LEADERSHIP CREDIBILITY

Popular Political Leadership Personalities in the Netherlands

Your name

Student number

2

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................3

2 SITUATIONAL FACTORS...............................................................................3

2.1 Patterns of democracy ..............................................................................3

2.2 Shifting political culture .............................................................................4

3 THE MAKING OF A CREDIBILITY INDEX OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP .. . .5

3.1 The Dutch Prototype: What makes a Dutch political leader credible? ......6

4 MILLON INVENTORY OF DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA ......................................7

4.1 The MIDC: an introduction ........................................................................7

4.2 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................8

4.3 Data Collection .........................................................................................8

4.4 Scoring .....................................................................................................9

4.5 Interpretation ..........................................................................................10

4.6 MIDC Conceptual Basis for Scoring and Interpretation ..........................10

5 THE PUBLIC PERSONALITY OF JAN PETER BALKENENDE ...................11

5.1 Introduction: Balkenende’s four terms as a Prime Minister .....................11

5.2 Source Materials .....................................................................................12

6 RESULTS & INTERPRETATION ..................................................................12

6.1 Balkenende’s Dominant pattern ..............................................................12

6.2 Balkenende’s Dominant pattern: generalizations ...................................15

REFERENCIES ................................................................................................16

3

1 INTRODUCTION

In this paper the following question will be answered:

Which leadership characteristics are required for high credibility leadership ex-

pressed by executive politicians in the Netherlands in the first decade of the

second millennium?

Trying to understand leadership credibility requires an understanding of leader-

ship (A) and an understanding of the concept of credibility (B). Both things will

be established with empirical methods and discussed in this paper. In this paper

leadership credibility (B) is a combination of perceived trustworthiness, per-

ceived honesty and perceived competence. These are the characteristics the

Dutch want their leaders to display; the characteristics politicians in the Nether-

lands need to show (real or fake, as long as they do it realistically) in order to

become a high credibility leader. That is in order to be believed by the the pub-

lic. And only if a leader is being believed by the public, he or she will success-

fully realize political goals. After all, in order to remain stable, a democracy re-

quires a strong public belief in the countries leading persons. The concept of

credibility is thus defined as the three things (trust, honesty, competence) the

Dutch people find most important for good leadership, which was measured in

January 2009, July 2009 and January 2010 by means of a survey (N= approxi-

mately 5200).

Now in order to understand the concept of leadership, the fourth cabinet Balke-

nende (2007-2010) offers sixteen interesting leadership cases: a Prime Minister

(Jan Peter Balkenende) and fifteen other Ministers (responsible for different

portfilio’s such as Finance, Education, Healthcare and so on). Unfortunately it

takes too many pages to show and discuss the credibility patterns of all of the

Ministers, so only the case of the Prime Minister will be discussed here.

2 SITUATIONAL FACTORS

2.1 Patterns of democracy

The Dutch democracy strongly differs from the American, both in the way the

democracy was built and in the way the (political) culture influences what politi-

cians do. What kind of democracy is the Dutch one? We can anatomize democ-

4

racy in several ways (see R. Dahl, 1989, Vanhanen, 1990). One of them is the

distinction between majoritarian patterns and consensus patterns. The Dutch

democracy is a classic example of a consensus democracy: executive power-

sharing traditions, broad coalition cabinets, proportional representation, a multi-

party system, interest group corporatism, decentralized government and consti-

tutional rigidity (Lijphart, 1999: 43-45). An example of the other kind is the UK; a

classic example of a majoritarian democracy (both on Lijpharts executives-par-

ties dimension and on the federal-unitary dimension). The American democracy

also has a high degree of majoritarian patterns, but primarily on the exutives-

parties dimension, which is an important determinant of the legitimacy of power

and the relation between citizens and public officials. According to Arend Li-

jphart (1999: 301; 2008) “consensus democracies demonstrate (…) kinder and

gentler qualities in the following ways: they are more likely to be welfare states;

