Assessing Leaders at a DistanceThe differentiation among personality types described in this
chapter provides a means of explaining an empirical conclusion that
has dogged belief system approaches for some time; namely, that
some individuals seem to be able to tolerate a great deal of inconsis-
tency in their statements, espoused beliefs, and actions without any
apparent ill effects from cognitive dissonance. For a personality type
frequently encountered in political leaders, the narcissistic personal-
ity, it is extremely hazardous to infer core determinant political
beliefs from public statements, so that the measurement of their
expressed beliefs will demonstrate greater "ambiguity tolerance." To
an extent much greater than for other personality types, the narcis-
sistic individual often, indeed characteristically, publicly espouses
beliefs only for immediate instrumental purposes, that is, for the
immediate political or personal utility derived from their public
association with these beliefs. Methodologically, it is important to
treat the public expressions of beliefs of these individuals in a much
different fashion than one would treat statements of individuals
more inclined to consistency.
Misperceptions and distorted, apparently irrational, decisions can
be produced by "motivated" biases, that is, those driven by emo-
tional drives, or "unmotivated information-processing factors" or
some combination of these. While certain types will be more prone
to misperceptions and miscalculations than other types, nevertheless
all types will have vulnerabilities under certain circumstances to par-
ticular types of suboptimal decision-making behavior. For example,
the individual with a paranoid personality, for a variety of primarily
emotional reasons, has a strong need to maintain his belief system
intact. He had a particular disposition to see hostile intentions in his
adversaries. The paranoid personality will be the most prone to moti-
vated biases, the most prone to disregard information inconsistent
with this belief system, and the least willing to reexamine past poli-
cies in light of new evidence. On the other hand, the obsessive-com-
pulsive personality may engage in suboptimal decision-making
behavior due to a somewhat more complex interaction of emotional
needs and cognitive factors.
Knowledge concerning these personality types has not been
sufficiently applied to the analysis of political leaders. Two of these
personality types—the narcissistic personality and the obsessive-