Alternative formulas to predict the greatness of U.S. presidents: Personological, situational, and zeitgeist factors.

Abstract

Formulas to predict presidential greatness on the Maranell index were constructed for 29 presidents from Washington to L. Johnson. When a Zeitgeist variable, derived from the historian A. M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s (1986) work on the public purpose-private interest cycle of American political history, served as the initial predictor and stepwise selection was made from a personological pool and then from a situational pool, a 6-variable formula containing S personological variables accounted for 91% of the greatness variance. With free stepwise regression, years served and 6 personological predictors accounted for 94% of the greatness variance. Contrary to Simonton's (1987) attributional interpretation, a dispositional basis for presidential greatness may exist. The results also suggest that public purpose phases bring forth presidents who exhibit the personological characteristics most related to historians' acclaim for presidential leadership.What characteristics define successful leaders? What constitutes successful leadership? Because the answers are clearly of theoretical and practical importance to contexts ranging from immediate interpersonal relationships to the arena of global politics, it is not surprising that social psychologists and scholars from other disciplines have spent considerable time and energy trying to delineate the characteristics and disentangle the dynamics of successful leadership. The American presidency is a rich source of material for researching leadership in the political domain. An enormous fund of both qualitative and quantitative data is continually accumulated, and the number of presidents who have now served permits opportunities to apply relatively sophisticated quantitative and statistical strategies and techniques to the information.One line of political leadership research has focused on the relative "greatness" of the presidents. The presidents have been formally assessed several times since 1948 by groups of experts (e.g.,

Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals.

“…Subsequent researchers have followed the same path, investigating illustrious creators, eminent leaders, champion athletes, or other celebrilies, whelher separately or as a colleclive group of notables (e.g., Bloom, 1985;Bowerman, 1947;Eisenstadl, 1978;Ellis, 1926). Among Ihe many possible examples lhal can be cited is the extensive research on the psychological factors underlying the achievements of Nobel prize winning scientists (e.g., Clark & Rice, 1982;Manniche & Falk, 1957;Rothenberg, 1983Rothenberg, , 1987, the performance of United States presidents (e.g., McCann, 1992;Wendt & Light, 1976), and the attainments of champion athletes (e.g., Mahoney & Avener, 1977;Morgan, 1980;Schulz & Curnow, 1988). Because the behavioral phenomena exhibited by these groups have no genuine counterpart in everyday life, it would usually make no sense to use anything other than the appropriate significant sample.…”

Simple Method for Predicting American Presidential Greatness From Victory Margin in Popular Vote (1824-1996)

“…Central to the six-predictor formula developed by McCann (1992) is the private interest-public purpose variable that was based on the work of historian A. M. Schlesinger Jr. (1986, 1992, which also has been successfully employed in other research by McCann (e.g., 1994McCann (e.g., , 1995McCann (e.g., , 1997bMcCann (e.g., , 1998McCann (e.g., , 2001a. A. M. Schlesinger Jr. has seen the political history of the United States as a cycle of shifts in national involvement that alter the social fabric and affect the tenor of the times (see also Morrow, 1987;A.…”

“…In various replications through the years, the formula consistently has accounted for approximately 80% of the variance in presidential greatness variables. Using somewhat different strategies, McCann (1992) produced five formulas that were demonstrated to have variance-accounting capacities similar to Simonton's (1986b) formula. Of the five, a formula that was based on achievement drive, intelligence, height, attractiveness, tidiness, and the public purpose-private interest variable of A.…”

“…Multiple regression equations based on several personological, situational, and zeitgeist variables have been constructed that can predict presidential greatness ratings (Kenney & Rice, 1988;McCann, 1992;Simonton, 1986b). For example, Simonton (1986bSimonton ( , 2001) has found extensive support for a formula with the following six predictors: years in office, number of war years in office, presence or absence of top level scandal, whether the president was assassinated, whether the president was a national war hero before coming to office, and the intelligence of the president.…”

Telos, Chronos, and Hermēneia: The Role of Metanarrative in Leadership Effectiveness through the Production of Meaning

“…This may be accomplished by designing research that employs historiometry, a research strategy based on the analysis of biographical materials of prominent leaders by employing quantitative measurement such as the use of standardized instruments measuring personal meaning or values along with biographical works. Historiometry in the study of leadership, for instance, has been used to investigate presidential leadership motive profiles , examine the dispositional basis for presidential greatness (McCann, 1992), establish a relationship between charisma and effectiveness (Simonton, 1988;House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991), and verify a model of personality constructs predicting destructive charismatic leadership (O"Conner, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995).…”