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 media sandstorm being whipped up about Brown's bullying behaviour comes as something of a surprise to me. Rumours of his temper and aggressive management of staff have been circulating for years. But it is not the accusation that he has been bullying staff that worries me most; instead I think the responses to the allegations are far more of a concern.
Lord Mandelson, for example, said that he had experienced Brown's wrath, and that he took his medicine "like a man". That Mandelson claims this was the brave thing to do only undermines attempts to stop this type of behaviour in the workplace. How can it be braver to allow this behaviour to go on, rather than challenging it?
Gordon Brown's responses to these allegations are also concerning. When asked whether he has bullied anyone, the PM consistently responds: "No. I get angry sometimes, doesn't everybody? I get impatient." It's clear that he either does not understand, or does not care, about the impact of his angry or impatient behaviour, and how it can be a form of bullying.
But why do people bully in the workplace? Brown has defended his behaviour by claiming he is "driven to do the things". In reality, research has demonstrated that people who demonstrate bullying behaviour report a greater need for power and authority and are motivated by domination. Given Brown's position as PM, this would suggest that simply achieving power and authority does not stop the bullying; if anything, it is likely to encourage the bully to continue with the behaviours that have seen them promoted, or voted, into the successful position they are in.
Whilst I don't believe for one second that the culture of shouting and being angry in British politics is something that Brown is solely responsible for introducing (you only have to look at the way MPs jostle and jeer one another in the House of Commons), I do believe that we all have choices to make about how we conduct ourselves at work. Brown simply chooses to preserve this particular tradition of British politics, and perhaps hides his actions less well than most. Rather than simply focussing on Brown's behaviour, the question should be asked, how many Ministers, Junior Ministers, and senior civil servants have mirrored his bullying tactics to get what they want? And how far down the public sector food chain has this behaviour trickled? Perhaps it's not so surprising after all that there are twice as many claims of harassment and bullying in the public sector compared to the private sector.
Finally, a mention for Christine Pratt, the chief executive of the National Bullying Helpline: confidential is supposed to mean confidential. How can going to the press, even before raising concerns at a general level with the employer, ever be the right approach in this situation?
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.
The most remarkable lines in Barak Obama's inauguration speech were those addressed to Islamic nations: 'We seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect' and, he went on, 'we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.'
The words were conciliatory, the imagery powerful and the approach a complete contrast to his predecessor.
Last year during the election campaign my colleague Polly Howard De La Mare and I carried out a psychological analysis of the then presidential candidate and those few lines demonstrated many of his strengths: clear vision, the ability to see the others' perspective and values driven. These are qualities that he shares with his role model, Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest American president. Some may think that by asking us to compare him with the Civil War leader is hugely arrogant. However it also shows a real sense of how he wants his presidency to be conducted and possibly how he wants to be remembered. It gives him a standard to measure himself against and, being self critical, clarity about where he needs to improve.
Our analysis also showed that under pressure he can be judgmental, slow to make decisions and has a tendency to withdraw. There have been times, particularly in the first few months, where these traits have been revealed and he could learn much from Lincoln in this regard who showed a remarkably openness of sprit when confronted with criticism.
Lincoln famously worked to create a cabinet which contained many principle rivals. An analysis we carried out of Obama's Cabinet and his closest advisors shows that whilst they may differ in their political views, their personality profiles are very similar. They appear to be calm, rational, even tempered. The most notable exceptions to this are Rahm Emmuanuel, the White House Chief of Staff and Joe Biden, the Vice President. Both men operate at a more emotional level than the others and as a result could provide the degree of tension and constructive conflict that is necessary, although at the time it may appear extremely unhelpful, for any time to become truly high performing. The big question remains over this team and consequently for the President himself, can they deliver what they have promised?
Feed
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.
The media sandstorm being whipped up about Brown's bullying behaviour comes as something of a surprise to me. Rumours of his temper and aggressive management of staff have been circulating for years. But it is not the accusation that he has been bullying staff that worries me most; instead I think the responses to the allegations are far more of a concern.
Whilst I don't believe for one second that the culture of shouting and being angry in British politics is something that Brown is solely responsible for introducing (you only have to look at the way MPs jostle and jeer one another in the House of Commons), I do believe that we all have choices to make about how we conduct ourselves at work. Brown simply chooses to preserve this particular tradition of British politics, and perhaps hides his actions less well than most. Rather than simply focussing on Brown's behaviour, the question should be asked, how many Ministers, Junior Ministers, and senior civil servants have mirrored his bullying tactics to get what they want? And how far down the public sector food chain has this behaviour trickled? Perhaps it's not so surprising after all that there are twice as many claims of harassment and bullying in the public sector compared to the private sector.