they have a better record with regard to the protection of the environment; they

put fewer people in prison and are less likely to use the death penalty; and the

consensus democracies in the developed world are more generous with their

economic assistance to the developing nations”. Specific democratic qualities

like women’s representation, political equality, participation in elections, and

proximity between government policy and voter’s preferences are higher in con-

sensus democracies (Lijphart, 2008: 99). Consensus patterns and majoritarian

patterns are likely to ask for different leadership styles. In a consensus democ-

racy leadership is mostly not written with a capital L. Leaders don’t stand alone,

they govern together. The public in the Netherlands is suspicious of capital L

leadership, which is more of a cultural pattern. Charisma is not neccesarily a

good thing for a leader to display. Much rather do the Dutch citizens see a

leader who is trustworthy, honest and competent. However, there seems to be a

shift towards more appreciation for PR-strategies from within the Ministries…

2.2 Shifting political culture

The Dutch cabinet invests millions of euro's branding the Ministries, the govern-

ing leader and his or her policies. Among others3, the former Secretary-General

of the Dutch ministry of Finance noted that having a good communications di-

rector may nowadays be more important than having a good Secretary-General,

because 'image is everything' and 'appearance rules over substance'. To Ameri-

5

cans, this is so obvious that nobody will write about it in these basic terms any-

more. But until recently in the Netherlands (see image 1) the significance of po-

litical image was relatively small. To decide who to vote for, other things mat-

tered more, like party preference, ideology and religion. Politicians were ex-

pected to be intelligent rather than popular, experienced rather than physically

attractive, a good governor rather than a good speaker. The average politician

in the Netherlands does not have a particular talent to speech and looks not at

all attractive. Until recently, nobody really cared about ‘the outside’, as long as

they did their job: govern the country properly.

3 THE MAKING OF A CREDIBILITY INDEX OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

Discovering more detailed patterns of likeability and believability of leaders re-

quires additional research. Political psychology offers a great deal of findings on

the leadership-followership relationship the Prime Minister and his citizenry un-

dertake. Late seventies research by Kinder, Peters, Abelson, and Fiske (1980)

showed that citizens assess leaders on the basis of earlier shaped prototypes,

which are images of what good leadership is and therefore what a good leader

should be and do. Aldrich, Gronke & Grynaviski (1999: 3) state that “Prototypes

are evaluative rulers against which presidential candidates and presidents are

measured” (see also De Vries & De Landtsheer, 2004).

Factor analysis research on presidential candidate traits shows a variety of

characteristics that play a role in candidate evaluations. Opposing Kinder et. al

(1979), Sullivan, Aldrich, Borgida and Rahn (1990) identify their own set of per-

sonality assessment characteristics. They found three basic dimensions of per-

sonality assessment on which candidates are evaluated: altruism versus selfish-

ness, strength of will versus lack of will power, and trustworthiness versus un-

trustworthiness. Yet a third set of dimensions along which presidential candi-

dates are evaluated was found by Miller, Wattenberg and Malunchpuk (1986):

competence, integrity, reliability, charisma and personal attributes. In the

nineties researchers continue using factor analysis on existing data on voter be-

havior in the U.S. They found traits like dominance and empathy (empathy con-

taining extraversion and charisma) (Pierce, 1993), competence and leadership

(Rahn, Aldrich, Borgida and Sullivan, 1990; Caprara, Barbaranelli & Zimbardo,

2002), being extravert and outgoing (Immelman, 1998, '99, 2002, 2003) and be-

6

ing a Teflon-personality to whom 'nothing sticks' and ‘ from whom all hurts fall

of’ (Newman, 1999). Contrary to Teflon-personalities, Velcron-personalities

never get away with a mistake. Their public missteps keep affecting their image

long after the event. These more recently found variables are considered “logi-

cally linked to leadership suitability” according to De Vries & De Landtsheer

(2009; 6-11). They summarize their 'suitability traits' as being outgoing versus

retiring, dominant versus aggrieved, ambitious versus reticent, accommodating

versus contentious and dauntless versus conscientious. This shows which char-

acteristics determine voter behavior and candidate appraisal, not what people

look for in their leaders. The latter is our field of interest, because we want to

define what makes a leader credible.

The only researchers who directly measured the characteristics people admire

in a leader (a prototype), are James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner. They

wrote The Leadership Challenge (2007) and High Credibility Leadership: how

leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it (1993 and 2003). They convince

their readers of the importance of credibility within any leadership relationship.

