union minister Annapurna Devi was leading by 44,478 votes in Koderma Lok Sabha seat against CPI (ML) Liberation's Vinod Kumar Singh, election officials said. Vinod Kumar Singh is a legislator from Jharkhand's Bagodar. Devi, who had joined the BJP ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls and contested the Koderma Lok Sabha seat, had defeated former chief minister and then JVM-P chief Babulal Marandi, who is now state BJP president, by a margin of 4.55 lakh votes. | Before joining the BJP, she was the Jharkhand president of Lalu Yadav-led Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD).

Lok Sabha election results: 'Congress raises objections against EVM only when they lose', says BJP's CP Joshi

CP Joshi, the BJP President of Rajasthan and the party's candidate from the Chittorgarh Lok Sabha Seat, criticized the Congress party on Tuesday for their inconsistent stance on electronic voting machines (EVMs). He pointed out that the Congress only questions the reliability of EVMs when they face defeat, but remain silent when they emerge victorious. Joshi also conveyed his strong belief in the BJP's prospects of securing a clear majority in the upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha election. He emphasized that the party is poised to achieve a resounding victory not only at the national level but also in the state of Rajasthan. "We have full faith that in the state as well as in Rajasthan, the BJP is getting a clear and full majority. In a while, they will speak on EVMs: when they (Congress) win in any state, the EVMs are fine, but when they lose, they raise objections against the EVMs", he said.

Lok Sabha election results: RJD's Misa Bharti is leading, Rohini Acharya is trailing in Patliputra

Misa Bharti, RJD candidate and elder daughter of party supremo Lalu Prasad, is leading by 26,816 votes over her nearest rival, Ram Kripal Yadav of BJP, in Patliputra Lok Sabha constituency. However, Rohini Acharya, Lalu's other daughter who is an RJD nominee from Saran Lok Sabha constituency, is trailing by 6,633 votes over her nearest rival and BJP candidate Rajiv Pratap Rudy. Counting is underway at more than 36 centres in the state. Polling was held for those seats in seven phases between April 19 and June 1.

Lok Sabha election results: 'I am confident Prime Minister Modi will be re-elected': BJP candidate Saroj Pandey

Bharatiya Janata Party candidate Saroj Pandey from Korba Lok Sabha constituency exudes her confidence and said Prime Minister Modi is going to re-establish BJP's government in the centre for a third consecutive term.

Lok Sabha election results: Sarabjit Singh Khalsa, son of Indira Gandhi's assasin Beant Singh leads

Sarabjeet Singh, son of Indira Gandhi's assasin Beant Singh, leads by nearly 48,000 votes in Faridkot Lok Sabha constituency of Punjab. Beant Singh's son, nearly four decades after his father's actions, has launched a campaign that is resonating with rural voters. His narrative centers around the idea that the government's military operation targeting the Akal Takht in early June 1984 was "avenged" by his father. As a result, numerous villages have extended invitations to him, eager to hear his message.

Election results 2024: Prajwal Revvana leads from Karnataka's Hassan constituency

According to the latest trends, Prajwal Revanna, the candidate from Janata Dal-Secular (JD(S)), is expected to emerge victorious in the Hassan Lok Sabha constituency of Karnataka. His main competitors in this electoral battle are Shreyas M Patel from the Indian National Congress and Gangadhar Bahujan, representing the Bahujan Samaj Party. The Hassan Lok Sabha constituency has a rich political history, with former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda having represented it multiple times. Gowda served as the Member of Parliament from this constituency from 1991 to 1994, 1998 to 1999, and then again from 2004 to 2014. The constituency encompasses the entire Hassan district and Kaduru Taluk, which is part of the Chikmagaluru district.

