Do Leaders' Personalities Influence Political Outcomes?

Critically discuss Fred I. Greenstein’s idea of ‘action dispensability’, i.e. under what circumstances are presidents and prime ministers more likely to influence events? 

 

“Without an opportunity, their abilities would have been wasted and without their abilities the opportunity would have been in vain” –Machiavelli “The Prince 1513”[1]

“It is difficult to be precise in stipulating circumstances under which an individual’s actions are likely to be a link in future events’ – Greenstein. 

Introduction 

Greenstein defined ‘Action Dispensability’ as “what are the circumstances under which the actions of singular individuals are likely to have a greater or lesser effect on the course of events”.

In this assignment, I seek to (A) describe Action Dispensability and the context in which Greenstein developed it (B) As Action Dispensability is an interactionist theory describe same and assess it along with some antecedent and contemporary alternate outcomes (C) critique Greenstein’s theory and (D) form a conclusion.

 

 Action Dispensability and Context

Fred Greenstein; born 1 September 1930 is Professor of Politics Emeritus at Princeton University. Elgie describes Greenstein as “the scholar who has consistently tried to systematically study the interaction between personality and environmental factors”.[2]

Action Dispensability appears to have first been formally published in the American Political Science Review, September 1967. [3]Greenstein continued to expound Action Dispensability over time, including 25 years later in “Can Personality and Politics be Studied Systematically” (1992).[4]

In keeping with Elgie’s (P121) description of him as one of the founders of political psychology, Greenstein is clearly coming from this perspective, commencing the 1967 article with “There is a great deal of political activity which can be explained adequately only by taking account of the personal characteristics of the actors involved”.[5]Nevertheless, this is broadly placed in an interactionist context, through Greenstein providing “a three-legged stool of situational/contextual, institutional/contextual and personality contextual factors brought together. The three legs are:

1.     The likelihood of personal impact increases to the degree that the environment admits of restructuring – clearly situational/contextual.

2.     The likelihood of personal impact varies with the actor’s location in the environment. - incorporates institutional/contextual factors

3.     The likelihood of personal impact varies with the personal strength or weaknesses of the actor. Personality/psychological predisposition factors.

In arguing Action Dispensability, Greenstein does not attempt to define leadership conforming to Elgie’s (p29) view that a single description of leadership is not possible, and evidenced in Bass (11-35) giving a number of different concepts, typologies and taxonomies for leadership[6]. Action Dispensability does not focus on leadership emergence, and is more concerned with leadership in action[7].Furthermore, Greenstein appears to focus on leadership as opposed to “headship” as referenced by Bass (pg 18) quoting Gibb (1969).[8]

Neither does Greenstein seek to describe or define personality. In his 1992 article, he quotes Murray 1968 “personality is the most comprehensive term in human psychology” to justify this[9].

In keeping with the, almost “universal umbrella” nature of the theory, Greenstein in essence says that it is self-evident that personality impacts leadership outcomes, but concedes, as noted by the second quotation at the beginning of this assignment, that it is difficult to explain the degree to which this can apply.

Notwithstanding this confession, Greenstein appears to be driven by desire to bring a methodological framework of the theory. He produces a quasi-algebraic formula of;

Environment of the Political Actor

Predisposition of the Political Actor Political Response

i.e E-> P – > R 

These show the environment influencing leaders’ predispositions which drive political responses, but the arrows flow only one way. 

In the 1992 article, Greenstein provides a more detailed diagram, showing a graphic of factors, which influence the predispositions of the political actor, albeit without changing the basic the arrow’s flow, in that environment flows into the predispositions of the political actor. From that, a flow to political responses. In my conclusion, I argue this formula does not stand up as the flows go only one way[10].

The Evolution of Interactionism and Alternative Theories

Accepting Action Dispensability is an interactionist theory, it is useful to explain interactionism and some alternative theories, prior to critiquing it Greenstein. 

Interactionism

While Bass (p38) describes Plutarch in Parallel Lives arguing situational context of leadership and a brief review of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” shows his advice on leadership attributes and  requirements being provided in this situational context[11][12], it appears that interactionism began to evolve from the writings of Herbert Spencer (1873) “The Great Man Theory Breaks Down” [13]and “Great Men and Their Environments” 1880 by William James[14], ’the first coherent statement of interactionism’ according to Elgie (pg 11/16). Prior to that leadership studies appear to have been primarily of the “great man” nature very often focused on their emergence e.g. Henman (1) quotes Aristotle ‘from the moment of birth some are made for subjugation and others for leadership”.[15][16]Emergence theories moved in line with the general development of people’s world views from divine intervention, to hereditary entitlement, to Darwinian evolution.