To every public figure, being credible is key considering we live in a television-

and image-dominated society. People will only give another human being

'credit' if they trust the person to do the right thing with their mandate and to

take into account the credit-giver's interest.

Credibility is about how leaders earn the trust and confidence of their con-

stituents. It's about what people demand of their leaders as a prerequisite to

willingly contribute to their hearts, minds, bodies and souls. It's about the ac-

tions leaders must take in order to intensify their constituents' commitment to a

cause (Kouzes & Posner, 2003: introduction).

Following their example we decided to ask Dutch citizens directly what the pro-

totype of a good Dutch executive leader would be. What is it that makes the

leader credible according to Dutch citizens?

3.1 The Dutch Prototype: What makes a Dutch political leader credible?

A panel (N=5200) of Dutch citizens was asked which characteristics they con-

sider to be key for good leadership executed by a cabinet Minister. Twenty four

characteristics make a list of prototypical leadership qualities drawn from the in-

ternational leadership literature. There is a strong resemblance to the Charac-

7

teristics of an Admired Leader (CAL, Kouzes and Posner 2007). We used nine-

teen of twenty characteristics of Kouzes and Posner’s CAL. Five characteristics

were added because hypothetically they might of special importance in the

Dutch leadership case: trustworthy (which is an important concept within the

work of Kouzes and Posner but not one of the qualities of the CAL); integrity

(which tuns out to be the fifth quality of the Dutch leadership prototype, Within

Kouzes and Posner’s CAL it is part of the trait ‘honesty’); dedicated (because

this trait was part of the only survey question about qualities people admire in

political leaders that has been measured in the Netherlands, by the SCP, 2005);

and sympathy (because this trait is part of the National Election Studies (NKO)

in the Netherlands and might be of explanatory value to high credibility leader-

ship because it is often linked to charismatic/empathic leadership). The survey

panel was asked to cross five characteristics out of the list of twenty-four. The

prototype of a good Dutch executive leader turned out to be mainly concen-

trated around three characteristics: the people think Ministers need to be, above

all, trustworthy, honest and competent (see appendix 1, table 1.). We call this

three-scale index the Credbility Index of political Leadership (CIL).

4 MILLON INVENTORY OF DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA

4.1 The MIDC: an introduction

The personality of a leader as defined by Theodore Millon (1996) is thought to

influence leadership style and performance (Immelman, 1998). The question

here is: does it influence the extent to which leaders are credible (perceived

trustworthy, honest and competent), too? The Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Cri-

teria (MIDC), a framework with which a politician’s public personality can be in-

vestigated, could offer deeper insight when it comes to leadership leadership

credibility.

Personality was defined by Millon (1996: 4) as “a complex pattern of deeply em-

bedded psychological characteristics that are largely non-conscious and not

easily altered, expressing themselves automatically in almost every facet of

functioning. Intrinsic and pervasive, these traits emerge from a complicated ma-

trix of biological dispositions and experiential learning, and ultimately comprise

the individual’s distinctive pattern of perceiving, feeling, thinking, coping, and

behaving.”

8

4.2 Conceptual Framework

Immelman (1998, '99, 2002, 2003) and Steinberg (1999) compiled the Millon In-

ventory of Diagnostic Criteria (MIDC), based on the DSM III and DSM IV7. The

work of Theodore Millon “provides a sound foundation for conceptualizing and

assessing political personality, classifying political personality types, and pre-

dicting political behavior” (Immelman, 2004: 1-2). Millon’s work can be found in

many publications about personality research and personality prototypes: Mil-

lon, 1990, 1986a, 1986b, 1991, 1994a, 1994b, 1996, 2003; Millon and Davis,

1998, 2000; Millon, Davis and Millon, 1996; Millon & Everly, 1885). Aubrey Im-

melman adapted Millon’s method (1969, 1986b, 1990, 1994a, 1996; Millon &

Everly, 1985) and developed an instrument to study personality patterns of polit-

ical leaders.