Election results 2024: Congress heading to improve tally, BJP yield ground in Karnataka as per counting trends

The ruling Congress in Karnataka appeared headed on Tuesday to improve its tally and BJP yield ground as per initial counting trends in 28 Lok Sabha constituencies in the State. The BJP was ahead in 17 seats, Congress in eight and JD(S) in three as per the latest counting figures, according to Election Commission officials. The Congress won a mere one seat out of the total 28 in the State in the 2019 general elections. BJP had swept the previous Lok Sabha elections bagging 25 seats, while an independent backed by it also won. JD(S), headed by former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda, had emerged victorious in one constituency. The Congress and the JD(S) were running a coalition government back then and had fought the election together. The regional outfit joined the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in September last year and fought the Lok Sabha elections in alliance with the BJP, and is contesting in three seats -- Mandya, Hassan and Kolar, and they are leading in all of them.

Lok Sabha election results: Jailed pro-Khalistani separatist Amritpal Singh leads from Khadoor Sahib seat with over 80,000 votes

Jailed Khalistani separatist and Waris Punjab De Chief Amritpal Singh is leading by 83,136 votes from Punjab's Khadoor Sahib seat in the Lok Sabha elections 2024, according to the latest trends shown by Election Commission of India. Amritpal Singh is contesting an independent candidate. Congress leader Kulbir Singh Zira is trailing behind, while the Aam Admi Party candidate is trailing. The pro-Khalistani leader was arrested by Punjab police in April last year, weeks after evading police for over a month and the stringent National Security Act was invoked against him.

Lok Sabha election results: NDA leads in Bihar; Nitish Kumar's JD(U) ahead on 14 seats

NDA alliance, which includes the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) and Janta Dal (United), are leading in Bihar, according to the latest trends issued by the Election Commission of India. Janata Dal (United) is ahead on 14 seats in Bihar, while Bharatiya Janata Party is leading on 11 seats, as per Election Commission of India. With 40 Lok Sabha constituencies, the fourth highest among all States and Union Territories, Bihar holds a crucial position in shaping Indian politics. Meanwhile, Lok Janshakti Party(Ram Vilas) is leading on 5 seats, Rashtriya Janata Dal on five seats, Congress on two seats, Communist Party of India on 1 seat and Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) on 1 seat. Under the INDIA alliance agreement in Bihar, the RJD contested on 26 seats, the Congress on nine, and the Left parties contested on five out of the state's 40 Lok Sabha constituencies.

Lok Sabha election results: TMC leading on 24 seats in West Bengal

Trinamool Congress is leading on 24 seats in West Bengal as the counting of votes in the Lok Sabha polls is progressing, as per the Election Commission. West Bengal contributes 42 Lok Sabha seats in the 543-member Parliament. As Bharatiya Janata Party's main focus was to dislodge Mamata Banerjee from West Bengal and even targeted the TMC government over Sandeshkhali, but the trends till 11 am showed that BJP is leading on 11 seats. The Trinamool Congress is leading on 24 seats, BJP on 7 and Congress on 3 and CPI(M) on one seat, as per the ECI. Prominent leaders from TMC who are leading in West Bengal include Trinamool Congress General Secretary and West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee's nephew, Abhishek Banerjee, in Diamond Harbour; Sayani Ghosh in Jadavpur; Mala Roy in Kolkata Dakshin.

Delhi election results 2024: BJP's Manoj Tiwari leading against Congress's Kanhaiya Kumar

In the North East Delhi constituency, Manoj Tiwari of the BJP has taken a commanding lead of more than 40,000 votes over his rival, Kanhaiya Kumar from the Congress party. The contest in the national capital is primarily between the BJP and the alliance formed by Congress and AAP. In the previous two general elections held in 2014 and 2019, the BJP had emerged victorious in all seven constituencies of Delhi.

Election results 2024: BJP's Lallu Singh trailing against SP's Awadhesh Prasad in Faizabad

BJP's Lallu Singh trailing by 4,791 votes against SP's Awadhesh Prasad in Faizabad Lok Sabha seat in Uttar Pradesh, according to Election Commission.

