Indira Gandhi: The Relationship between PersonalityProfile and Leadership StyleBlema S. Steinberg

This article explores the relationship between Indira Gandhis personality profile in theperiod before she became Prime Minister and her leadership style during the time she wasPrime Minister. The instrument for assessing the personality profile was compiled andadapted from criteria for normal personality types and pathological variants. Gandhiemerges as a multifaceted individual with four of her personality scalesthe Ambitious,the Reticent, the Contentious, and the Dominatingapproaching the level of mildly dys-functional. A psychodynamic explanation for these patterns was then offered. This studyalso developed an instrument for evaluating leadership styles in a cabinet system of gov-ernment and postulated the theoretical links between personality patterns and leadershipstyle profiles. Gandhis leadership style was then examined and links between personalityprofile and leadership style explored: In eight of the 10 leadership categories, IndiraGandhis leadership behavior matched our expectations for the Ambitious, Dominant, andContentious personality profiles but not the Reticent one. Further discussion focused onthe two areas in which personality patterns fell short of predicting leadership style and thepossible explanations for this result.KEY WORDS: Indira Gandhi, personality profiles, leadership style, psychodynamic explanations

Previous studies of the personalities of political leaders developed by politi-cal psychologists have been largely impressionistic, based on the psychologicalinsights and categories of various authors. At a more systematic level, Immelman(1993, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003) developed the concept of personality pro-files based on Millons (1969, 1986a, 1986b, 1990, 1991, 1994a, 1994b, 1996;Millon & Davis, 2000; Millon & Everly, 1985) detailed analyses of a number ofpersonality patterns.

In the present study, largely based on the research design created by Immel-man (1993, 2003), I chose to profile a political leader who was elected to thehighest political officethat of prime minister. From hypotheses developed aboutthe links between particular personality patterns and leadership behavior, I then

Political Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 5, 2005

0162-895X 2005 International Society of Political PsychologyPublished by Blackwell Publishing. Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ

755

756 Steinberg

examined the empirical evidence of Indira Gandhis personality profile and herleadership style and the extent to which they matched theoretical expectations.

No prime minister, hitherto, has been the subject of this type of personalityprofile, and female politicians in general are largely under studied. IndiraGandhione of the first female prime ministers in the world (preceded only bySirimavo Bandaranaike who became prime minister of Sri Lanka in 1960), as wellas the longest serving prime minister of India, the most populous democracy inthe worldwas an ideal candidate with whom to begin this study.

Born into Indias most prominent political family in 1917, Indira Nehru wasimmersed in politics from an early age. Stepping into the void left by her mothersuntimely death in 1936, as a young woman she became her fathers hostess(notwithstanding her marriage to Feroze Gandhi and subsequent motherhood), arole that expanded into confidant and advisor over the ensuing years. After herfathers death in 1964, she accepted a minor portfolio in the Shastri government.Lal Bahadur Shastris subsequent death, two years later, made her the compro-mise choice of the ruling Congress Party hierarchy for the post of the prime min-ister, since she was thought to harbor no political ambitions of her own.

Over the next 11 years, she proved to be a formidable political leader, con-solidating her control over the party and the country, winning the 1971 war withPakistan that saw the creation of Bangladesh, and declaring a State of Emergencyin 1975. This latter action, a culmination of bitter relations with the opposition,led to her political defeat in the 1977 elections. Out of power for the next threeyears, she returned triumphantly in 1980, and ruled India with an increased deter-mination to maintain herself in office. Not above manipulating communal griev-ances to stay in power, ironically she, herself, eventually fell victim of one ofthese crises. In 1984, she was assassinated by her own bodyguards, members ofthe Sikh community, thus ending a remarkable political career.