The conceptual framework of the MIDC has twelve scales. Each scale has three

(scales 1A through 8) or two (scale 9 and 0) gradations, ranging from normal to

maladaptive (Immelman, 2004). In table 7 the personality patterns (scale 1A,

1B, 2, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and 0) and gradations (a, b, c, d and e) are dis-

played. The maladaptive gradations refer to personality disorders from the

DSM-III and DSM-IV.

4.3 Data Collection

Investigating leadership personality is not easy when face-to-face methods to

diagnose one’s behavioral patterns and characteristics are not available. This is

the case when it comes to diagnosing historical figures and present day politi-

cians for research within the field of political psychology. Aubrey Immelman

(1993c, 1999) started looking into the possibilities of using Millon’s personality

patterns to diagnose leaders from a distance and/or from hindsight. He devel-

oped the MIDC. This is a sophisticated method applied by means of meta anal-

ysis (Immelman, 2004) or ‘semi-qualitative content analysis’ (De Landtsheer et

al. 2004: 81). The researcher creates an ‘assessment at a distance’, by analyz-

ing content written by others. Source materials can be biographical works, inter-

views with the leader or with people who have known the leader well, either per-

sonally or professionally. Information can be found within books, newspaper ar-

ticles and –in theory– other sources too, such as the internet, television inter-

9

views or radio performances (although Immelman does not seem to include the

non-written sources).

4.4 Scoring

The researcher diagnoses leaders (‘target persons’, Immelman: 2004) indirectly

using relevant content from biographical source materials or other data pro-

duced by biographers, journalists, historians and political analysts (Immelman,

Manual-II-Revisited, 2004). During the coding process, in which the researcher

codes the relevant pieces of text from the biographical and other sources, the

so-called attributes are the first to be distinguished (table 8). Every relevant

quote fits attribute A, B, C, D or E: it refers to the target person’s expressive be-

havior, interpersonal conduct, cognitive style, mood/temperament or self-image.

The second step of the coding process is to distinguish one of the scales from

table X. If the quote says something about the target person’s expressive be-

havior (attribute A) and refers to the target person’s respectful behavior, the re-

searcher might decide to code the quote as an attribute A, Scale 6 (conscien-

tious-respectful pattern) quote.

The third step of the coding process, is the determination of the intensity with

which the leader shows to be a scale-6 leader. In other words, after determining

the attribute and the scale, the researcher needs to decide to which gradation

the pattern is present. All personality patterns “occur on a continuum ranging

from normal to maladaptive”, a being normal, b being exaggerated and c being

maladaptive. Gradation a gets one point, gradation b two points and gradation

c, being maladaptive, three points. Scale 9 and 0 are maladaptive scales from

nature. As a result, gradations a, b and c do not exist within these scales. Only

gradations d and e can be labeled on scale 9 and 0. Gradations d and e will get

4 and 5 points.

So the third and last step is to decide which gradation the quote refers to: gra-

dation a, b or c (or in case of scales 9 and 0, gradation d or e). After making

these three decisions, the quote can be coded as an attribute A, Scale 6, grada-

tion b quote. The researcher labels the quote consequently as an A6b quote. So

quotes can be labeled A1Ba (attribute A, Scale 1B, gradation a), B5Ac (attribute

B, Scale 5A, gradation c), E4b (attribute E, Scale 4, gradation b) and so on. In

total, there are 170 combinations, referred to by Immelman as alphanumerical

10

codes or ‘Diagnostic Criteria’. Within his manual, Immelman (2004) provides

170 different words to typify the diagnostic criteria. See for an example of a

score sheet the one of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende in table 12.

4.5 Interpretation

After data collection, scoring and a double check executed by an experience

psychologist, it is time to start interpreting the outcome. Which scales get the

highest scores and what is the gradation of the target person’s scores? Some

patterns will be present in gradation a (‘present’), some in gradation b (‘promi-

nent’), c (‘mildly dysfunctional’), d or e (disturbed).

4.6 MIDC Conceptual Basis for Scoring and Interpretation

Findings showing up from the source materials are considered “logically linked

to leadership suitability” according to De Vries & De Landtsheer (2009; 6-11).

