Research Findings to Support this Blog: According to Gregory S. Parks and Jeffrey J. Rachlinski’s study “Unconscious Bias and the 2008 Election,” implicit bias will play a large role in the votes that are placed in the 2008 election. However, the success of Clinton and Obama’s candidacy indicates that people do have the ability to debias themselves and consider factors besides race or gender.

This fall marks a historical moment in election history for our country.  For the first time, one of the candidates running for president is black. And his opponent has chosen a woman as his running mate. As the date of the election rapidly approaches, both Obama and McCain are going to face stereotypes and prejudices that have long been held by many Americans. As blogger Gregory S. Parks explained, “Implicit racial attitudes not only predict behavior, generally; they also predict voting behavior.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregory-s-parks/implicit-unconscious-ra_b_84996.html)

Overcoming race and gender stereotypes has been done. Internationally, more and more women are entering politics in the top positions. Of all the legislators in parliament around the world, 17.7 percent are women, and at the executive level, 16.1 percent of all ministerial portfolios are held by women. For women speakers of Parliament, the totals are lower, at roughly 10 percent. Among elected Heads of State, women account for almost 5 percent. (http://www.ipu.org/press-e/gen297.htm)  In the U.S. in 2008, 16 percent of the Senate and 17 percent of the House are composed of women.

It is rare that people are forced to choose between stereotypes, and it is interesting to note that, according to Alice Eagly, a psychology professor at Northwestern University, “Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test.” (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/17/black_man_vs_white_woman/) The fact that Obama beat out Hillary Clinton for the spot on the presidential ticket is certainly evidence for that statement.

Because they are confronted with stereotypes from both of the political candidates, voters will be forced to take other factors into consideration. Naturally, political viewpoints will be taken into consideration, but so will leadership styles. According to a study by Parks and Rachlinski, the most remarkable sign that people can be debiased and base their decisions on factors other than race or gender is the surprising success of Clinton and Obama’s candidacies. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1102704)

As mentioned in previous blogs, the methods in which the Democratic and Republican teams present themselves will certainly be taken into consideration. Presidents are remembered for how they react to situations and their relationship performance – not necessarily their political points of view. I recall a friend telling me that she was so turned off by a presidential contender during a debate when he kept rolling his eyes that she voted for his opponent despite a less appealing platform. Ultimately, regardless of their gender or race, the next president will be remembered for the same thing. He, or possibly she, will be judged on the same criteria.

This blog is the fifth in a series of blogs that examines Obama and McCain’s personal leadership styles. With the presidential election rapidly approaching, we thought it would be interesting to study the similarities and differences between the two.  Leadership involves much more than just saying what needs to be done and expecting it to happen, and it will be interesting to see how the two candidates approach our country’s voters.

Research Findings to Support this Blog: According to a study by David J. Jackson and Thomas Darrow, young people’s level of agreement with certain political statements is increased by the endorsement by celebrities. Results of the study suggest that celebrity endorsements make unpopular statements more palatable, while increasing the level of agreement with already popular opinions. 

It is well known that a majority of Hollywood actors, writers, producers and directors favor Democrats, although there are a sizable number of Republicans in each profession.  For example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the entertainment industry gave $33.1 million to federal candidates in 2004, with about 70 percent of it going to Democrats. (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/24/hollywood-stars-hit-the-red-carpet-for-obama/)  To what extent the Hollywood creative community has in leading public opinion for Democrats or Republicans, or conservatives or liberals, the answer appears to be mixed, with celebrities’ influence exerted positively in some instances and not at all in others.

Whether we agree with them or not, most of us have come to expect movie stars to show their support (or opposition) to candidates and causes.  The high profile of actors and actresses makes their political opinions more visible to us than other activist groups.  While other leaders make their leanings known as well, they do not generally carry the same “box office” appeal of stars who sell magazines, films, TV shows, etc. to the masses and therefore generate less attention with their endorsements.  (http://www.helium.com/items/182624-hollywood-and-politics-what-makes-movie-stars-political-experts)

This potential influence Hollywood possesses has split opinions across America virtually in half.  A 2007 CBS News poll found that while 47 percent think Hollywood celebrities can offer a new perspective on political issues and should get involved in politics, a similar number – 48 percent — said celebrities are inexperienced about such issues and should stay out of politics.  (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/21/entertainment/main2498496.shtml)

