November 29, 2008
The economy jolts and stumbles, wars slog on in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the horrors of a new terrorist attack blanket the news and draw frayed attention yet again to our precarious alliances in the world. The watchword for the holidays is subdued; certainly not much inspires celebration.
Perhaps it is no coincidence, then, that to lead us in crisis, Americans elected a man repeatedly recognized for his uncommon calmness. More than ever, we crave stability, a steady hand, the reassuring face on television.
David Winter, a psychologist at the University of Michigan who has analyzed the leadership personalities of presidents and other world leaders, said, “I’m not sure I know of evidence that higher degrees of stability are conducive to better leadership.” Winston Churchill, he noted, was highly reactive and emotional. Calvin Coolidge was calm to the point of phlegmatic. And F.D.R., like Mr. Obama, could be cool to the point of remote.
For leaders, it is a balancing act — to lead, but also to be human.
“If there isn’t a tear after a grandmother who raised you just died, if there isn’t a flash of anger against perpetrators or the anxiety that people feel as they lose their jobs, there’s not the sense of connection, that this is a real person,” said Professor Gross.
“What we want from a leader is a paradoxical mix, having the emotions we feel, but almost being our better self.”
read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/weekinreview/30zernike.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print