From the early twentieth century ensuing from Freud’s focus on the subconscious which impacts on people’s attitudes behaviour and actions (subsequently developed by Erikson, Rogers, Bandura and many others), leadership studies moved to understanding the psychological personalities of leaders either individually, (psychobiographies) of typologically (using Five Factor Model, Myers Briggs etc) or collectively (Culture, social groups, kinetic impact). Studies did this to understand and/or predict political leader’s actions and some like James Barber (1975) attempted to identify ideal political leadership traits. 

Even more recently writers such as Byman and Pollack 2001 “Let Us Now Praise Great Men’ and Sheffer “Innovative Leadership in World Politics’ make strong constructivist cases for a heavy focus on personalities overriding situational and institutional factors[17].[18]

Byman and Pollack (p108) “I tend to think of history as being run by impersonal forces in practice you see the difference personalities make” a quote by Henry Kissinger. [19]However, both of these authors, give situational/Institutional contextual requirements for personality to make a real difference. The literature also referred to situational/institutional theories which seek to negate the impact of leadership personality. We are familiar with the Hegelian/Marx 19thcentury deterministic theories for the inevitable demise of capitalism. Bass (p93) cites Bogardus (1918), Pearson (1928) and Spillet (1929) et al, as being early situational/contextual theorists and at (P7- 8), [20]Bass refers to modern writers including, Mendel and Elrich (1987), Kats and Kahn (1966 and Pfeffer(1977) making institutional factor arguments with the latter arguing that leadership factor attribution is driven by people’s subliminal desire to believe humans can control the environment.

[21]

Henman (2) cites Stogdill (1974) “disparaging situational theories as “attributing all variances between persons to fortuitous demands of the environment”. [22]

Bass (p40) effectively tries to kill off this quasi nature vs nurture argument as being a pseudo problem, stating that in any given situation, some of the variance in what happens, is due to the situation, some is due to the individual and some is due to a combination of both.[23]Bass (pg76) further supports this argument by referring to Feldstein and Newcombe (1938) who asserted that “the very studies that provided the strongest arguments for the situational nature of leadership, also supplied the strongest evidence that leadership patterns were permanent and relatively stable”. [24]

It appears that interactionist theories, gathered pace during the 1940s. Each of Bass, Greenstein and Elgie, specifically refer to Jenkins 1947 “leadership is particular to their specific leadership situation under inspection”[25][26].

The review of the literature did not provide suitably compelling primarily personality, situational or institutional based alternative over-arching theories to interactionism. Therefore, I agree with Elgie, who in quoting Sheffer (1993) and Blondel (1967) advises that political leadership cannot be divorced from the environment that it operates in, that leader’s actions shape events and are shaped by them and therefore that interactionism is an essential foundation for studying leadership, particularly political leadership[27][28]. I cannot therefore critique Action Dispensability for being interactionist but, does it provide an appropriately strong case for interactionism? In particular, does it bring interactionism forward, given that Elgie (pg 9) describes interactionism as merely a starting point?[29]

Action Dispensability Further Explained and Critiqued.

Leg 1

The situational/contextual leg is that the likelihood of personal impact being a critical factor increases with the degree that the environment is undergoing significant change and disruption. 

Greenstein distinguishes between situations where disruption and stability is the norm, (he instances Latin American politics) from situations where a previous equilibrium has been significantly disturbed. Quoting Hook (1943) he distinguishes between the February 1917 revolution in Russia which is argued as being largely predetermined and the October 1917 revolution, where Lenin’s personality was the decisive factor. [30]I do not think this is a great example about disruption creating an opportunity for leadership because in describing the leadership skill leg of his theory he uses the same example of Lenin’s character being the decisive factor between the February 1917 and October 1917. Lenin was, per Hook, an event making man. As I understand it, a disruptive environment can still create a situation where personalities of different leaders can have serious consequences without the leaders being event makers.

For example, Elgie (p4) counterfactually postulated that 9/11/2001 and in the event leading up to Britain’sinvolvementin Iraq War Two could have been different if Robin Cook rather than Tony Blair was the British Prime Minister.[31]

Even if we were to focus on event making/transforming/Innovative democratic leaders, I feel Greenstein would have expanded this leg to emphasise that such leaders can emerge, when there is a fundamental change in society which is changing the perception of a nation’s self-worth, further influenced by the event making leader having been preceded by weak leadership and where the event making leader is able to espouse the regaining of “lost values” but, in fact, is seeking to move the society on.