Immelman (Manual-II-Revisited, 2004: 1) refers to Simonton, who states that

this method in which researchers abstract personality traits from pieces of text

about the leader written by others, is valid: “secondary sources can offer the ba-

sis for personality assessments as well” (Simonton, 1986: 150, see also 1988).

Etheridge (1978) and Simonton (1986, 1988) offered a foundation for Immel-

man’s work by proving that by extracting personality traits from biographic data

can offer insight concerning the relationship between leadership personality and

(the success of/ quality of) political leadership.

After data collection, scoring and interpreting the results, the researcher ex-

plores the implications of a leader’s personality on his or her leadership style,

political decision-making, cooperation with others, a leader’s success and even

future behavior.

In this paper the focus is on the implications of a leader’s personality on his or

her public credibility. Immelman (2004) and others have shown that personality

explains presidential style, performance and policy preferences. Millon (1994a,

1996; Millon & Davis, 2000), Oldham and Morris (1995), and Strack (1997) pro-

vided theoretically grounded narrative descriptions of personality patterns which

can be helpful for the interpretation of the data. Other researchers (e.g., Barber,

1992; Etheredge, 1978; Hermann, 1987; Renshon, 1996b; Simonton, 1988)

11

show more concrete implications of personality patterns and the way they corre-

late with the patterns of Millon’s MIDC.

5 THE PUBLIC PERSONALITY OF JAN PETER BALKENENDE

5.1 Introduction: Balkenende’s four terms as a Prime Minister

Balkenende has led the Dutch government from the world famous elections of

2002 untill the cabinet resigned in February 2010. In many respects 2002 was

an interesting year. Balkenende’s main competitor Pim Fortuyn, a more right-

wing politician whose popularity skyrocketed right before the elections, was as-

sassinated. Balkenende led the cabinet through the first decade of the second

millennium, which politically, socially, economically and in many other ways was

an interesting period of time.

Internationally, there was 9-11 and the war against terrorism. Nationally there

was a lot going on concerning the integration topic: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a female

Dutch-Somali politician politically criticized the Islam and got sent away from

politics in 2005 because she had lied about her naturalisation while entering the

country in the nineties. There was opinionist Theo Van Gogh who was killed by

a young Muslim man after producing a critical movie about the Islam.

Balkenende was the Prime Minister during these and many other challenging

political happenings and circumstances. Who is this man with the old-fashioned

hairdo and Harry Potter-glasses, how did he make it into being a government

leader? And the central question of this chapter: what was the effect of his per-

sonality on his public credibility?

the Dutch were never particularly fond of Balkenende. It seems that he was the

best leader out of other alternatives that were considered to be worse. But he

outlasted many predecessors by remaining seated for eight years. Aside from

the obvious, there must be things that make him credible.

5.2 Source Materials

22 articles contained enough evidence to draw a grounded personality profile of

Jan Peter Balkenende. Over one hundred articles published between 2006 and

2009 were read and the most relevant 22 were selected for the MIDC coding

process as described by Immelman (2004). This resulted in over two hundred

relevant quotes. From these articles, 433 codes were given to the quotes, which

12

means 433 times an MIDC criterion was identified (on average, each quote was

coded approximately two times). The articles were written by 22 different jour-

nalists and researchers who gathered quotes from (former) co-workers, friends,

old school mates, fellow governors, politicians and family members of the Prime

Minister. As an extra check, the 70 articles not selected as MIDC source materi-

als were extensively analyzed in order to make sure that all the relevant MIDC

criteria were scored. From this process nothing new showed up: the Prime Min-

ister’s profile remained the same. Additional research confirmed most of the the

personality profile extracted from the 22 selected sources. A few criteria ap-

peared to be not significantly present within Balkenende’s personality, so they

were removed from the score sheet. A few adjustments were made after an ex-

tended check executed by an experienced psychologist10 and the discussions

that followed from this check.

6 RESULTS & INTERPRETATION

Jan Peter Balkenende has dominant, ambitious and conscientious patterns. Ta-

ble 11 shows the Personality Profile of Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balke-

nende, based on source materials written between 2006 and 2010. The score

sheet in table 12 shows these and a few other personality patterns present

within Balkenende’s expressive behavior, interpersonal conduct, cognitive style,

moods and self-image (attribute A through E).