An exceedingly complex individual, Indira Gandhi was frequently perceivedas a shy, aloof young woman. And yet her behavior as Prime Minister was engaged and aggressive, climaxing in her declaration of a State of Emergency in1975. If, as I argue, there is a relationship between personality patterns and theexercise of leadership, how can we account for what is commonly known aboutIndira before she became Prime Minister with her behavior as Prime Minister?To help answer this question and others related to her leadership style, I exam-ined her personality profile prior to her assumption of the office of the Prime Minister and investigated its impact upon her leadership style during her tenureas Prime Minister.

Purpose of the Study

The goal of this study is to explore, on the basis of a single case study, theextent to which personality manifests itself in leadership style. In an attempt toprovide some preliminary answers to this question, a personality profile of IndiraGandhi, former Prime Minister of India, patterned on the work of Immelman

Indira Gandhi 757

(1993, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003), was delineated. Then, as a second step, aset of categories for the exploration of prime ministerial leadership style wasdeveloped. A third step involved a discussion of the expected links betweenvarious personality profiles and leadership styles. Finally, I examined the leader-ship behavior exhibited by Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister and the extent towhich her personality profile was predictive of her leadership style.

Personality

Background to the Study of Personality

In his review of the field of personality and politics, Simonton (1990) sug-gests that the dominant paradigm for the psychological examination of leaders hasshifted from the earlier preponderance of qualitative, ideographic psychobio-graphical analysis toward quantitative and nomothetic methods. This trend reflectsthe impact of Hermanns (e.g., 1974, 1978, 1980, 1984, 1987) investigation of theinfluence of personal characteristics on foreign policy, Winters (1980, 1987)examination of the role of social motives in leader performance, and Suedfeld andTetlocks (1977) and Tetlocks (1985) work in integrative complexity.

Another major approach in the emerging quantitative-nomethetic approach tothe study of personality noted by Simonton (1990, p. 671) involves the extensionof standard personality instruments and techniques to the analysis of biographi-cal material for the indirect assessment of political leaders (e.g., Immelman, 1998,2000, 2002; Kowert, 1996; Milburn, 1977; Simonton, 1986).

I use this latter approach which has been adapted by Immelman (1993, 1999)from Millons model of personality (1969, 1986a, 1986b, 1990, 1991, 1994a,1996; Millon & Davis, 2000; Millon & Everly, 1985). The resulting methodol-ogy entails the construction of empirically derived personality profiles based upondiagnostically relevant content in political-psychological analyses, journalisticaccounts, and biographies and autobiographies of political figures. These profilesare based on the conceptual models of Millon (1996), Millon and Davis (2000),and Strack (1997), which offer an empirically validated taxonomy of personalitypatterns compatible with the syndromes described on Axis II of the fourth editionof the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) of theAmerican Psychiatric Association (APA, 1994). A distinguishing attribute of thesemodels is that they provide an integrated view of normality and psychopathology.No sharp line divides normal from pathological behavior; they are relative con-cepts representing arbitrary points on a continuum or gradient (Millon, 1994, p. 283).

Method and Sources for Deriving Personality Profiles

Given that Immelman (1993, 2003) has provided a comprehensive review of Millons model of personality and its applicability to political personality, a

758 Steinberg

brief description in this paper should suffice. The Millon Inventory of Diagnos-tic Criteria (MIDC), based on Millons model of personality, is essentially anindex; it formally charts and scores 12 personality patterns across eight attributedomains. This assessment tool was compiled and adapted from criteria for normalpersonality types and pathological variants (see Immelman and Steinberg, 1999).Each attribute domain is a distinct facet of human behavior in which personalitytraits are manifested. (See Table 1 for a description of the attribute domains acrosswhich personality can be measured.) Table 2 spells out the 12 personality scalesas well as specific descriptors/diagnostic criteria numbering from a to e inascending order of importance of that trait within the specific personality scale.

