Assessing Leadership Style: Trait Analysis

The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders

ment, but it is achievement of a particular type. Modest successes are
not sufficient; they are not what he has in mind. His achievement is
self-defined at extremely high—even grandiose—levels of attempted
accomplishment. Nor is the passage of some major policy initiatives
enough. Some, even many, can be too few, given Clinton's definition
of success.

Conclusion: The Ultimate Elusiveness of Certainty

Training, care with evidence, and theoretical prudence can add sub-
stantial measures of validity to the psychological analysis of leaders.
Yet measured prudence seems a more useful stance than theoretical
enthusiasm, stemming from the limits of our theories, our data, and
also the complexity of what we are attempting. Whatever traction
can be gained by a combined use of specific psychological theories,
typological generalizations, and immersion in the biographical facts
of a leader's personal and political life, it is necessary to recognize the
limits of what can be accomplished.
Understanding and predicting the behavior of smart, highly func-
tioning individuals, who are acutely aware of their circumstances and
what may be needed to surmount them, make it a very tricky under-
taking. It is possible that, in spite of their own psychological incli-
nations, such persons will overcome their impulses, if not alone, then
certainly with the help of many advisers, whose only occupational
purpose is to help the leaders pursue their own personal and political
self-interest.

Notes

1. This is not simply a matter of working backward from the present in a
   post hoc, therefore proper, analysis. I take up the more technical methodological
   concerns in constructing a developmental analysis elsewhere (Renshon 1996!),
   62-65).


2. There are obviously oedipal overtones to this situation. One could view
   this as Clinton's unconscious attempt to replace his father and win his oedipal
   victory. Several aspects of the situation, however, weigh against such an inter-
   pretation. First, at the time these events occurred Clinton was sixteen, not four
   or five. At best, these circumstances might retain some echo of an oedipal situa-
   tion. Second, in some respects, if there are oedipal echoes in this situation, Clin-
   ton had already done something much more directly relevant to that issue: he
   had physically (and emotionally) stood up to his father when he was drunk and