Election results 2024: Congress leader Charanjit Singh Channi leading in Punjab's Jalandhar

In the Jalandhar Lok Sabha constituency of Punjab, Charanjit Singh Channi has established a substantial lead over his BJP opponent, Sushil Rinku. The Election Commission data reveals that Channi is ahead by an impressive margin of 1,09,912 votes. The counting process for all 13 Lok Sabha seats in the state commenced at 8 am, with stringent security measures in place to ensure a smooth and fair process.

Election results 2024: 'Congress leaping 3 times higher than 2019, Rahul Gandhi could lead country', says Sanjay Raut

MP Sanjay Raut claimed on Saturday that the INDIA bloc is set to bring a change in the country’s political landscape given the manner in which it has performed all over. Considering the Congress’ strong run in the country, as per the early trends of counting of votes for the Lok Sabha elections, the party is likely to emerge as the single largest entity and Rahul Gandhi could be set to lead the nation, Raut told mediapersons here. “The trends show that Congress is leading in more than 150 Lok Sabha seat. This is a three-time higher leap compared to 2019 when it barely bagged 50 seats. If the Congress wins more than 100 seats, a decisive change is possible in the country,” Raut declared.

Election results 2024: BJP MP and leader Sadhvi Pragya Singh on Lok Sabha results

BJP MP and leader Sadhvi Pragya Singh says, "We are forming the government for the third time. The trends are in favour of BJP. The results will also be in favour of BJP. Based on 10 years of governance of BJP government, the public has chosen BJP again."

Lok Sabha election results: BJP's Rajeev Chandrasekhar's leading against Congress candidate Shashi Tharoor

BJP's Rajeev Chandrasekhar has increased lead by over 5,000 votes against Congress' Shashi Tharoor in Thiruvananthapuram Lok Sabha seat.

Election results 2024: Independent candidate Mohmad Haneefa leads in Ladakh constituency

Independent candidate Mohmad Haneefa leading by 15,535 votes in Ladakh constituency. Tsering Namgyal of Indian National Congress (INC) trail in Ladakh constituency. BJP's Tashi Gyalson trails by 17,199 votes in Ladakh constituency.

Election results 2024: BJP's Karan Bhushan leads in Kaiserganj

BJP's Karan Bhushan is leading by 33,727 votes over Samajwadi Party's Bhagat Ram in Kaiserganj Lok Sabha seat in Uttar Pradesh.

Election results 2024: BJP's Annamalai K trails in Coimbatore as DMK's Ganapathy Rajkumar

Coimbatore parliamentary constituency second round: DMK Rajkumar - 53,580 BJP Annamalai - 41,167 AIADMK Singai Ramachandran - 23,396

Election results 2024: EC trends show big upset for BJP in Uttar Pradesh

According to the election panel's data for the 80 parliamentary seats in Uttar Pradesh, the INDIA bloc was leading in 42 constituencies, while the BJP-led NDA was ahead in 37.Among the INDIA bloc parties, the Samajwadi Party (SP) was leading in 34 seats, and the Congress in eight. The BJP had a lead in 35 seats, and its ally, the RLD, was ahead in two. Several prominent leaders have established comfortable leads over their opponents, including PM Modi in Varanasi, Rajnath Singh in Lucknow, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and his wife Dimple Yadav in Kannauj and Mainpuri respectively, Congress candidates Rahul Gandhi and Kishori Lal Sharma in Rae Bareli and Amethi respectively.The close contest between the INDIA bloc and the BJP-led NDA in Uttar Pradesh highlights the significance of the state in determining the overall outcome of the Lok Sabha elections. As the counting of votes continues, the leads may fluctuate, and the final results will provide a clearer picture of the political landscape in Uttar Pradesh and its impact on the national level.