To assess the relative importance of the twelve personality patterns in IndiraGandhis overall personality profile, the presence of the diagnostic criteria asso-ciated with each pattern was measured across the five attribute domains and eachletter value from a to e was given a numerical weight from one to five. The

Table 1. Millons Eight Attribute Domains

Description AttributeExpressive behavior

The individuals characteristic behavior; how the individualtypically appears to others; what the individual knowingly orunknowingly reveals about him- or herself.

Interpersonal conduct How the individual typically interacts with others; the attitudes thatunderlie, prompt, and give shape to these actions; the methods bywhich the individual engages others to meet his or her needs; howthe individual copes with social tensions and conflicts.

Cognitive style How the individual focuses and allocates attention, encodes andprocesses information, organizes thoughts, makes attributions, andcommunicates reactions and ideas to others.

Mood/temperament How the individual typically displays emotion; the predominantcharacter of an individuals affect and the intensity and frequencywith which he or she expresses it.

Self-image The individuals perception of self-as-object or the manner inwhich the individual overtly describes him- or herself.

Regulatory mechanisms The individuals characteristic mechanisms of self-protection, needgratification, and conflict resolution.

Object representations The residue of significant past experiences, composed of memories,attitudes, and affects that underlie the individuals perceptions ofand reactions to ongoing events.

Morphologic organization The structural strength, interior congruity, and functional efficacy ofthe personality system.

Note. From Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond (pp. 141146), by T. Millon, 1996, NewYork: Wiley; Toward a New Personology: An Evolutionary Model (chap. 5), by T. Millon, 1990,New York: Wiley; and Personality and Its Disorders: A Biosocial Learning Approach (p. 32), by T. Millon and G. S. Everly, Jr., 1985, New York: Wiley. Copyright 1996, 1990, 1985 byJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Indira Gandhi 759

Table 2. Taxonomy of Politically Relevant Personality Patterns Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria: Scales and Gradations

Scale 1A: Dominant patterna Assertiveb. Controllingc. Aggressive (Sadistic [DSM-III-R]; Appendix A)

Scale 1B: Dauntless Patterna. Venturesomeb. Dissentingc. Aggrandizing (Antisocial; DSM-IV, 301.7)

Scale 2: Ambitious patterna. Confidentb. Self-servingc. Exploitative (Narcissistic; 301.81)

Scale 3: Outgoing patterna. Congenialb. Gregariousc. Impulsive (Histrionic; 301.50)

Scale 4: Accommodating patterna. Cooperativeb. Agreeablec. Submissive (Dependent; 301.6)

Scale 5A: Aggrieved patterna. Unpresumingb. Self-denyingc. Self-defeating (DSM-III-R, Appendix A)

Scale 5B: Contentious Patterna. Resoluteb. Oppositionalc. Negativistic (Passive-aggressive; DSM-III-R, 301.84)

Scale 6: Conscientious patterna. Respectfulb. Dutifulc. Compulsive (Obsessive-compulsive; DSM-IV, 301.4)

Scale 7: Reticent patterna. Circumspectb. Inhibitedc. Withdrawn (Avoidant; DSM-IV, 301.82)

Scale 8: Retiring patterna. Reservedb. Aloofc. Solitary (Schizoid; DSM-IV, 301.20)

Scale 9: Distrusting patternd. Suspiciouse. Paranoid (DSM-IV, 301.0)

Scale 0: Erratic patternd. Unstablee. Borderline (DSM-IV, 301.83)

Note. Equivalent DSM terminology and codes are specified in parentheses.

760 Steinberg

maximum possible score for each of the first 10 personality scales was 30. Thisfigure was derived from summing the numerical values assigned to a, b, and c,and multiplying it by the number of attribute domains. Using the same logic, themaximum possible score for each of the last two personality patterns was 45. Forexample, Indira Gandhis score of 21 on the Ambitious personality pattern wasderived from adding the subscores for each of the five domains across which per-sonality was measured. Her expressive behavior and self-image received a codingof a, b, and c on the ambitious scale for a numerical count of 12 (1 + 2 +3 2); on the same scale, her interpersonal conduct, cognitive style, andmood/temperament were each coded as a and b for a numerical count of 9 (1 + 2 3). Together this produced a score of 21.

