The '99', the combination of a whipped ice cream and a Cadbury's flake, conjures up images of warmth and sunshine. It is also reassuringly soothing, making us feel good. The words conjure up images which in turn lead to positive feelings. The political parties have been working hard to create associations like these over the past few weeks.
Brown and Cameron have put their wives, Sarah and Samantha, centre stage in an attempt to soften their images and, to round them out as people. Old Etonian Cameron, well aware of his posh boy persona, has been seen at breweries and bakeries. The message is quite clear: "I drink beer and eat sliced white bread. I'm just like you". In all of these locations he is always only slightly elevated above the crowd and invariably in shirt sleeves. "I'm a worker, I am one of you" he is saying.
Brown on the other hand launched the Labour manifesto in a yet to be opened hospital - or in other words "We are investing to improve your lives". The PM is the only party leader who completely eschews casual wear - he is always seen with a suit, the only concession he makes to relaxing it to take his tie off. The message: "This is a serious job and I never stop working for you".
To date, the exception to this has been Nick Clegg. He could be called a toff himself (he went to Westminster School), but the fact that he isn't viewed in that way is because of the power of association with the Liberal Democrats. His wife, Miriam, has tried to keep out of the fray as much as possible and the relationship that the Lib Dems have concentrated on is that of Clegg and Vince Cable - not a glamorous pairing but politically a very important one. The message "I am different".
As the campaign intensifies we will see much more of this association by image, but each party leader is trying to achieve something different which is critical given that the public perceive their policies difficult to differentiate, namely:
Brown - Man of Substance, building on a public perception
Cameron - Man of the People - trying to overcome a popular perception
Clegg - the New Man - trying to forge an identity, establish a perception.
Whether this works or not really depends on whether we, the electorate, see this as authentic or merely superficial.
Photos courtesy of Flickr.com and Ulleskelf, Conservative Party, Downing Street & Nick Clegg photo stream.
The candidates themselves referred to the leadership debate as like going for an interview so it seems appropriate to see how Brown, Cameron and Clegg would have done had this been a real selection process for Britain's next boss.
To evaluate the candidates I used our (Pearn Kandola's) Leadership Radar process which breaks leadership down into three broad areas: Thought Leadership (e.g. ideas, vision), Task Leadership (e.g. setting objectives, delivery) and People Leadership (e.g. motivating others, empathy).
The clear winner overall and in all three categories was the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg. He scored highest in the People category. He connected with the people at many different levels: to the individual questioners, to the studio audience, to his fellow debaters and to the nation watching on TV. He clearly enjoys being in the spotlight and at the centre of attention but there are downsides to this which we need to keep an eye on over the next few weeks. Thought leadership was strong too: on virtually all of the questions he came at the issue from a different angle, displaying originality, freshness and openness to new ideas. His ideas were presented strongly and clearly. His weakest area was Task leadership which was to be expected I suppose given his lack of leadership experience but by focusing on his achievements as a constituency MP in Sheffield he was able to give examples of things that he had seen working and would like to see applied elsewhere.
Brown and Cameron were left in Clegg's wake by this analysis. Brown's vision of Britain was clear but ultimately was one based on negatives: we should fear anyone who suggests cutting public finances; under-performing schools and police forces will be taken over. You don't inspire by generating negative emotions in your followers. Cameron's vision on the other hand was very narrow and vague which he emphasised further by frequently repeating his concerns over the increase in National Insurance.
On the Task front the Prime Minister naturally has the advantage in that he has achievements he can refer to. For Cameron this was his weakest area: he listed few achievements and was not even clear about the specifics of what he would do if he were our next leader. Whilst it wasn't his poorest area, People leadership would have to be Cameron's most disappointing one. He is, by my analysis, someone who is good with other people: empowering, engaging and empathetic. These qualities came through too rarely in the debate. He appeared to be too scripted and too disengaged from the dynamics of the debate itself. His unwillingness to look at the other contestants directly made him appear arrogant if not a little shifty. His refusal to answer the questions about cuts which Brown posed to him on several occasions is the one guaranteed way of appearing untrustworthy- an issue ironically which he chose for his opening address.
Brown on the other hand came across reasonably well even if it did seem at times as if was working a process (Step 1.Look at the questioner; Step 2. Remember their name; Step 3. Smile).
Leaders have to display many qualities, but the great ones are able to combine all three of Thought, Task and People leadership. On this basis therefore you'd have to say that in the first part of this selection process it has been a great start for Clegg, an OK one for Brown and a poor one for Cameron.
On paper, we would always say that politics comes ahead of presentation. But is this always the case?
In 1960, 66 million Americans watched the first ever televised presidential election debates in which Kennedy and Nixon locked horns. Such debates are now the cornerstone of heavily published campaign trails and can make or break a presidential candidate.
In the lead up to the next general election, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will go head-to-head in a series of televised debates, the first of their kind in Britain. However, television can be a fickle friend: on the one hand, it allows politicians to figuratively 'kiss the baby's head' in every living room; yet on the other hand it can damn a candidate to a life-time of cringe-worthy re-runs on YouTube. So what are the lessons to be learnt from the history of televised debates, and particularly the psychology of appearance?