Tuesday 4 June 2024 10:40, UK

• General Election 2024

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Election news

• Starmer admits he hasn't spoken to Abbott for months
• Ex-Reform leader making 'painful discovery' about Farage
• First general election debate taking place this evening
• Labour could be set for biggest majority in 100 years - YouGov poll
• Be in the audience for our election leaders event
• Live reporting by Faith Ridler

Expert analysis

• Tamara Cohen: Labour to end 'soap opera' with final candidates list
• Mhari Aurora: Tories expecting potential defections to Reform
• Jon Craig: What we can learn from previous TV election debates

Election essentials

• Trackers: Who's leading polls? | Is PM keeping promises?
• Campaign Heritage: Memorable moments from elections gone by
• Follow Sky's politics podcasts: Electoral Dysfunction | Politics At Jack And Sam's
• Read more: Who is standing down? | Key seats to watch | How to register to vote | What counts as voter ID? | Check if your constituency is changing | Your essential guide to election lingo | Sky's election night plans

Today, Labour's ruling committee will approve the final list of candidates going forward for election - including Diane Abbott.

As Sir Keir Starmer reiterated this morning, she's free to stand for the party once again - though the leader admitted he hasn't spoken to her for several months ( see 10.13 post ).

After a week of accusations that Sir Keir's tried to purge the party's left, Labour's 650 prospective MPs should be rubber-stamped in a short online meeting at midday. 

Sir Keir will hope this process by the National Executive Committee draws a line under the controversy over treatment of Ms Abbott, after briefings - apparently incorrect - the leadership wanted to bar her. 

The Labour leader has a majority on the NEC and his will goes.

Recriminations have surrounded the process, not least because various Sir Keir loyalists on the 40-member NEC have themselves been selected.

Faiza Shaheen, a Jeremy Corbyn-supporting economist who was dropped as a candidate in Chingford and Woodford Green over social media posts, has claimed the Labour Party is "institutionally racist". 

Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the left-wing MP for Brighton Kemptown since 2017, claimed he was suspended over a complaint from eight years ago.

He told my colleague Serena Barker-Singh today: "The system is wrong. There's a danger it looks like cronyism or 'Jobs for the boys'".

As one Labour insider put it: "The Labour Party love to get bogged down in process, but hopefully this soap opera can now come to an end."

Meanwhile, the Tories still have dozens of seats to select. 

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was asked whether the Labour Party would guarantee to reduce net migration year-on-year, as has been pledged by the Conservatives.

He didn't give a straight answer, but did reiterate that migration is "far too high".

Sir Keir says: "The Conservatives have let immigration get out of control, we've got record numbers of people coming to this country. 

"And they've now said they're going to have a visa cap, they've not said what the number is.

"We did have a visa cap before, Rishi Sunak argued to get rid of it - which they did in 2020 - and now they're going back to it but without a number."

Asked again whether Labour could guarantee this drop, Sir Keir would only say he wants immigration to "come down".

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is in Greater Manchester, where he has been discussing the row around Diane Abbott.

He is asked about a social media post which claims he was lying about "having respect for her" as a Labour candidate in Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

Has he spoken to Ms Abbott since then?

"We have dealt with the Diane Abbott issue," Sir Keir says.

"The choice is continue with the chaos of division or turn the page with Labour." 

The Labour leader says Ms Abbott "will be part of that".

Asked again, he says: "I spoke to Diane two or three months ago."

Our political correspondent Mhari Aurora   is hearing Rishi Sunak could soon suffer yet more defections.

Rather than to Labour, where three Tories have moved to recently - Mark Logan, Natalie Elphicke, and Dan Poulter - Mhari's hearing some may be heading for Reform UK.

It comes after a double dose of bad news for the Tories on an "absolutely fascinating" night for the election campaign, which saw Nigel Farage announce he was taking over as Reform leader and standing for parliament himself for an eighth time.

He'll be going for the seat of Clacton.

Less than an hour later, a "bombshell poll" projected a huge majority for Labour, even bigger than Tony Blair's 1997 landslide.

Mhari says Farage's return and the poll "has really shaken some Tories", adding: "I've been speaking to some Tories this morning who have been telling me they're expecting some potential defections to Reform after that.