It should be noted that the scores yielded by the MIDC scales possess theproperty of rank order, but not of equal intervals or absolute magnitude. In inter-preting MIDC profiles, it must be borne in mind that the measurement scale isordinal, intended primarily to classify subjects into a graded sequence of person-ality classifications or levels, ranging from present (scores between 1 and 9);prominent (scores between 10 and 23); and mildly dysfunctional (scores between24 and 40). For those individuals exhibiting a paranoid or erratic personalitypattern, a score of between 20 and 36 is deemed to be moderately disturbed anda score above 36 would be markedly disturbed.

As explained in the MIDC manual, diagnostic significance and cutoff pointsbetween normal, prominent, and dysfunctional scale variants are based on rationalcriteria derived from the specific manner of test construction. As a research instru-ment, the MIDC is not standardized on some normative sample, as is the casewith conventional, commercially produced personality inventories used in clini-cal practice. In this regard, the MIDC diagnostic procedure is more akin to thedecision-making process of clinicians when they employ the DSM as a diagnos-tic tool. Still, it offers at least a quasisystematic framework for analysisa sig-nificant departure from purely idiosyncratic bases of assessments. (Detailedinformation concerning the construction, administration, scoring, and interpreta-tion of the MIDC is provided in the MIDC manual which is available upon requestfrom the author (Immelman, 1999, 2002) or on the World Wide Web athttp://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Research/Research-Instruments.html.)

The MIDC personality inventory was used to code diagnostically relevantinformation collected from available biographical source materials. In the case ofIndira Gandhi, this included a detailed extraction and coding of material containedin the major biographies written about her. (See Bhatia (1974); Carras (1979);Frank (2001); Gupte (1992); Malhotra (1989); Masani (1975); and Vasudev(1974).) The choice of these studies was based on reviews, the richness of theirsource materials, and their scholarly contribution to the study. Collectively, thesebiographies provided a balance between the more supportive and the more criti-cal approaches to the subject. As the database involved was extremely large, about30% of the data was extracted and coded independently by two investigators with

Indira Gandhi 761

agreement on 83.4% of the items, while the remainder was coded by a singleinvestigator.

In the construction of Indira Gandhis personality profile, five of the eightattribute domains, namely, expressive behavior, interpersonal conduct, cognitivestyle, mood/temperament, and self-image, were explored for each of the 12 per-sonality patterns/scales categorized in Millons taxonomy (1994, p. 292). Due tothe absence of sufficient information regarding Gandhis object representations,regulatory mechanisms, and morphological organization these attribute domainscould not be meaningfully examined. Figure 1 provides a diagram of IndiraGandhis scores on each of the 12 personality scales.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the data for Indira Gandhi consisted of the personality scalescores (see Table 3), a MIDC personality profile (see Figure 1), and a clinicalinterpretation of significant MIDC personality scores derived from the diagnosticprocedure. Gandhis most elevated scales with scores of 21 were Scale 2 (Ambi-tious) and Scale 7 (Reticent), followed by Scale 5B (Contentious) with a score of20, and Scale 1A (Dominant) with a score of 19. All these scores fell within theprominent range (between 10 and 23); indeed, four of them approached the mildlydysfunctional level. Although scores on each of the remaining scales were present,their comparatively modest levels relative to the four most prominent scores,noted above, rendered them essentially redundant for psychodiagnostic purposes.In terms of MIDC scale scores, Indira Gandhi was classified primarily as a com-bination of the Ambitious (Scale 2), Reticent (Scale 7), Contentious (Scale 5B),and the Dominant (Scale 1A) personality patterns.