6.1 Balkenende’s Dominant pattern

Balkenende first and foremost has a dominant political personality (25 raw

points makes 24.8 % of Balkenende’s full profile). This is partly due to the fact

that he is the Prime Minister and dominating behavior comes with the job. The

source materials show that he is the leader of the cabinet, so everyone naturally

expects him to show certain dominant behavior in leading the cabinet and dur-

ing tv-performances. Many people see him as the leader of the nation, so when-

ever there is a public problem, they want the Prime Minister to solve it or to

have it solved by his cabinet. The power and authority people expect the Prime

Minister to display depends on their view on leadership and government. But

despite the differences between people, everybody wants the Prime Minister to

solve problems - although citizens disagree strongly on which problems that

13

would be - and to lead the country into the right direction. So in order to do a

proper job, Balkenende needs to display a certain amount of dominant behav-

ior. This he certainly does, as is shown with the MIDC results.

But besides the fact that his job requires him to be dominant, Balkenende really

seems to have a dominant personality. A quarter of Balkenende’s character is

determined by dominant patterns, so there is robust evidence for a level III per-

sonality type. Immelman (2004:16) says about people who score more than 24

points on one of the scales between 1A and 8 (for scales 9 and 0 there is a dif-

ferent approach):

Identification of a criterion at both the second (scored 2 points) and third (scored

3 points) levels in all five attribute domains of a given personality pattern (i.e.,

25 points), or identification of a criterion in any four of the five attribute domains

at all three levels (scored 1, 2, and 3 points) of a given personality pattern (i.e.,

24 points), provides quite convincing evidence for the existence of a maladap-

tively exaggerated or distorted variant of the personality pattern associated with

those criteria.

Balkenende’s profile lacks only one criterion in order to be called “maladaptively

exaggerated”. In other words, Balkenende’s dominance might be slightly mal-

adaptive and possibly causes problems to himself and/or others. Each criterion

of the dominant pattern that was found to be present within his profile will be

discussed below. This will create a better understanding of the Prime Minister’s

personality. Such an analysis can explain why he behaves the way he does,

how he is reviewed by others and why. Hopefully it will give some insight into

his role as the leader of a new millennium Dutch cabinet and the way he is per-

ceived by the public. Could an MIDC personality analysis explain the extent to

which a leader is credible?

Each diagnostic criterion will be discussed below. Balkenende is dominant

within attribute A: expressive behavior (which might explain credibility shortcom-

ings), B: interpersonal conduct, C: cognitive style, D: mood/temperament and E:

self-image.

Attribute A. Expressive behavior. Balkenende expresses dominant behavior to

two out of the three gradations: he can be commanding (a) and forceful (b).

There was not enough evidence to score the gradation c criterion: Balkenende

is not aggressive.

14

Attribute E: Self-Image. From the way he presents himself through mass media,

it is clear that Balkenende considers himself assertive, competitive and powerful

(scale 1A, gradations a, b and c). The Dutch newspaper Het Parool shows that

“Balkenende claims to have dragged the Netherlands out of an economic reces-

sion, thanks to a conservative and efficient financial approach”34, which reflects

a dominant self-image: first he shows to be assertive (gradation a) by claiming

his success. Second, he shows to be competitive (gradation b) by showing that

he has done what other Prime Ministers could not do. And third, he shows to

have a self-image of being powerful by claiming that the recovery of the econ-

omy was because of his leadership. The question is, however: is this really

Balkenende’s self-image or is this political behavior based on a communication

strategy? Without a doubt, the latter is true anyway. Anything about Balkenende

that shows up in a newspaper or book will be a result of some kind of (political

or communicative) strategy. But how does Balkenende really perceive himself?

The source materials show a lot of dominant behavior, mixed with ambitious

characteristics. Balkenende is confident, conceited and sometimes even some-

what arrogant (scale 2, gradations a, b and c).

