What poltical leadership styles do we prefer? Cross-cultural study in Goleman’s typology of leadership

Scientific Conference June, 9. - 13. 2014

What poltical leadership styles do we prefer? Cross-cultural study in Goleman’s typology of leadership Milena Drzewiecka, Wojciech Cwalina Institute of Economic Psychology University of Social Sciences and Humanities (SWPS) Warsaw, Poland {Milena.Drzewiecka,wcwalina}@swps.edu.pl Abstract— Political leadership is a unique phenomenon. Political leaders cannot function in democratic political systems until they gain voters’ support. In the “age of manufactured images” recognition and response to voters’ expectations might be crucial. According to business typology of six leadership styles, leaders with certain emotional intelligence abilities, who display democratic, authoritative, coaching or affiliative style of leadership have greater chance of success than coercive and pacesetting leaders. The aim of a study described within this paper was to check, whether this business theory of leadership might be applied to politics. Results of study conducted in Poland and Switzerland (countries of different level of democracy maturity) show that voters recognise these six leadership styles in political area and prefer to vote for parties led by democratic, coaching or authoritative leader in contrast to coercive one, which was last preferred. Although preferences for political leadership styles are quite similar for Polish and Swiss voters, their perception of four from six leadership styles is different. These findings have some new insights in cross-cultural studies on leadership, and might be applicable for political image makers and politicians. Key words - Leadership; leadership style; politics; business; democracy; emotional intelligence

I.

INTRODUCTION

Political leadership has unique character, depending on democracy level, crossed interests or media. In the ―age of manufactured images‖ politics is influenced by system, as well by marketing tools [1]. This put politicians and image makers nearer business area, where recognition and response to consumers’ needs are key to success. Consequently, image creation might benefit from understanding voters’ preferences of leadership style. Leadership style is no longer perceived only in terms of leaders’ personality (Great Man History theories) or time of action (Zeitgeist theories), but in terms of interaction between leaders and followers [2, 3, 4, 5]. Concerning this model of leadership, there are not leader’s personality traits that matter the most, but skills and abilities that enable gaining support and maintaining certain relations with followers (voters). Several researchers have analysed, which skills and abilities constitute good leadership. For example [6] studied importance of social skills, while [7] showed role of leader’s self-presentational tactics. In the past two decades, also interest in emotional intelligence has grown, relating emotional intelligence components to leadership success [8, 9, 10, 11]. In our study we also focused on emotional intelligence, drawing on typology of six styles of leadership proposed by [3]. Since there has not been much

research on connection between business leadership theories, emotional intelligence and politics, we set out to analyse: (1) whether styles based on emotional intelligence and recognised in business area by [3] are also being recognised in politics, (2) how these leadership styles are perceived and which are preferred by voters, (3) whether there is difference among voters in countries of different level of democracy maturity? II.

BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK

Leadership (especially political one) influences almost every aspect of life and as such has been studied from different perspectives. A. Leadership Style Theories Several theories have analysed leadership styles, their evaluation and effectiveness. Although there are many definitions of leadership, most of them agree that leadership is a kind of relation between leader and followers, where leader has more power than followers [4], and as such should be studied in terms of group process [2], in which leader mobilizes and leads group [5], being aware of goals [12], and context dynamics [13]. Usually studied interactional theories propose such leadership styles as autocratic vs. democratic vs. laissez fair [14], task vs. people oriented [15], production vs. people oriented [16], managerial grid, combining people and task in team management [17,18], or transactional vs. transformational leadership [19]. Last typology was further developed by [20], with a suggestion that both transactional and transformational leaders may be linked to goal-orientation. According to [14], autocratic leadership is the most efficient one, while [21] persuades to look at situation, which determines leader’s success. [22] in their path-goal theory of leadership state that leader’s success depends not on situation, but on people. This what might influence people’s perception and preferences of leader is a set of leaders’ abilities, which build his/her style. B. Leadership And Emotional Intelligence Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to capacity for recognizing own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves and for managing emotions in ourselves as well as in relations with others [23]. According to [3], EI consists of four fundamental capabilities: self-awareness, self management, social awareness, and social skills. Each capability, in turn, is composed of specific set of abilities. It is still arguing, to which extent EI influences effective leadership [24], however there is no doubt, there is a relation between EI and effective leadership, at least its transformational style [25,26,27]. One of the biggest research on relations between EI and leadership was

The 2nd international virtual Scientific Conference SECTION http://www.scieconf.com Psychology, Sociology and Pedagogy, Social Science, Education

- 161 -

Scientific Conference June, 9. - 13. 2014

made by [3], who proposes six styles of leadership: coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and coaching (Table 1 collates a brief explanation of each style). TABLE I.