Indira Gandhis Multifaceted Personality

Few people exhibit personality patterns in pure or prototypical form.Although the standard diagnostic approach to interpreting MIDC profiles empha-sizes the elevations, i.e., the scores, of the two most prominent personality scalesor patterns, personality functioning in reality involves the aggregation of severalpersonality patterns (Immelman, 2002, p. 95). This was amply demonstrated inthe analysis of Indira Gandhis personality profile where four of her personalityscales approached the mildly dysfunctional level. The theoretical foundations forthe different personality patterns/scales were largely drawn from Millons (1994a, 1994b, 1996; Millon & Davis, 2000) models of personality, supplementedby the theoretically congruent portrait by Strack (1997).

With her elevated scores on Scales 2, 7, 5B, and 1A, Indira Gandhi emergedfrom the assessment as an amalgam of the self-serving, inhibited, oppositional,and controlling personality. These styles are exaggeratedthough generally

762 Steinberg

adaptive b levelvariants of the Ambitious, Reticent, Contentious, and Domi-nant scales, which I discuss below.

Scale 2: The Ambitious Scale

The Ambitious scale, as with all personality scales, occurs on a continuumranging from normal to maladaptive. At the well-adjusted end (scores between 5 and 9) are the confident, poised, self-assured, ambitious, and persuasive

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

10

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

40

Mildlydysfunctional

Prominent

Present

Scale:Score:

Markedlydisturbed

Moderatelydisturbed

Ambitious

Dominant Contentious

Reticent

b

c

e e

d d

b

aa

1A19 11 21 8 9 14 20 11 21 15 8 0

1B 5A 5B 6 7 8 9 02 3 4

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - -

-

- -

- -- -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - -

- -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

Figure 1. Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria: Profile Form for Indira Gandhi.

Indira Gandhi 763

personalities. Exaggerated Ambitious features (scores between 10 and 23) occurin those individuals characterized by self-promotion, arrogance, a sense of enti-tlement, and a lack of empathy for others. In its most deeply ingrained inflexibleform (scores between 24 and 30), the Ambitious pattern displays itself in anexploitative, manipulative style that may be consistent with a clinical diagnosisof a narcissistic personality disorder (Millon, 1994b, p. 32; Immelman, 1999).Indira Gandhis score on Scale 2 was well within the prominent but generallyadaptive (i.e., self-serving) style of the Ambitious pattern.

Normal adaptive variants of the Ambitious pattern (i.e., confident and self-serving types) correspond to Stracks (1997) Confident style and Millons (1994a)Asserting pattern. Millon has summarized the Asserting (i.e., Ambitious) patternas follows:

An interpersonal boldness, stemming from a belief in themselves andtheir talents, characterizes those high on the . . . Asserting scale. Com-petitive, ambitious, and self-assured, they naturally assume positions ofleadership, act in a decisive and unwavering manner, and expect othersto recognize their special qualities and cater to them. (1994a, p. 32)Ample evidence of the above personality pattern is to be found in the many

descriptions of Indira Gandhi. As a child, Indira frequently pretended to be Joanof Arc and told her aunt that some day she would lead her people to freedom asthe French heroine had done (Malhotra, 1989, p. 37). Rebuffed as a member of

Table 3. MIDC Scale Scores for Indira Gandhi

Scale Personality Pattern Raw RT%

1A Dominant: Asserting-Controlling-Aggressive (Sadistic) 19 12.81B Dauntless: Venturesome-Dissenting-Aggrandizing (Antisocial) 11 7.42 Ambitious: Confident-Self-serving-Exploitative (Narcissistic) 21 14.13 Outgoing: Congenial-Gregarious-Impulsive (Histrionic) 8 5.44 Accommodating: Cooperative-Agreeable-Submissive (Dependent) 9 6.05A Aggrieved: Unpresuming-Self-denying-Self-defeating (Masochistic) 14 9.45B Contentious: Resolute-Oppositional-Negativistic (Passive-aggressive) 20 13.46 Conscientious: Respectful-Dutiful-Compulsive (Obsessive-compulsive) 11 7.47 Reticent: Circumspect-Inhibited-Withdrawn (Avoidant) 21 14.18 Retiring: Reserved-Aloof-Solitary (Schizoid) 15 10.1