Fans of actors know them primarily through their roles on TV or in the movies, not as people.  When they learn more about their convictions and actions behind their beliefs as an everyday citizen, the disclosures can negate their positions if they are seen as saying “Do what I say, not what I do.”  Madonna, for instance, did not turn out to be a terrifically effective spokesperson for Rock the Vote when it was later revealed that she had not bothered to vote in previous presidential elections. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200409/alterman)  

As for how much impact Hollywood has on “regular folks” in their decisions when voting, there is precious little research to gauge its effects.  There was a study published in 2005 analyzing celebrities’ opinions on English-speaking young adults in Canada, where the authors concluded that “These results suggest that celebrity endorsements make unpopular statements more palatable, while increasing the level of agreement with already popular opinions.” (http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/80)  But again, that survey took place in Canada, not the United States.

Perhaps the only method to measure the impact of celebrity endorsements is to examine the election results themselves, and while there is a Democratic majority in Congress that seems likely to hold after the 2008 elections, the presidential race between McCain and Obama remains virtually tied according to the polls, and many state governments are split between Democrats and Republicans.  If there is a bias for support for Democratic candidates in Hollywood, its influence is reflected at most only to a certain degree based on these results.  And while there are celebrities that have moved successfully into politics (e.g., Ronald Reagan), there are about an equal number that have failed (e.g., Lynn Swann’s run for governor of Pennsylvania in 2006).

Whatever one may think of Hollywood’s involvement in politics, it looks likely it will stay – and only become stronger in the next few years.  In 2006 several L.A.-based entertainment executives formed a politically minded production company called First Tuesday Media with the help of Laura Nichols, a longtime aide to former Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), to create Web and television content designed to move a political or policy message. (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070911_politics_hollywood_style/)  Whether such joint ventures do produce changes in the way non-Hollywood citizens view issues or candidates remain to be seen.

____________________________________________________________________________________

This blog is the fourth in a series of blogs that examines Obama and McCain’s personal leadership styles. With the presidential election rapidly approaching, we thought it would be interesting to study the similarities and differences between the two.  Leadership involves much more than just saying what needs to be done and expecting it to happen, and it will be interesting to see how the two candidates approach our country’s voters.

Research Findings to Support this Blog: According to Raluca Cozma’s study “The Connection Between the Leadership Style and the Performance of American Presidents,” political beliefs and strategies do not affect the way presidents are rated in terms of greatness, performance in international relations or crisis leadership.

John McCain rose to the top of the Republican field of contenders to be the party’s presidential nominee despite having less cash on hand and fewer overall resources than several other challengers. He achieved his status in part by his distinctive leadership style that connected with primary voters, one that, it should be noted, differs considerably from his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.

 
While the popular image of McCain before the start of his campaign was that of a maverick with a temper, he gave an impression exactly opposite that during his stump speeches, designed to be engaging to listeners in small groups (particularly town hall meetings) or one-on-one interviews. One observer noted that “his presentation of self is anything but impetuous and irascible. The timbre of his voice is unfailingly soft, even gentle, and his choice of words is equally disarming …” (http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/kellerman/2008/04/john_mccain_mystery_man.html)

 
Likewise, McCain responds to what he senses from his audience and adapts his delivery to them to emphasize points he knows will resonate. Among personality experts, McCain is viewed as a Promoter, a type which psychologist David Keirsey says is “uncanny at reading people’s faces and observing their body language.” (http://www.slate.com/id/2184696/pagenum/all/)

 
Another distinguishing characteristic many analysts have observed of McCain’s style is his wit. He usually has several funny and charmingly self-deprecating lines that provide some levity in his speeches that audiences appreciate. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080801/POLITICS01/808010315&imw=Y)

 
McCain also manages to be both straightforward and yet apparently spontaneous while talking, another endearing quality to listeners. He is known to “go off script” and not stick with the specific message or line of attack that he makes with his team before speaking, yet he delivers that new thought with as much emphasis as the rest of his message. (http://poligazette.com/2008/08/10/john-mccains-leadership-style/)

 
Both McCain and Obama share a desire to connect to the audiences they address. Compared to Obama, however, McCain is more succinct and prompt in his answers, and he relates more personal stories in explaining his beliefs and positions. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-weissman/saddleback-the-first-mcca_b_119586.html) Voters will have a chance to compare their leadership styles more in depth when the men meet for the three planned debates before the elections, the first being on Sept. 26.