Examples of this are (1) De Gaulle coming back to power after the trauma for France of losing its colonies and still smarting from the humiliation of World War Two.  (2) Ronald Reagan succeeding Jimmy Carter, who had presided over a weak economy and the Iran hostages’ humiliation and where the US was still suffering self-image issues after the Vietnam war. Elgie cites Skworoneck (1997) calling these leaderships of reconstruction following disruption[32]. While Sheffer (pg XIV) also points out that a common theme is leaders espousing a socially conservative agenda i.e. tapping into the “silent majority”. [33]

Van Esch and Swinkels (2015) have provided further situational factors in a relevant modern example, being the responses of European leaders to the 2009-2011 economic crisis mapped against their psychological profiles[34]. They noted the influences of situations which are very fast moving, where available information has higher degrees of complexity, where the nature of the crisis is a new experience, [for the leaders involved], the extent to which there is a perceived degree of peril, the extent to which there can be co-ownership of the issue and the possibility for blame attribution avoidance. 

Leg 2

The next leg is related to institutional factors through Greenstein arguing the likelihood of personal impact varies with the actor’s location in the environment.

 

Quoting Robert C. Tucker, Greenstein in 1967 focuses on pre-revolutionary Russia and totalitarian/autocratic states[35]. He also does so in 1992, but again for Russia pre, and during Gorbachev. Transformational/innovative such as Reagan, Thatcher and De Gaulle did not have to have an authoritarian framework to support the achievement of their objectives. Therefore, Greenstein’s focus on totalitarian societies narrows the reader’s ability to conceptualise Greenstein’s argument. [36]

Greenstein misses a number of instrumental factors which shape leader’s ability to influence in democratic societies. Elgie outlines that institutional factors shape leader’s governing style and Brown (2014) is quoted by Elgie as stating that cultural norms also dictate expectations of what a leader should be[37]. Elgie cites Gaffney (1996) arguing that France emphasises pomp surrounding the President giving an aura, which De Gaulle was able to exploit with language as he laid out his vision for post-colonial France.[38]I think these cultural norms extend to other societies where the strong man leader is a desired cultural phenomenon and sometimes correlated to newer democracies in particular where the leader might have an additional halo impact of being part of a liberation struggle. E.g Suharto in Indonesia. 

Elgie (pg151) outlines that institutional factors shape a leader’s governing style,[39]It is apparent, that a voting system in a country can dictate whether a leader can work via a single party (more likely in a first past the post system) or has to work with coalitions. Other such factors include; the existence of a Constitution, with the Supreme Court, as being an interpreter of the same compared to a Parliamentary based precedential system as in the UK. Or where referenda are required for major decisions e.g. Ireland post the McKenna judgement. Other studies try demonstrate to whether a leader has more power in presidential or parliamentary systems. Other institutionally focused writers have focused on the resources available to the leader e.g military power. I note the constraints placed by international institutional factors e.g. is the country a member of an alliance (NATO, the EU) or an informal “special relationship” alliance (The UK and USA). Albeit even here, Elgie (pg 131) shows Dyson (2007) drawing a distinction between Harold Wilson’s unwillingness to provide military support to the US in Vietnam contrasting with Tony Blair’s full military support for this second Gulf war. [40]To these institutional factors which help determine concentration of power toward the leader and the constraints on same, I was surprised at the minimal focus on whether or not there is a free press and the general disposition of the media, as an institutional factor particularly in democracies. Contrast the UK mass media’s natural jingoism. (The Sun – Gotcha – headline for the sinking of the Belgrano) and its virulentEuro- scepticism with the attitudes of the French popular media.

Leg 3

The third leg focuses on personality factors with Greenstein pointing out the obvious, that the likelihood of personal impact varies with the strengths or weaknesses of the leader.

Coming from the personality psychological school, it is no surprise that Greenstein develops this leg most thoroughly. He creates a definition “Actor Dispensability” (or substitutability) being “in what circumstances we may ask do different actors placed in common situations vary in behaviours and in what circumstances are behaviours uniform”. In coming into this theory, Greenstein seeks to debunk Shills (1950) assertion that leaders act in a more or less uniform way. Greenstein, seizing on the “moreor less” appropriately points out that slight differences in leadership personality could have significant consequences in a given situation e.g   a “go vs. no go” decision for a nuclear strike. 

Using this example, Greenstein argues Action Dispensability and Actor Dispensability are independent and uses the E–>P–>R formula to show environmental context flowing into the leader can have different political response depending on individual leaders’ predispositions. Albeit again ignoring with this formula that leaders can influence environmental contexts and are influenced by political response outcomes.