Scales 18 149 100.09 Distrusting: Suspicious-Paranoid (Paranoid) 8 5.10 Erratic: Unstable-Borderline (Borderline) 0 0.0

Full-scale total 157 105.1Note. For the basic Scales 18, ratio scores are the raw scores for each scale expressed as apercentage of the sum of raw scores for Scales 18 only. For Scales 9 and 0, ratio transformedscores are scores expressed as a percentage of the sum of raw scores for all twelve MIDC scales(therefore, full-scale RT% totals can exceed 100). Personality patterns are enumerated with scalegradations and equivalent DSM terminology (in parentheses).

764 Steinberg

the Congress Party because of her youth, Indira was infuriated and formed anorganization of her own, the Monkey Brigade (Vasudev, 1974, p. 60). Later, as amember of the Shastri Cabinet, her arrogance and sense of entitlement were evi-denced in her anger that she was not consulted about the Prime Ministers appoint-ment of Sarawan Singh as Foreign Minister, even though she, herself, did notwant the job (Malhotra, 1989, p. 84).

Scale 7: The Reticent Scale

At the well-adjusted end (scores between 5 and 9) of the Reticent scale arethe watchful, private, and socially reserved personalities. Exaggerated Reticentfeatures (scores between 10 and 23) occur in guarded, insecure, inhibited, andself-conscious personalities. In its most deeply ingrained, inflexible form (scoresbetween 24 and 30), the Reticent pattern displays itself in overanxious, reclusive,and withdrawn behavior patterns that may be consistent with a clinical diagnosisof an avoiding personality disorder, or social phobia.

Gandhis score of 21 on Scale 7 (Reticent) equals her score on Scale 2 (Ambi-tious). The inhibited style is an inflated variant of the Reticent pattern suggestingexaggerated features of the basic personality pattern, with the potential for a mildpersonality dysfunction. It is associated with guarded, insecure, wary, and appre-hensive behavior.

Normal adaptive variants of the Reticent pattern (i.e., circumspect and inhibited types) correspond to Millons (1994a) Hesitating pattern and StracksInhibited style. According to Millon, the Hesitating [Reticent] pattern is charac-terized by

social inhibition and withdrawal . . . Those scoring high on the Hesitat-ing [Reticent] scale have a tendency to be sensitive to social indifferenceor rejection, to feel unsure of themselves, and to be wary in new situa-tions, especially those of a social or interpersonal character. (1994a, p. 32)Like the self-confident dimensions of Gandhis personality, her reticent and

self-effacing behavior could be observed since childhood. She was hesitant of con-fiding in anyone; she felt extremely lonely and was too proud to show it (Vasudev,1974, p. 79). During her stay at Oxford, she was asked by Krishna Menon to givea speech to the India League. She reluctantly agreed, but at the meeting she frozeand was unable to utter a word (Frank, 2001, p. 129). Even at 42, as a marriedwoman and president of the Indian National Congress party, she was describedas retiring and ill at ease in social settings (Carras, 1979, p. 6).

Scale 5B: The Contentious Scale

Exaggerated Contentious features (scores between 10 and 23) occur in com-plaining, irksome, and oppositional personalities. In its most deeply ingrained,

Indira Gandhi 765

inflexible form, (scores between 24 and 30), the Contentious pattern displays itselfin caustic, contrary behavior patterns that may be consistent with a clinical diag-nosis of negativistic or passive-aggressive personality disorder.

