Assessing Leadership Style: Trait Analysis

Measuring the Motives of Political Actors at a Distance

not the best?" These considerations may suggest that utilitarianism
and the idea of meritocracy each have a latent authoritarian
"shadow." In democratic politics, however, different constituencies
usually have different ideas about what is "best," so that "the best"
usually has to be compromised in order to get "the possible." People
have to be persuaded, cajoled, and inspired to accept someone else's
vision of "the best." In politics, even after compromise programs are
passed, they have to be implemented by less-than-the-best
officials—officials the president did not appoint, does not fully trust,
and cannot remove. To a power-motivated leader like Franklin Roo-
sevelt or John F. Kennedy, these are not obstacles but rather the
essence of an interesting and zestful political life. (To achievement-
motivated chief executives, however, such problems can bring about
a small death each day.) As a result, power-motivated leaders may be
tempted to go over the heads of the politicians and take their case
directly to "the people" (as did achievement-motivated Woodrow
Wilson), to take ethical shortcuts (as did achievement-motivated
Richard Nixon), or to exhaust oneself in micromanagement (as did
achievement-motivated Jimmy Carter).

Candidates for the Presidency

Motives are also related to campaign performance in presidential

elections. In a detailed study of the 1976 campaign, Winter (1982)

related candidates' motive imagery scores (from their announcement

speeches) to aspects of their campaign strategy and performance. The

major results are shown in table 7.5. For example, candidates scoring

high in achievement motive imagery maintained a middle-of-the-

road ideological position, raised money through large donations,

TABLE 7.4. MOTIVES AND PRESIDENTIAL OUTCOMES

Outcome Variable

Historians' consensus rating of "greatness"

Historians' rating of "idealism"

Assassination attempt

War entry

Arms limitation treaty

Scandal

Achievement

.09

51**

.09

-.03

.13

.15

Affiliation

.09

.19

.17

.16

.43

.40*

Power

.40*

.19

.40*

.52**

-.05

.01

Source: Data from Winter (1991, table 6), which should be consulted for complete definitions of

dependent variables.

*p < .05 **p < .01.