Quoting Goldhammer (1950), Budner (1960), Lane (1959) et al. Greenstein in 1967 provides eleven circumstances/predispositions where the leader’s personality could lead to quite a different political response. These vary from A) situational factors e.g. a completely new situation in which there are no familiar cues. B) institutional e.g. personal differences can have a bigger impact to the degree that sanctions are not attached to certain alternatives. An obvious example is a coalition where an alternative course is not against a coalition partner party’s core principles e.g. Green parties with a nuclear policy red line. C) personality e.g. the degree of personal disposition impact lessens with the degree that the disposition of the leader is to [41]take cues from others. e.g Donald Trump’s ignoring advisors such as Tillerson compared to Obama’s heavy reliance on his advisors. 

Even with his eleven examples, Greenstein seems to ignore obvious factors such as (i) whether the leader has Leadership capital e.g through past successes  (Hitler after the Rhineland 1936), or (ii) oratory (Ronald Reagan – The Great Communicator), or (iii)Charisma (Bill vs. Hilary Clinton) or (iv)the ability to manipulate the media (Donald Trump using social media to make the mainstream media reactive to his agenda). 

Greenstein also seeks to explain situations where ego defensibility may make a difference, choosing this personality factor because he says its use in political studies theory causes much controversy. He cites three such situations; 1) certain situations have deeper resonance with certain personality types e.g capital punishment. 2) The degree to which a leader has ego defensive needs and 3) certain types of responses fulfil an ego defensive need e.g mass rallies. 

Greenstein’s 1992 article also quickly skips through the institutional situational legs using virtually the same examples as the 1967 article and then goes into quite considerable detail on psychopathological, social background and other personality related factors.

The emphasis on the personality leg in the 1967 and 1992 articles demonstrates Greenstein being true to his own introduction to Action Dispensability in 1967 “a great deal depends on the interests of the investigator”. [42]With Actor dispensability, he builds out Action Dispensability to a degree not done on the situational and institutional contextual legs and I think does so quite effectively despite aforementioned omissions.

I partially concur with Elgie’s observation that “25 years after……. Greenstein was unable to go beyond the basic statements he made previously”. In that the 1992 article sought to give further explanation and methodology to the personality leg of the stool but does not expand on the situational/contextual and institutional legs[43].[44]

Conclusion – Critique Summarised 

1.    Is Action Dispensability a tired “golden oldie”? While there is evidence that between 1967 and 1992 Greenstein expanded the leg of his area of interest i.e. personality, he did not expand or evolve the situational and institutional contextual legs of his theory, even relying on similar examples in different articles. Accordingly, Greenstein has not developed his Action Dispensability theory as a whole overtime

2.    Despite an expressed interest in systemising leadership studies there are limited systemic elements in Greenstein explaining Action Dispensability. Where he uses a quasi-algebraic model E->P->R it is flawed. It implies that environmental context flows one way into leadership predispositions while in the same article Greenstein referencing Murray (1987) “transcending environmental context is the core of effective leadership” [45]i.e event making leaders help shape the external environment. Furthermore, unless one is a devout Freudian, one must accept that predispositions are influenced by experiences and events and that political responses influence leaders, particularly in democracies, while the flow of arrows imply this is not the case. To be fair, Greenstein’s writing demonstrated he understood the two-way flow and the injudicious usage of the formula, probably for the sake of having a formula, does not undermine the main thrust of Action Dispensability. 

3.    Some of the examples are clumsy and narrow, distracting the reader from the point Greenstein s trying to make for example using a totalitarian regime example almost exclusively when presenting the institutional/contextual leg ignores that event making leaders have emerged and succeeded without a totalitarian support system. 

4.    Greenstein’s explanations of the situational and institutional legs of the stool lacked depth and breadth and some obvious factors could have been noted and developed. Perhaps he was rushing to get to his real interest (personality leg) where he went into comprehensive detail. Even on the personality leg, he missed/skipped over some factors.

Greenstein can be criticised for not having enhanced the Action Dispensability theory over time, for not having sought to bring more substantive systematic rigour to his expositions, that some of his examples could have been better and that in providing some factors underpinning the umbrella like applicability of the theory, he missed some others out. Nevertheless, I think these are criticisms of form in how Greenstein sought to explain his thinking and do not undermine the substance of his theory. The theory works for me at its simplest when he brings the three legs of Situational (the balls on a pool table after the initial break), Institutional (the location of the cue ball) and Personality (the skill of the pool player) together. It gives an easy to understand, intuitively acceptable umbrella under which to commence the study political leadership. Even if it is a “golden oldie”, it is a good starting point to help guide a student of political leadership. 

