Putting aside for a moment the baseline NPA type, people in political leadership tend to do well and last longest if their temperament is low to moderate. High temperament leaders, especially those with a multitude of responsibilities, don't tend to handle things well; their anger, and arrogance, gets the better of them and they veer towards the erratic or even despotic.
So, a T score of say 10 to 40 would be a good range: a person not so phlegmatic as to seldom voice his own take or be manipulated ceaselessly by the more assertive or driven, but not so given to temper that his judgement is impaired and his aims undermined by those keen to exploit said temper.
What about focus? I guess the mid-range would be decent here. Not so diffuse as to traverse and handle issues with insufficient depth or consideration, but not so intensely analytical as to be preoccupied by endless minutiae. Also, a reasonable amount of focus allows for better self-perception and self-awareness which is great for not appearing egoistic or letting power go to one's head. So a range of perhaps 30 to 60.
Finally there's submissiveness. I think that there's some room for this, especially with respect to deference and an ability to think things through, and contemplate things from multiple perspectives. However the impairment to performances under pressure may outweigh these benefits; Theresa May of the UK for example is already finding her probable A- trait troublesome.
So...a lowish to mid-range temperament (T), moderate to moderately high focus (F), and low to moderate submissiveness (S) makes for a good political leader irrespective of circumstances. Is this making any sense?
(Note that the above is differentiated from other leadership roles - e.g. a football coach, military general, platoon leader, CEO, ship's captain, college professor, church preacher etc.)
« Back to index