A score of 20 on Scale 5A (Contentious) in Indira Gandhis profile renderedit the third most important pattern in her personality profile. The oppositional style is an inflated variant of the Contentious pattern which is associated withcomplaining, irritable, discontented, resistant, and contrary behavior. Normal,adaptive variants of the Contentious pattern (i.e., resolute and oppositional types) correspond to Millons (1994a) Complaining pattern and Stracks (1997)Sensitive style. Strack provided the following portrait of the normal prototype ofthe Contentious pattern:

Sensitive [Contentious] personalities tend to be unconventional and individualistic in their response to the world. . . . They may be quick tochallenge rules or authority deemed arbitrary and unjust. They may also harbor resentment without expressing it directly and may revert to passive-aggressive behavior to make their feelings known. (1997, pp. 490491)

Other diagnostic features of the more inflated variants of the Contentious patternare noted below.

Those scoring high on the Complaining [Contentious] scale often assertthat they have been treated unfairly, that little of what they have donehas been appreciated and that they have been blamed for things that theydid not do. . . . Often resentful of what they see as unfair demands placedon them, they may be disinclined to carry out responsibilities as well asthey could. . . . When matters go well, they can be productive and con-structively independent-minded, willing to speak out to remedy trouble-some issues. (Millon, 1994a, p. 34)Again, evidence attesting to the trait of contentiousness in Indira Gandhis

personality abounds. During childhood, it was difficult for Indira to express heraggressive feelings spontaneously. However, she acknowledged a stubborn streakas a child, and stubbornness is a passive way of expressing aggression (Carras,1979, p. 37). Gandhi was an indifferent student who frequently complained thatshe was not being taught anything that was relevant to her life (Frank, 2001, pp. 5152). During her early career in the Congress, she never missed an oppor-tunity, according to the journalist Malhotra, to emphasize to him that she was beingtreated shabbily (1989, p. 85). As her fathers hostess and confidant, she was resent-ful about the shackles of duty and responsibility she felt (Frank, 2001, p. 267).

Scale 1A: The Dominant Scale

At the well-adjusted end (scores between 5 and 9) of the Dominant scale arethe assertive, tough, outspoken, and strong-willed personalities. Exaggerated

766 Steinberg

Dominant features (scores between 10 and 23) are present in controlling, force-ful, and overbearing individuals. In its most deeply ingrained, inflexible form(scores between 24 and 30), the Dominant pattern displays itself in an aggressive,domineering, and belligerent pattern that is consistent with a clinical diagnosis ofSadistic personality disorder.

As reflected in Gandhis score of 19 on Scale 1B (Dominant), the controllingstyle was the fourth-ranked pattern in her personality profile. The controlling styleis a more inflated variant of the Dominant pattern; it suggests exaggerated fea-tures of the basic personality pattern with the potential for a mild personality dys-function. It is associated with forceful, overbearing, intimidating, and abrasivebehavior. Controlling individuals, though often somewhat disagreeable, tend tobe emotionally stable and conscientious.

Normal adaptive variants of the Dominant pattern (i.e., asserting and con-trolling types) correspond to Millons (1994a) Controlling pattern and Stracks(1997) Forceful style. According to Millon,

Controlling individuals enjoy the power to direct . . . others and to evokeobedience and respect from them. They tend to be tough and unsenti-mental . . . Although many sublimate their power-oriented tendencies inpublicly approved roles and vocations, these inclinations become evidentin occasional intransigence, stubbornness, and coercive behaviors.Despite these periodic negative expressions, controlling types typicallymake effective leaders, being talented in supervising and persuadingothers to work for the achievement of common goals. (1994a, p. 34)Biographical evidence supports these assertions and the high score yielded

in this domain. Even as a child, when Indira saw the police snatching away thethings she knew belonged to her Mommy and Papu and Dadu, she went afterthem, particularly the police inspectors, like a fury, and cried and stamped her feet(Vasudev, 1973, p. 340). When she became an adolescent, she learned how to gaincontrol of a situation by refusing to respondverbally or in lettersto others,including her father. During a visit to Nehru at Almora jail, Indira and her fatherquarreled, and she threatened not to see him for six months (Frank, 2001, p. 93).Later, when she encountered his resistance with regard to her marriage to FerozeGandhi, she told her father that her mind was made up and again threatened tostop talking to him (Malhotra, 1989, p. 49).