Bibliography

1.     Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's the handbook of leadership. The Free Press.

2.     Byman, D. and Pollack, K. (2001). Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In. International Security, 25(4), pp.107-146.

3.      Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015.

4.     Greenstein F. The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away the Underbrush. American Political Science Review. 1967;61(03):629-641.

5.     Greenstein F. Can Personality and Politics Be Studied Systematically?. Political Psychology. 1992;13(1):105.

6.     F Greenstein, Chapter 5, Political Leadership: A Source Book, Barbara Kellerman. 1986. Pittsburgh University Press, 

7.     L Henman (2011), Leadership Theories and Controversies, Available at:www.henmanperformancegroup.com 

8.     S Hook, The Eventful Men and the Event Making Man, Chapter 4 Political Leadership: A Source Book, Barbara Kellerman. 1986. Pittsburgh University Press,

9.     W James, Great Men and Their Environment, Chapter 3, Political Leadership: A Source Book, Barbara Kellerman. 1986. Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh,

10.  Machiavelli N, Connell W. The Prince. 1513, Wordsworth Editions 1993.

11.  Sheffer G. Innovative leaders in politics. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press; 1993.

12.  H Spencer, The Great Man Theory Breaks Down, Kellerman, Chapter 2, Political Leadership: A Source Book, Barbara Kellerman. 1986. Pittsburgh University Press, 

13.  F. Van Esch and M Swinkels, How European Leaders Made Sense of the Euro Crisis, West European Politics, Vol. 38, 2015 

---

[1]Machiavelli N, Connell W. The prince. 1513, Wordsworth Editions 1993

[2]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[3]Greenstein F. The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away the Underbrush. American Political Science Review. 1967;61(03):629-641

[4]Greenstein F. Can Personality and Politics Be Studied Systematically?. Political Psychology. 1992;13(1):105.

[5]Greenstein F. The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away the Underbrush. American Political Science Review. 1967;61(03):629-641

[6]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[7]Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's the handbook of leadership. Free Press

[8]Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's the handbook of leadership. Free Press

[9]Greenstein F. Can Personality and Politics Be Studied Systematically?. Political Psychology. 1992;13(1):105.

[10]Greenstein F. Can Personality and Politics Be Studied Systematically?. Political Psychology. 1992;13(1):105.

[11]Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's the handbook of leadership. Free Press

[12]Machiavelli N, Connell W. The prince. 1513, Wordsworth Editions 1993

[13]H Spencer, The Great Man Theory Breaks Down, Kellerman, Chapter 7

[14]W James, Great Men and Their Environment, Kellerman, Chapter 3,

[15]L Henman (2011), Leadership Theories and Controversies, Available at:www.henmanperformancegroup.com 

[16]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[17]Sheffer G. Innovative leaders in politics. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press; 1993.

[18]Byman, D. and Pollack, K. (2001). Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In. International Security, 25(4), pp.107-146

[19]Byman, D. and Pollack, K. (2001). Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In. International Security, 25(4), pp.107-146

[20]Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's the handbook of leadership. Free Press

[21]Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's the handbook of leadership. Free Press

[22]L Henman (2011), Leadership Theories and Controversies, Available at:www.henmanperformancegroup.com 

[23]Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's the handbook of leadership. Free Press

[24]Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's the handbook of leadership. Free Press

[25]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[26]Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's the handbook of leadership. Free Press

[27]Sheffer G. Innovative leaders in politics. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press; 1993.

[28]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[29]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[30]Greenstein F. The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away the Underbrush. American Political Science Review. 1967;61(03):629-641

[31]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[32]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[33]Sheffer G. Innovative leaders in politics. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press; 1993.

[34]F. Van Esch and M Swinkels, How European Leaders Made Sense of the Euro Crisis, West European Politics, Vol. 38, 2015 

[35]Greenstein F. The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away the Underbrush. American Political Science Review. 1967;61(03):629-641

[36]Greenstein F. Can Personality and Politics Be Studied Systematically?. Political Psychology. 1992;13(1):105.

[37]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[38]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[39]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[40]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[41]Greenstein F. The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away the Underbrush. American Political Science Review. 1967;61(03):629-641

[42]Greenstein F. The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away the Underbrush. American Political Science Review. 1967;61(03):629-641

[43]Greenstein F. Can Personality and Politics Be Studied Systematically?. Political Psychology. 1992;13(1):105.

[44]Elgie R. Studying Political Leadership. Palgrave MacMillan; 2015

[45]Greenstein F. Can Personality and Politics Be Studied Systematically?. Political Psychology. 1992;13(1):105.