No abstract

No abstract

Although research into the factors that may affect male achievement of political leadership is relatively robust, very few studies on the making of female presidents and prime ministers exist. This paper examines the literature on birth order, sex of siblings, and parent-daughter dynamics to see whether the findings for male political leaders-that first-born individuals will be overrepresented as compared with later-born siblings-also hold for female ones. Two other hypotheses were tested concerning differences in birth order and sex of siblings between female political leaders and a larger sample of women. A review of the literature on parent-daughter dynamics suggests that this may be another important variable for future research into explanations for the success of women who achieve senior-level positions of power. The findings suggest that first-born women, like first-born men, are overrepresented among political leaders; that first-born women are overrepresented among female political leaders as compared with their numbers in a larger sample population; and that fewer female political leaders have an older brother than would be expected to occur in a larger sample population. The last finding applies only for women who came to power in the period , not those who gained office more recently.KEY WORDS: female presidents and prime ministers, birth order, sex of siblings, parent-daughter dynamics.Since 1960, there have been 41 women who have served as president or prime minister of their respective states, 1 and their numbers are increasing. In the 1950s,

This article explores the relationship between Indira Gandhi's personality profile in the period before she became Prime Minister and her leadership style during the time she was Prime Minister. The instrument for assessing the personality profile was compiled and adapted from criteria for normal personality types and pathological variants. Gandhi emerges as a multifaceted individual with four of her personality scales—the Ambitious, the Reticent, the Contentious, and the Dominating—approaching the level of mildly dysfunctional. A psychodynamic explanation for these patterns was then offered. This study also developed an instrument for evaluating leadership styles in a cabinet system of government and postulated the theoretical links between personality patterns and leadership style profiles. Gandhi's leadership style was then examined and links between personality profile and leadership style explored: In eight of the 10 leadership categories, Indira Gandhi's leadership behavior matched our expectations for the Ambitious, Dominant, and Contentious personality profiles but not the Reticent one. Further discussion focused on the two areas in which personality patterns fell short of predicting leadership style and the possible explanations for this result.

Recent studies of dyadic interstate conflict assume that the coercive behaviour of a state is afunction eitherof its opponent's behaviour-an open or stimulus-response model-or its own prior behaviour-a closed or organizational process model. An open model perspective assumes that the amount of hostile behaviour received from an opponent provides the most powerful explanation of a state's conflict behaviour. In contrast a closed model assumes that the best explanation of a state's coercive behaviour is internal to the state-the level of domestic violence and/or the pattern of conflict activity previously directed toward an opponent. Despite numerous efforts to assess the relative potency of open versus closed models, empirical investigation has not been able strongly or consistently to confirm either the open or the closed behavioural model as a satisfactory explanation of the conflict behaviour of states. Some states, at some periods, may exhibit patterns of behaviour that appear to respond to behaviour received from other states. In other circumstances, a closed model provides a better explanation.