The Trump-Harris debate resurfaced one intriguing line of research in leadership psychology

A few days ago, the ABC television channel mediated to the world the election debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Despite its high entertainment value (to quote the economist Peeter Koppel), I was even more interested in the subsequent follow-up of what happened by analysts, experienced media experts and political observers.

It is no secret that the assessments given to candidates do not depend so much on the content of the messages, but on how well they are prepared for debate in the eyes of observers and are able to repel the attacks of the opponent. The audience will appreciate the candidate’s confidence, oratorical abilities, energy, representativeness and ability to remain balance-minded in stressful situations.

In big politics, characters break through and make a career. It is inconceivable that the leader of the free world is a party bureaucrat unknown to the general public, with non-existent charisma, who is perhaps a capable behind-the-scenes thread-puller, but who does not know how to communicate with his people (and the rest of the world).

However, it is important to understand that after the elections and inauguration, the US president is no longer just a politician or representative person, but through his administration the head of the executive branch and (ideally) the leader of the people. Looking at how divided United States society is and how much radicalization is perceptible on the political fringes (we remember even the attack on the Capitol in early 2021 or, for example, the Charlottesville protests in 2017), uniting the nation requires not only a superhuman effort, but also (joking) the help of heavenly forces.

The aftershock that followed the Harris and Trump debate (and, in fact, the entire campaign period so far) reminded me of an intriguing leadership study in corporations in the United States decades ago conducted by Fred Luthans.

Luthans oversaw the activities of hundreds of managers at six large companies over a four-year period as job shadowing. He began his research with a simple question: which leaders become winners and what do they do differently compared to others? Large corporations located in the centers of attraction in the United States attract ambitious, capable talent with high career goals. Since there are fewer chairs than players, of course, there is a lot of (hidden) competition, power plays, and sometimes ugly behavior between each other.

The results of Luthans’ research were intriguing and have laid the foundation for one interesting area of research in management psychology. Luthans concluded by pointing out that the winners were divided into two groups. Leaders belonging to the first group stood out from the others by their charisma. They were more likely to be included in the development programs of future leaders and were given to carry important projects. They had a busy career in the company and generally had the skills to trade out of their employer for a heftier salary. Luthans found that they were smarter, quick-witted and had very good communication skills compared to the rest. They were able to create networks in the organization and attract the attention of people to themselves. They talked a lot about vision and could sell their thoughts to others. So this is the type of person who we usually like in job interviews. Luthans noticed that this group put a lot of their energy, charm and working time into communicating with the (top) management, creating their own personal brand and networking.

Another group of leaders was characterized by the fact that the teams they led achieved very good results. The manager’s time and energy was spent mainly on his team members. Luthans noted that managers in this group did not always have company-wide notoriety, and from time to time they remained off the radar of top managers in internal competitions.

To Luthans’ surprise, there was significantly less overlap between both groups than he initially assumed: the actual result remained close to a third. What did the researcher conclude? Being elected doesn’t automatically mean that you have the skills to build and lead dedicated teams, a willingness to admit and learn from your mistakes and take responsibility when things go wrong.

Luthans, by the way, did not contrast the two groups with each other. He stressed that if the goal is to realize yourself as a leader, then you should learn from both: acquire skills and knowledge that will help you to be visible, create networks of supporters and like-minded people, attract the attention of top management, and on the other hand, be a good leader for your team, with whom you will be ready to go to intelligence even after years.

While the winners of the first group have come to be called emergent leaders, the second group is called effective leaders. Leadership psychologists are interested in what qualities, skills and behavioral strategies help capable players to stand out and emerge in large companies with high internal competition, and in the case of another group that helps them create and lead dedicated teams.

It is not necessary to make a lot of effort to understand: the leaders of the first group are quite similar in their personality profile to successful politicians. This is logical: in large companies, the choice of board members is also, to a large extent, a political process. Both have a good sense of the hidden power plays between people, and life has taught them to watch carefully behind their backs.

In small and medium-sized enterprises (about 99% of enterprises in Estonia), the team-building and team performance of a manager are quite well perceived by the top management. To quote a familiar entrepreneur: you can’t just show up anymore, you also need to really be there and get things done.

Presidential elections will be held in the United States on 5 November and a new president will be sworn in on 20 January. It opens a new as yet unwritten, but certainly colourful chapter in both the American History Book and the World History Book, looking at today’s challenges. The job interview is successfully passed, signed on the employment contract. Now you need to start really doing things with your team.

Alo Poundhead

Lead Consultant

Adera Executive Search