Let's take the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Kennedy's camp had been successful in preparing their man for the cameras. He was tanned and looked vibrant. Nixon, on the other hand, looked dour, frail and sweaty.
Following the debate, a commercial research firm surveyed listeners and viewers asking which candidate had won. Interestingly, they found that television viewers gave Kennedy the edge, while radio listeners preferred Nixon, despite the fact that, in substance, both candidates were closely matched. For TV viewers, it's probable that the power of appearance meant that style won over substance.
And the psychology? Basically, we are pretty awful at making objective decisions that exclude irrelevant data - such as attractiveness, height, dress sense, or whether someone has a nice tan and set of pearly-whites. To illustrate this point, consider these findings from psychological research.
It is well proven that initial impressions are powerful. When we see someone or something, we typically take around two seconds to form an unconscious judgement. Following this judgement, we then try to confirm this initial impression. Whilst such intuition can at times be accurate, it is also be significantly influenced by our own biases and prejudices.
As an example, height does not correlate with intelligence, judgement skills or ability to lead and motivate others. Anyone who, in the cold light of day, would argue that it does is likely to be treated with contempt. However, psychologists again have demonstrated that there is a correlation between height and seniority (read: success) within organisations. If height has nothing to do with the characteristics needed to be successful, then biases related to appearance must be a significant influencer.
Likewise, in court rooms, psychologists have persuasively shown that 'attractive' defendants are perceived as more credible, are acquitted more often and receive lighter sentences than less attractive counterparts.
In essence, we make quick and fairly basic decisions, typically subconsciously, in order to make sense of an incredibly complex world. However, our biases can play an equally significant role in clouding our judgement.
So what? Well of course Brown, Cameron and Clegg will be working hard to manage their appearance in the coming weeks - they have a team of advisors doing just that. The real issue lies with you, the voter. This is a simple but important reminder to be alert and wary of the power of appearance. Watch out for the tricks, the polish and the purple ties. And then listen to the real issues.
I, for one, will be trying to ignore that Brown looks like a sour-puss, Cameron looks like a toff and Clegg looks like...well...actually, what does he look like? No problem there then.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has this week unveiled its new regime for governing what MPs can and cannot reasonably reclaim as expenses. Whilst in general the recommendations sound justified and sensible, it has left me a little confused over the decision to allow MPs to employ one family member as a way of achieving “value for money”.
This is not because I believe that there should be a blanket ban of employing spouses, more that the subject of the decision (and the subsequent debate) is irrelevant.
To ensure “value of money”, the onus is on the MP to recruit the right person for the job, regardless of who they are. Objective, fair and transparent selection has the greatest predictive validity and best return on investment. It is about ‘best fit’, not convenience or familial relationship.
Broadly, MPs should be considering the following:
Firstly, defining clear and justifiable criteria that have direct relevance to the requirements of the role.
Secondly, implementing an objective, transparent and robust assessment process to evaluate candidates’ skills and motivations against the criteria required.
In doing so, the chosen individual is far more likely to be committed and productive.
Whilst it is quite possible that the MP’s family member might very well be the best person for the job, stating that MPs can employ ‘Cousin Nick’ because he will deliver “value for money” is a fallacy. Personally, I’d rather they spend the money on duck-houses; it’s cheaper in the long run.
The recent rise in industrial action is more about psychological contracts than physical ones.
Click here to read the original blog in full on the Management Today website - Psychology at Work Blog, a blog page about the psychology of business, management and leadership written by Pearn Kandola.
Feed
The '99', the combination of a whipped ice cream and a Cadbury's flake, conjures up images of warmth and sunshine. It is also reassuringly soothing, making us feel good. The words conjure up images which in turn lead to positive feelings. The political parties have been working hard to create associations like these over the past few weeks.
Brown and Cameron have put their wives, Sarah and Samantha, centre stage in an attempt to soften their images and, to round them out as people. Old Etonian Cameron, well aware of his posh boy persona, has been seen at breweries and bakeries. The message is quite clear: "I drink beer and eat sliced white bread. I'm just like you". In all of these locations he is always only slightly elevated above the crowd and invariably in shirt sleeves. "I'm a worker, I am one of you" he is saying. 
Brown on the other hand launched the Labour manifesto in a yet to be opened hospital - or in other words "We are investing to improve your lives". The PM is the only party leader who completely eschews casual wear - he is always seen with a suit, the only concession he makes to relaxing it to take his tie off. The message: "This is a serious job and I never stop working for you".
To date, the exception to this has been Nick Clegg. He could be called a toff himself (he went to Westminster School), but the fact that he isn't viewed in that way is because of the power of association with the Liberal Democrats. His wife, Miriam, has tried to keep out of the fray as much as possible and the relationship that the Lib Dems have concentrated on is that of Clegg and Vince Cable - not a glamorous pairing but politically a very important one. The message "I am different".
The candidates themselves referred to the leadership debate as like going for an interview so it seems appropriate to see how Brown, Cameron and Clegg would have done had this been a real selection process for Britain's next boss.