As more diagnostic criteria are discussed, It will become clear that Balke-

nende’s self-image is likely to be assertive (1Aa), competitive (1Ab) and power-

ful (1Ac), as is also shown by these quotes: “I’m done with the negativity. (…)

Internationally we [the Dutch] are performing great. Unemployment is histori-

cally low and the Dutch income is one of the highest of all European national in-

comes. Besides, people are satisfied with healthcare and other public services”

and “I have gone through a lot in the last ten years. Bad polls and worse re-

views. My last cabinet also had a hard time, but finally in 2006 we received pub-

lic confirmation of the good work. There is a reason I have won three elections

in a row. I consider that appreciation. Look at Mrs. Verdonk. She gets good

polling results but that gives her no guarantee to win elections whatsoever

Balkenende’s personality shows 24.9 % dominance. 36.7 % of his personality

exists of Ambitious (scale 2, 14.8 %) and Conscientious (scale 6, 21.9 %) pat-

terns.

6.2 Balkenende’s Dominant pattern: generalizations

15

Scale 1A, the dominant pattern, refers to individuals who are asserting and con-

trolling, but can be somewhat aggressive. Immelman (2004) says the following

about personalities with dominant patterns:

The Dominant pattern, as do all personality patterns, occurs on a continuum

ranging from normal to maladaptive. At the well-adjusted pole are strong-willed,

commanding, assertive personalities. Slightly exaggerated Dominant features

occur in forceful, intimidating, controlling personalities. In its most deeply in-

grained, inflexible form, the Dominant pattern displays itself in domineering, bel-

ligerent, aggressive behavior patterns that may be consistent with a clinical di-

agnosis of sadistic personality disorder. (Immelman, 2004: 18)

Immelman (2004) shows that adaptive variants of the Dominant pattern are sim-

ilar to the aggressive style (Oldham and Morris, 1995), the forceful style (Strack,

1997), the controlling pattern (Millon, 1994a) and the ‘managerial segment’ of

the managerial–autocratic continuum (Leary, 1957). Research shows that peo-

ple with the Millon’s controlling pattern are likely to show the conscientious fac-

tor as described in the five-factor model. Individuals who display controlling be-

havior (see Millon, 1994a) are likely to be extravert as well, but the correlation is

less significant. The factors Neuroticism and Agreeableness however are nega-

tively correlated to Millon’s controlling pattern (Millon 1994a: 82). There is no

correlation between the controlling pattern and the openness to experience fac-

tor of the five factor model (see Millon, 1994a: 82).

Simonton (1988) calls individuals like Balkenende, with an elevated dominant

pattern (scale 1A: 25 points), a contentious pattern (scale 5B: 5 points) and a

conscientious pattern (scale 6: 22 points) leaders with a ‘deliberative presiden-

tial style’.

REFERENCIES

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of

mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Aldrich, J., Gronke, P., & Grynaviski, J. (1999). Policy, personality and Presi-

dential Performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest

Political Science Association, Chicago, April 15-18, 1999.

Ankersmit, F.R. & Te Velde, H (2004) Trust; Cement of Democracy?

(Groningen studies in cultural change), Peeters, Groningen

16

Barber, J. D. (1992). The presidential character: Predicting performance in the

White House (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Jean Blondel (1989) Cabinets in Western Europe. Edited by Jean Blondel and

Ferdinand Mller-Rommel. London: Macmillan, 1989

Bouckaert G, Van de Walle S (2003) ‘Comparing measures of citizen trust and

user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good leadership’: Difficulties in linking trust

and satisfaction indicators’ in International Review of Administrative Sciences.

Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Zimbardo, P. (2002). When Parsimony Sub-

dues Distinctiveness: Simplified Public Perceptions of Politician’s Personalities.

Political Psychology, 23/1, 77-95.

Gerald M. Clore, Linda M. Isbell (2001) Emotion as Virtue and Vice; in: James

H. Kulinsky, red. (2001) Citizens and Politics; perspectives from Political Psy-

chology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Cook, Karen S., and Hardin, Russell (2000), Trust in Society. New York: Russell

Sage Foundation.

De Landtsheer, C. (2004). Politiek impressiemanagement in Vlaanderen en

Nederland [Political Impression Management in Flanders and the Netherlands].

Leuven: Acco.