SIX STYLES OF LEADERSHIP Leadership Style Characteristica

Leadership style

Coercive

Authoritative

Affiliative

Democratic

Pacesetting

Coaching

Main characteristics

demands immediate compliance, has overall negative impact on climate in organization, works good in time of crisis or in case of problems with workers mobilizes people toward vision, works especially good, if new vision or new direction is required concentrates on harmony and builds emotional bonds, works good, when people face difficult circumstances forges consensus through participation and works successfully, if there is a need to built buy-in or in consensus, or to get input from valuable team members style sets high standards for performance, works effectivly with motivated and competent people, knowing, how to get quick results from them develop people for future, works especially good if there is a need to help others improving performance or setting long term strengths

The Style in phrase

Underlying EI abilities

―Do, what I tell you‖

drive to achieve, initiative and self control

―Come with me‖

self-confidence, empathy, change catalyst

―People come first‖

empathy, communication, building relationships

―What do you think‖

team leadership, communication skills, collaboration

―Do it, as I do, now‖

conscientiousness, drive to achieve, initiative

―Try this‖

developing others, selfawareness, empathy Based on [3]

Although situation plays a role, this model suggests that effective leaders are these, who know how to use emotional intelligence effectively. Coercive and pacesetting leaders attain the lowest sympathy and support, while authoritative, democratic, coaching and affiliative leaders have overall positive impact. The last three are also highly ranged and preferred, however authoritative leaders are perceived mostly positive [3]. Concerning former leadership styles typologies, coercive and pacesetting leadership seem to correspond with autocratic style, transactional or task oriented, while authoritative, democratic, coaching and affiliative refer to people oriented and transformational leadership. To our knowledge no attempts were made to relate this typology of leadership to politics, although psychological literature provides some examples of influence of emotional intelligence understood by [3, 9, 23] on leaders effectiveness in business organizations, military area or science [28,29,30,31,32]. [33] tried to apply typology of six leadership styles proposed by [3]

and used within our study, to Turkish industry, while [34] did it in college area. C. Leadership And Politics Political leader is not only a politician [35] as well as political leadership is not standard leadership [36]. Political leadership is neither only personality, nor only power, but it is a kind of process [37]. The main condition of political leadership is an ability and possibility to influence people, so that they would follow leader wilfully [1]. Political leaders in democratic countries distribute responsibility, empower people and aid deliberations [38], they also have to know how to construct or reconstruct situation that require public attention [37]. As [39] states main role of political leader is to define situation precisely, and to apply politics to people’s expectations. And what do people expect? Popular studies that concentrate on certain political figures, their biographies and personalities, rarely respond to this question. Previous research highlighted role of politician’s goals and community resources, as well as political system [40]. Political leadership within a country is influenced by institutions, political elites and voters as well as by interactions between them [41]. Democracy maturity might influence people’s understanding of political leadership, however as [1] state, we live in ―age of manufactured images‖. That means that politics is influenced not only by system, but also by marketing tools, including image creation, leadership style and response to voters’ needs. Recognition of these needs as well as voters perception and preferences of leadership style might be crucial for reaching, maintaining and developing political leadership. III.

STUDY I

The purpose of study was to check, whether typology of six styles of leadership proposed by [3] might be applied to politics, what are voters’ preferences and whether they vary cross-culturally. We conducted cross-cultural, comparative study in Poland (European Union member) and Switzerland (non European Union member), countries of different democracy maturity level and different political system. Switzerland has a long republican tradition and its constitution dates back to 1848 (revised in 1999, however it did not change anything of importance in substance), while Poland gained democracy in 1989 and relies on constitution from 1997. This, what makes Swiss political system unique is its direct democracy: the extraordinary amount of participation in the political process that is granted to ordinary citizens (the largest frequency of referendums worldwide). A. Participants The sample comprised 136 Swiss participants (64 females and 72 males; mean age: 27,5 years) and 178 Polish participants (84 females, 94 males; mean age: 32,6). B. Materials And Procedure The study was conducted on-line with a use of Internet. We used data collected in 2009 in Poland and Switzerland. In each country, participants were randomly divided into six groups based on typology of six leadership styles proposed by [3], so that each participant got a description of political leader written along with one of leadership styles characteristics (traits and behaviours), and applied to political leaders activity. No

The 2nd international virtual Scientific Conference SECTION http://www.scieconf.com Psychology, Sociology and Pedagogy, Social Science, Education

