Much of what we are seeing and hearing from the present election campaign is confusing and misleading. This is particularly evident in the battle between Clinton and Obama. We are told by each candidate that they support major change in the direction the present administration is heading. This issue was particularly important in the recent Iowa caucus where Hillary was a bit late in realizing that she needed to be on the “for change” bandwagon in order to counter Obama’s surge on this issue. It was clear that people in Iowa were supportive of change, but had to answer the question of which candidate truly was the change instigator.
While it is difficult for individuals to categorically answer this question, there are distinct indicators, provided by psychological analysis, which shed light on how each candidate will behave in office.
After many years of evaluating individual psychological preference it is clear that about 75% of our population can be considered transactional leaders, while 25% can be considered transformational. Whether one is transactional or transformational is determined by the internal psychological makeup of the individual and remains unchanged throughout that individual’s life.
Transactional leaders are those that prefer the status quo and are very conscious of standard ways of performing and following set lines of authority. Change is not comfortable for this group, but, there is a spectrum of change acceptance and initiation within this group that allows for varying degrees of marginal change. During peaceful and relatively normal times the transactionals prove to be solid operators and their programs and policies go relatively unnoticed by society. While they are not reluctant to make changes, it normally comes in small increments with little noticeable impact. Many transactionals, such as Hillary, believe they are catalysts for change, but their changes are usually small and have marginal effect. While this approach may work in normal times, it is ineffective in dealing with the chaotic mess created by the Bush administration. While Hillary is obviously an intelligent and experience senator, she is none the less a transactional leader who has gone along with much of the administration’s policies and presented only feeble attempts to bring about significant change.
The American people have obviously sensed the need for a more aggressive approach and it is not surprising that a transformational leader such as Obama is having such success. Transformational leaders are “big picture” leaders that are comfortable with major change. They have an intuitive sense regarding the need for change and are often charismatic in explaining their points of view. As with the transactionals, the transformationals exhibit a spectrum of propensity toward change. Obama’s psychological makeup seems to indicate he is a moderate change manager and is capable of reversing current trends without going to the extremes of the transformational spectrum. It is often difficult for intuitive transformationals to verbally detail their long range views and Obama appears to exhibit this tendency. He has come under criticism from Hillary and the Republicans for this apparent vagueness, however as with other transformationals, when given the opportunity to discuss his positions in situations other than the campaign trail he will be able to articulate his position quite well.
If change is one of the deciding ingredients in selecting a new president, Obama is the candidate that will provide the real paradigm shift needed to reverse the present direction. Hillary will bring change to the table, but it will probably be too little to veer significantly off of the present course.