De Landtsheer, C., Thijssen, P., & Immelman, A. (2004). De Persoonlijkheid

van de politieke overwinnaar [The personality of the winning politician]. In C. De

Landtsheer (Ed.), Politiek impressiemanagement in Vlaanderen en Nederland

[Political Impression Management in Flanders and the Netherlands]. Leuven:

Acco, 151-167.

De Vries, P. & De Landtsheer, C. (2009) The Centrality of Political Personality

to Political Suitability: A case study in the debate on perception politics, Paper

presented at the 21st World Conference of the International Political Science

Association, Santiago, Chile July 12- 16 2009.

Dekker P. (2006) Cynisme als politiek probleem. In Synthesis (2006) Politiek

Cynisme; Stichting Synthesis, Driebergen, pp. 11-17

Etheredge, L. S. (1978). Personality effects on American foreign policy, 1898–

1968: A test of interpersonal generalization theory. American Political Science

Review, 72, 434–451.

Ferejohn, John, and James Kuklinski, eds. 1990. Information and Democratic

Processes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

17

Flight, S., van den Andel, A., Hulshof, P. (2006), Vertrouwen in de Politie, Een

verkennend onderzoek, DSP, Amsterdam

Greenstein, F. I. (1969). Personality and politics: Problems of evidence, infer-

ence, and conceptualization. Chicago: Markham.

Halman, L.C.J.M. (2006). De politiek vertrouwen? Waarom zou je? Een

empirische analyse in 33 Europese landen. In A. Korsten & Peter de Goede

(Eds.), Bouwen aan vertrouwen in het openbaar bestuur. Diagnoses en

Remedies (pp. 79-99). 's-Gravenhage: Elsevier.

Hardin, Russell. 2000. "The Public Trust,” in Susan J. Pharr and Robert D. Put-

nam, eds., Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Democra-

cies, Princeton University Press, pp. 31-51.

P. ‘t Hart en A. Wille (2002) Politiek-Ambtelijke Verhoudingen in Beweging;

Boom, Amsterdam.

Hay, C. (2007) Why we hate politics, Palgrave, Cambridge.

Hermann, M. G. (1987). Assessing the foreign policy role orientations of sub-

Saharan African leaders. In S. G. Walker (Ed.), Role theory and foreign policy

analysis (pp. 161–198). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic,

and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Listhaug, O. and Wiberg. M. (1995) Confidence in Politics and Private Institu-

tions. In

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B (1993 and 2003) Credibility: how leaders gain and lose

it, why people demand it; Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B (2007) The Leadership Challenge; Jossey-Bass, San

Francisco Hans-Dieter Klingemann and Dieter Fuchs, eds., Citizens and the

State; Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Immelman, A. (1998). The political personalities of 1996 U.S. presidential can-

didates Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, Leadership Quarterly, 9, 335-366.

Immelman, A. (1999). Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria manual (2nd ed.).

Collegeville, MN: St. John’s University.

Immelman, A. (2002). The political personality of U.S. presidential candidate

George W. Bush. In O. Feldman & L. O. Valenty (Eds.), Political leadership for

18

the new century: Personality and behavior among American leaders. Westport,

CT: Greenwood Press.

Immelman, A. (2003). Personality in Political Psychology. In T. Millon & M.

Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, New York: Wiley, 599-625.

Immelman, A. (2003). Personality in Political Psychology. In T. Millon & M.

Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, New York: Wiley, 599-625.

James H. Kulinsky, red. (2001) Citizens and Politics; perspectives from Political

Psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kernberg, O. (1984). Severe personality disorders: Psychotherapeutic strate-

gies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kinder, Donald R., Mark D. Peters, Robert P. Abelson, and Susan T. Fiske.

1980. “Presidential Prototypes.” Political Beahvior. 2:317-37.

Kinder, B. N. (Ed.). (1999). Millon’s evolving personality theories and measures

[Special series]. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72(3).

Knutson, J. N. (1973). Personality in the study of politics. In J. N. Knutson (Ed.),

Handbook of political psychology (pp. 28–56). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kotzé, H., & Geldenhuys, D. (1990, July). Damascus road. Leadership South

Africa, 9(6), 12–28.

Lasswell, Harold D. 1948. Power and Personality. NewYork: Norton.

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and

methodology for personality evaluation. New York: Ronald Press.