- 162 -

Scientific Conference June, 9. - 13. 2014

political name or party affiliation was mentioned. Each description started with a sentence ‖X is a leader of one of Polish/Swiss parties‖. After reading political leader description, subjects were, among other things, asked to evaluate leader’s image with 14 semantic differential scales (professional-amateurish, open to the world-provincial, honest-dishonest, efficient-inefficient, attractive-unattractive, non-respected-respectable, calmexcitable, aggressive-unaggressive, strong-weak, passiveactive, hostile-friendly, trustworthy-untrustworthy, consistentinconsistent, responsible-irresponsible). Within this question we wanted to obtain voters’ perception of certain leadership styles. Furthermore, participants were asked to value their intention to vote for a party (5-point scale, where 1= definitely not, 5= definitely yes) guided in displayed style (no matter, what programme would the party have). Within this question we wanted to check, what are the voters’ preferences for political leadership style. We controlled sex, education level, interest in politics (7point scale, where 1=I’m definitely not interested, 7= I’m definitely interested), political ideology (5-point scale, where 1= left-wing, 3=centre, 5= right-wing) and party preferences (all parties represented in Polish and Swiss parliaments were mentioned). C. Data Analysis Two main procedures were used for data analysis. Firstly, we investigated voters’ perception of six leadership styles. To obtain perceptual maps (separately for Polish and Swiss sample), we computed exploratory principal component analyses with varimax rotation on 14 semantic differential scale used for party leader evaluation. To do so, we recoded analyses scales, so that higher rates would refer to more positive evaluations. Moreover, all scales were recoded from range 1-7 to -3 - +3. Secondly, to obtain voters’ preferences for political leadership style, in reference to declared voting intention for party led by certain leadership style, we computed two (separately for Polish and Swiss sample) one-way analyses of covariance –in reference to a question of party where betweensubject factor has six levels – leadership styles: coercive vs. authoritative vs. affiliative vs. democratic vs. pacesetting vs. coaching, whereas subjects’ ideological orientation was entered as a covariate.

TABLE II. PERCEPTUAL DIMENSIONS OF LEADERSHIP STYLES IN POLISH AND SWISS SAMPLES: RESULTS OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSES Poland

Switzerland

Communion

Agency

Communion

Agency

Professional

0,34

0,68

0,38

0,63

Open to the world

0,72

0,24

0,81

0,09

Honest

0,48

0,31

0,49

0,09

Efficient

-0,02

0,81

0,21

0,69

Attractive

0,63

0,39

0,70

0,15

Respectable

0,31

0,51

-0,22

0,45

Calm

0,82

-0,04

0,73

-0,23

Unaggressive

0,78

-0,29

0,61

-0,45

Strong

0,03

0,79

0,09

0,82

Passive

-0,09

0,54

-0,27

0,45

Hostile

0,86

-0,08

0,82

-0,24

Trustworthy

0,68

0,41

0,79

0,15

Consistent

0,03

0,79

-0,06

0,80

Responsible

0,38

0,69

0,54

0,55

Percent of explained variance

36,66

20,1

30,26

23,19

Cronbach’s alpha

0,85

0,84

0,85

0,77

These two factors are consistent with two fundamental dimensions underlying social judgments: communion (warmth, cooperation) and agency (competence, ambition) [for more see 42]. First, stronger factor – communion – explained 36,66% and 30,26% of variance, and second – agency – 20,1% and 23,19% in Polish and Swiss samples accordingly. These two dimensions indicate coordinate system, which serves for perceptual map of six leadership styles. To find out proper location of every leadership style, we compute mean grades for each factor, which then served as points’ coordinates on a map indicated by agency agency (X axis) and communion (Y axis) dimensions. The perceptual maps of leadership styles are presented in Figure 1 for Poland and Figure 2 for Switzerland.

D. Results Perceptual maps: In both countries, exploratory principal component analysis on semantic differential scales yielded two factor solutions, explaining 56,76% of the total variance in Polish sample, and 53,45% in Swiss sample. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 2.

The 2nd international virtual Scientific Conference SECTION http://www.scieconf.com Psychology, Sociology and Pedagogy, Social Science, Education

- 163 -

Scientific Conference June, 9. - 13. 2014

image of democratic style of leadership might be constant cross-culturally. Other styles of leadership, however, are authoritative perceived differently, at least in one dimension. Affiliative coachingare perceived by both groups as high in agency, leaders 1,6 however Swiss voters perceive this style of leadership as 1,4 slightly cooperative, while Polish- as slightly uncooperative. Similarly, authoritative leaders are perceived by both groups as 1,2 pacesetting highly focused on others and their well being (high level of community), however in eyes of Polis voters these leaders are 1 also quite competent, while in eyes of Swiss- they are rather 0,8 incompetent. Coercive leaders are perceived to have low level of competence, however Polish voters do not see any of 0,6 communion qualities in this kind of leadership contrary to Swiss voters. Pacesetting leaders although relatively similar 0,4 cooperative in eyes of voters of both countries, are diversely democratic perceived in terms of agency (Swiss voters perceive 0,2 Agency pacesetting leaders as no competent, while Polish as at least a 0 little bit competent). Figure 1. -1Perceptual maps of leadership -1,6-1,4-1,2 -0,8-0,6-0,4-0,2 0 0,2styles 0,4(Poland). 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 coercive -0,2 As perception of leadership styles in Poland and affiliative Switzerland seems to be inconsistent, to make cross-cultural -0,4 Communion comparisons we propose to conduct the study within other 1,8 countries as well as gain data in different time within one country, to avoid possible influences of current political affairs 1,6 authoritative and image creations. 1,4 pacesetting Voting Intention: Results of analysis of covariance showed 1,2 that in Poland as well as in Switzerland voting intention for coaching political party depends on party political leadership style 1 [accordingly: F(5, 171)=7,79, p