Assessing Political Leaders in Theory and in Practicethat is supposed to have generated it. The magnitude of this task
varies, depending on the scope of the causal claims made by the lead-
ership model.
The cognitive models of object appraisal mechanisms focus pri-
marily on the explanation and prediction of bargaining and prob-
lem-solving strategies with relatively simple characteristics. Is the
leader more likely to adopt a cooperative or conflict strategy, condi-
tional tactics of reciprocity or unconditional tactics of appeasement
and brinkmanship (Walker, Schafer, and Young)? Is a leader's tenure
in office going to be short or long? Is the performance of a role likely
to be successful or unsuccessful (Suedfeld, Guttieri, and Tetlock)?
These outcomes pose relatively simple problems as dependent vari-
ables and are susceptible to quantification at a level of measurement
commensurate with the independent variables in the causal mecha-
nisms that inform the analysis.
The personality models of Hermann and Winter focusing on the
mediation of self and others have more scope, explaining the leader's
selection of advisers and processing of advice, management style in
dealing with subordinates, risk-taking propensity, and negotiation
style, as well as the behavioral outcomes of decision-making
processes. In his personality analysis, Weintraub identifies even more
general personality traits—such as creativity, impulsivity, and inde-
cisiveness—and emotional states—such as anxiety, moodiness, and
anger—as the sources of potential political behaviors. This extension
carries with it the challenge of developing measures for additional
variables, adapting measures developed by others, or extrapolating
relationships to behavioral variables from laboratory experiments
and previous research.
As the scope of the analysis addresses the processes of externaliza-
tion and ego defense at a holistic level, Post and Renshon make the
case that a leader's core personality constrains and shapes other per-
sonality features, as well as political behavior. Their methodology
takes the form of an interpretive analysis of narrative evidence
instead of a quantitative analysis that yields indicators of personality
or behavior. This analysis yields either a personality type—narcissis-
tic, obsessive-compulsive, or paranoid—or a set of dimensions—
ambition, integrity, relatedness—that is postulated as generating
particular personality traits and behavioral characteristics. The