The Psychological Assessment of Political Leadersand accountability for what happens. In effect, these leaders become
the agent for the group, representing their needs and interests in
policy-making.
Is the Leader Open or Closed to Contextual Information?Political leaders tend to differ on their degree of openness to contex-
tual information based on their levels of self-confidence and concep-
tual complexity (see, e.g., Driver 1977; Ziller et al. 1977; Stuart and
Starr 1981-82; Jonsson 1982; Hermann 1984a; Snyder 1987; Stew-
art, Hermann, and Hermann 1989; Tetlock 1991; Suedfeld 1992;
Kaarbo and Hermann 1998). Ziller and his colleagues (1977)
observed that these two traits interrelate to form a leader's self-other
orientation. The self-other orientation indicates how open the leader
will be to input from others in the decision-making process and from
the political environment in general. Those whose scores on concep-
tual complexity are higher than their self-confidence scores are open
and generally more pragmatic and responsive to the interests, needs,
ideas, and demands of others. Such leaders are generally those who
get elected in local and state elections in America. They are sensitive
to situational cues and act based on what they sense is acceptable
under current conditions. They appear to others to be open and to
listen. These leaders are able to get others to do things because the
leaders seem interested in what happens to these others and con-
cerned about helping them. Such leaders are more likely to organize
collegial decision structures that allow for a free give-and-take and,
thus, to maximize the contextual information they can have about
the opinions and needs of those around them. These leaders deal with
problems and events on a case-by-case basis.
Leaders whose self-confidence scores are higher than their scores
on conceptual complexity tend to be closed; they are ideologues,
principled and driven by causes. These leaders know what is right
and what should happen and set about to persuade others of the
appropriateness of their course of action. Such leaders are fairly unre-
sponsive or insensitive to cues from the environment. Instead they
reinterpret the environment to fit their view of the world. Moreover,
they are not above using coercive or devious tactics to ensure that
their views are adopted by a group. Indeed, they are highly active on
behalf of their cause, eagerly pursuing options they believe will sue-