"It will be interesting how this starts to play out - how much the Tory party can keep things together, or if things start to fall apart."

By Tomos Evans , Wales reporter

The Welsh government has put plans to cut the summer holidays on hold.

Under the proposals, the summer holiday would be reduced by one week, with an extra week added for October half term.

But Wales's education secretary Lynne Neagle has announced no decision will be made before the next Senedd election in 2026.

That means that any future changes to the school year are unlikely to be introduced before 2028.

It is the second time in a month that Welsh government policy has been shelved, after plans for a new farm subsidy scheme were put on hold following protests among farmers.

You can read more from Sky News below:

Until voters go to the polls on 4 July, the Politics Hub will be looking back at some memorable moments from previous general election campaigns.

Ahead of tonight's debate between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, a reminder of the potential pitfalls for politicians on TV.

Labour had been tipped to return to power at the 2015 election, but some bruising TV appearances for then leader Ed Miliband likely didn't help the party's chances by the end of the campaign.

One such memorable telly stint saw him grilled on Sky News by famed political interrogator Jeremy Paxman about whether he was "tough enough" for the job of prime minister.

Leaning forward, Mr Miliband shared an anecdote about the UK government's desire to intervene in Syria that year, in line with the US under then president Barack Obama.

He told Paxman how he was "called into a room" to speak to the prime minister, David Cameron, and his deputy, Nick Clegg, fresh off the phone with Mr Obama, and ultimately decided to vote against taking action.

"Standing up to the leader of the free world shows a certain toughness," said Mr Miliband.

Defending his record on foreign policy, he concluded his point with the immortal words: "Am I tough enuss... tough enough? 

"Hell yes, I'm tough enough."

Previous entry: Flakes between friends

Sir Keir Starmer could be heading to Downing Street with a majority of 194 seats, bigger than what Tony Blair achieved in 1997, according to the first polling projection by YouGov of the campaign.

The projection shows a historic Labour landslide, with the party getting the highest number of seats of any party at an election in history.

At the same time, the Tories are trying to boost ratings by talking about culture wars while Labour is talking about real wars in terms of what they would do for defence. And Nigel Farage has announced he's standing for Reform UK.

On the Sky News Daily, Niall Paterson talks to Sky's chief political correspondent Jon Craig about the poll and today's developments, and to Scarlett Maguire, director of the polling organisation JL Partners.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Sir Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has insisted he will "not be distracted" by thoughts of an election deal after a YouGov poll forecast they could win 48 seats.

He was asked whether his party is leaning towards striking a deal with Labour or the Conservatives.

Sir Ed says: "I'm not going to be distracted by that. What I'm focusing on is defeating Conservative MPs and SNP MPs in Scotland.

"Actually, we can beat a Labour MP in Sheffield Hallam.

"And if we get lots of Liberal Democrat MPs elected, not only will that transform the political debate in parliament, I think it will show that there is a fair deal on offer for people."

Pat McFadden, Labour's national campaign co-ordinator, is asked if he is confident Diane Abbott will be selected as a Labour candidate today.

It comes after a back-and-forth over whether she would be barred from doing so, despite having the Labour whip restored.

From 12pm, the party's candidates will be confirmed across the country.

"Yes, I am," Mr McFadden says. 

"I support every Labour candidate."

Pressed, he says: "I don't have favourites, I support them all."

Pat McFadden, Labour's national campaign co-ordinator, has insisted that a YouGov poll which forecasts a landslide win for his party "makes no difference to us".

The projection gave Labour a majority of 194 seats in the 4 July poll.

But Mr McFadden says he "ignores" these projections, and he tells Labour staff - and candidates - to do the same.

"No votes have been cast, we are the challengers in this election, we are not the incumbents," he adds.

"The incumbents are the Conservatives, and the last thing I would want is for anybody to believe that the result has somehow been decided.

"The result hasn't been decided - we still have a month to go in this election campaign."

Asked about potential deals, Mr McFadden says: "We want a majority."

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free