Written by Zoe Phelps-Coles
In order to investigate this question, Brummer (2016) categorised British PMs into either a ‘fiasco group’ or a ‘non-fiasco group’. Those in the fiasco group had been PM’s who had judgments to make during a period of major political upheavals, whereas those in the non-fiasco group were able to make decisions and avoid such situations. The use of non-fiasco PMs in the study was done to allow a comparison to be made; to see if there was a difference between the two groups of PMs with regards to their personality traits. The groups were as follows:
The non-fiasco group: Winston Churchill, Clement Atlee, Edward Heath, James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, Gordon Brown and David Cameron (this study was carried out pre-Brexit).
Then fiasco group: Neville Chamberlain, Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillian, Harold Wilson, John Major and Tony Blair.
The study used ‘at a distance’ assessment techniques to understand the personality traits and characteristics of the leaders by analysing 1500 words for each of the 13 PMs, including 50 spontaneous statements of at least 100 words and 5 prepared speeches (totalling more than 900 speeches combined). The software Profiler Plus searched for and linked certain words and phrases found in the speeches with different personality traits. For example, words like “possibility” would be associated with a leader with high conceptual complexity.
The study found that the fiasco PMs demonstrated a lower need for power and a significantly higher level of self-confidence than the non-fiasco control group. A lower need for power could suggest that these fiasco PMs may be indecisive and have low control over the cabinet. PMs with a heightened self-confidence could be more likely to jump to conclusions, or to stay on a course of action even when presented with new contradictory information. Brummer (2016) goes on to suggest that these two personality traits may intertwine into a fiasco melting pot due to a lack of individual leadership on the part of the PM, failure to provide directions to the cabinet (due to low need for power) and refusal to compromise and change their approach (due to high self-confidence). Incidentally, the fiasco PMs also had bleaker perspectives of the political world, making them govern with a more conflictual language.
In sum, the content analysis of the speeches does suggest that a relationship exists between the likelihood of a foreign policy debacle and these personality traits. However, a limitation with the study is that a lot of these leaders are now dead, and psychological analysis was conducted on speeches that likely had input from many parties. Nevertheless, it’s interesting, especially in these times of COVID 19, to think about the role that personality traits can have on a PMs ability to lead optimally.
References
Brummer, K. (2016). ‘Fiasco prime ministers’: leaders’ beliefs and personality traits as possible causes for policy fiascos. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(5), 702-717.