In the United
States, the Presidential election cycle is in
full swing. The debates between Barack
Obama and Mitt Romney are about to begin. Voters are making up their minds, and early
voting has already begun in some states.
In 2008, one of the big factors that helped to sweep Obama
into office was that he was seen as an inspiring and visionary leader. The country was mired in two wars, and an
economic crisis threatened to plunge the US into a depression. In that context, Obama’s campaign speeches
about hope and change resonated with the voters.
A paper in the July, 2011 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by Nir Halevy, Yair
Berson, and Adam Galinsky explored why people seek out visionary leaders.
Research on leadership suggests that there are two
conflicting sets of qualities that people look for in a leader. At times, people want a visionary—a leader
who will guide them to be better than themselves. At other times, though, people seem to want a
leader who is one of them—a person that they can relate to. Indeed, in the 2000 election, George W. Bush
gained in popularity over Al Gore, because he was seen as likeable. Bush was a candidate people could imagine
sitting down and talking to over a beer.
In one study, Halevy, Berson, and Galinsky had college
students read a scenario in which they experienced a personal crisis (they were
trapped in a burning apartment) or a group crisis (their fraternity/sorority
house burned down and, although nobody was hurt, everything was
destroyed). Unsurprisingly, students
reading these scenarios felt sad, scared, and anxious.
Afterward, participants read about two candidates who were
running to be president of their fraternity/sorority. One candidate was described as a visionary
leader who inspired other students. The
other was described as a typical student who shares opinions with most other
members of the group. The participants
rated their degree of support for each candidate. Not surprisingly, the visionary candidate got
more support from participants overall than the candidate who was similar to
most other group members.
After rating their endorsement of the candidates,
participants rated their mood again.
Interestingly, the more strongly people endorsed the visionary
candidate, the more that their mood recovered from the negative feelings they
had after reading about the crisis in the first part of the study. This effect was particularly strong in the
group crisis condition (where the house burned down). That is, visionary leaders help people feel
better in times of crisis.
In a second study, participants read about a crisis in which
a fire burned a large part of a town.
Afterward, they read a speech by the town’s mayor. The speech either emphasized hope for the
future—the kind of speech a visionary leader often gives—or it emphasized how
everyone is part of the same community—a less visionary speech. After reading these speeches, participants
indicated how much time they would volunteer to help the community repair
itself after the fire. Participants who
read the visionary speech were willing to commit about 25% more hours than
those who read the other speech.
These studies suggest that visionary leaders are
particularly attractive in times of crisis.
Leaders who express a vision for the future and give a message of hope
make people feel more comfort when times are bad. At the same time, these leaders seem to
energize people to want to take action.
Is there a downside to being a visionary leader?
A candidate presented as a visionary runs some risk. Hope is an anticipatory emotion. People who are hopeful are looking forward to
the future when things will get better. Campaigns
are focused on the future, and so visionary messages play well, particularly in
difficult times. The task of governing,
though, is one that must be done day-to-day.
Most of the world’s problems are not ones that can be solved
immediately. And situations can
sometimes get worse before they get better.
So, visionary leaders run the risk that people will become
disillusioned.