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
This blog is the third in a series of blogs that examines Obama and McCain’s personal leadership styles. With the presidential election rapidly approaching, we thought it would be interesting to study the similarities and differences between the two. Leadership involves much more than just saying what needs to be done and expecting it to happen, and it will be interesting to see how the two candidates approach our country’s voters.

 Research Findings to Support this Blog: According to Raluca Cozma’s study “The Connection Between the Leadership Style and the Performance of American Presidents,” political beliefs and strategies do not affect the way presidents are rated in terms of greatness, performance in international relations or crisis leadership.

How did Barack Obama manage to surprise the pundits and overtake the expected nominee Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic candidate for president? There are many reasons for his success, but a major one involves his leadership style.

 Obama communicates an air of confidence verbally and physically. He tends to remain very calm and steady, and he rarely gesticulates with his hands unless he wants to prove a point. He wants to give the impression of being in control and ready to handle the needs of his duties as president in a cool, collected manner. (http://www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog/archives/2007/03/observations_on_1.html)

 Obama also employs a measured, deliberate speaking style with an even tone that some regard as “conversational.” He emphasizes making as much eye contact as he can with his audience. When asked a question, he looks the person directly in the eyes and answers seriously with purpose. For example, when he appeared at evangelical Rick Warren’s forum, he spoke directly to Warren when the latter questioned him. (http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=2188)

 He believes in working in an agreeable, cooperative fashion when among groups. One observer credited him for embracing this “female” style of leadership better than Hillary Clinton did as a reason for his campaign success. She said Obama is “the embodiment of the gentle, collaborative style without threatening his masculine side. He’s being more feminine than she can be.” (http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/226272)

 Another term associated with Obama’s leadership style is introspection. He does not wear his emotions on his sleeve. (http://www.slate.com/id/2184696/pagenum/2/) Instead, he prefers to invoke emotions among his listeners with a visionary presentation style, emphasizing great themes over specific details. (http://redpillpolitics.com/2008/02/17/obama-is-no-steve-jobs/)

 All these elements of his leadership style differed considerably with what Hillary Clinton presented to Democratic voters. In the end, more of them favored his approach and gave him the nomination. Whether it will appeal to a majority of Americans will be seen on Election Day come this November.

This blog is the second in a series of blogs that examines Obama and McCain’s personal leadership styles. With the presidential election rapidly approaching, we thought it would be interesting to study the similarities and differences between the two. Leadership involves much more than just saying what needs to be done and expecting it to happen, and it will be interesting to see how the two candidates approach our country’s voters.

Research Findings to Support this Blog: UCLA conducted a study on content versus process in communication awareness and reported that people place only 7 percent of their awareness on content (actual words spoken), while 38 percent goes to the tone of voice, with the remaining 55 percent focused on body language.

Have you ever watched McCain and Obama debate? Not just listened to their words, but watched how they carried themselves while responding to each other? Looking at the candidates’ body language or listening to their tone and inflection of voice may not tell you a lot about their stance on certain issues, but it will definitely give you insight into not only their leadership styles but also how their leadership styles are perceived.

When McCain makes a statement, he typically stands firmly and holds onto both sides of the podium. Obama, on the other hand, appears more relaxed. He strolls around, swinging his opposite arm with the opposite leg, and tends to have a forward-looking gaze. When McCain does move around, he sometimes adopts a right-left style of walking where he shifts his weight. His gestures are directional, suggesting that he is bridging a gap, whereas Obama’s shaping arm movements indicate accommodation. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25850150/)

But there are also similarities between the two that contrast with our recent presidents. Both appear to be private people – there are thoughts and emotions inside of them that we can’t see, indicating a private decision-making process. President Bush and President Clinton tended to wear their emotions on their faces. (http://www.livescience.com/history/080725-candidate-body-language.html)

The senators should probably pay close attention to how they present themselves. Before humans develop the language ability, they communicate visually. And when it comes time to vote, people without the knowledge of the issues at hand may pick their candidate based on what they see and the tonal quality they hear, rather than the actual message their words are delivering. Will they pick the candidate who appears stable and secure? Or will voters pick the one who moves more freely and seems to be looking for a change?

• This blog is the first in a series of blogs that will examine Obama and McCain’s personal leadership styles. With the presidential election rapidly approaching, we thought it would be interesting to study the similarities and differences between the two. Leadership involves much more than just saying what needs to be done and expecting it to happen, and it will be interesting to see how the two candidates approach our country’s voters.