In the political realm, Masani observed that Indiras duties as Congress President appeared to have given her increasing self-confidence, and the shy andretiring young hostess of Teen Murti was developing rapidly into an assertive andimperious woman who could no longer be dismissed or ignored with impunity(1975, p. 110). When language riots broke out in Madras in March 1965, Shastridecided to wait out the crisis. Indira, however, immediately hopped on a plane toMadras where she gave assurances to the protesters opposed to Hindi and helpedrestore peace. Shastri was extremely annoyed at the way she had jumped over

Indira Gandhi 767

his head. Inder Malhotra discussed the situation with Indira, who made it clearthat she did not consider herself merely the Minister of Information and Broad-casting, but one of the leaders of the country and asserted, Do you thinkthis government can survive if I resign today? I am telling you it wont. Yes, Ihave jumped over the Prime Ministers head and I would do it again wheneverthe need arises (Malhotra, 1989, p. 83).

The Personality Profile of Indira Gandhi

Unlike other political leaders profiled using this model, Indira Gandhi dis-played a personality profile in which all 10 of the personality scales that have anadaptive component (i.e., excluding the borderline and paranoid) were diagnosti-cally significant; that is, they received scores of five or more. Each pattern waseither present or prominent and the scores of four of themthe Ambitious, Reticent, Contentious, and Dominantwere so high in the prominent range as tobe close to the mildly dysfunctional level. Such findings are not that surprising,given the assessment of her many biographers that she had an extraordinarilycomplex character. As Masani observed: While one part of her personality soughtfulfillment in political leadership, the other craved the greater intimacy, peace andsecurity of private life (1975, p. 126).

With her prominent Ambitious (Scale 2), Reticent (Scale 7), and Contentious(Scale 5B) personality configurations, Indira Gandhi matched a personality com-posite that Millon (1996, pp. 411412; see also Millon & Davis, 2000, pp. 278279) has labeled the compensatory narcissist. This is a narcissistic (i.e., Ambitious) subtype infused with avoidant (i.e., Reticent) and negativistic(i.e., Contentious) features:

The compensating variant essentially captures the psychoanalytic [self-psychological] understanding of the narcissistic personality. The earlyexperiences of compensating narcissists are not too dissimilar to thoseof the avoiding and negativistic personalities. All have sufferedwounds early in life. Rather than collapse under the weight of inferi-ority and retreat from public view, like the avoiding, or vacillate betweenloyalty and anger, like the negativist, however, the compensating nar-cissist develops an illusion of superiority. Life thus becomes a search tofulfill aspirations of status, recognition, and prestige. . . . they seek toconceal their deep sense of deficiency from others, and from themselves,by creating a facade of superiority. (Millon & Davis, 2000, pp. 278279)Each of the three personality patternsthe Reticent, Ambitious, and Con-

tentiousthat produced a compensatory narcissistic profile, developed early inIndira Gandhis life. As Gandhis biographers discussed her childhood, the mostcommon adjectives used to describe it were lonely and insecure (see Carras,1979; Frank, 2001; Gupta, 1992; Malhotra, 1989; Masani, 1975; Vasudev, 1974),

768 Steinberg

the essential ingredients for the fostering of the Reticent personality. As a veryyoung child, Indira was indulged by her grandfather; however, his death, hermothers tuberculosis when she was eight, and her father and mothers frequentimprisonment meant that Indira grew up a lonely, solitary child largely in thecompany of servants. At the age of 13, all of Indiras relatives were either jailedor away from home (Vasudev, pp. 6667). Her fathers sister, Vijayalakshmi,regarded Indira as a gangling awkward girl and made no secret of her disdain forher (Bhatia, 1974, p. 41). Even Indiras father was capable of walling off hisdaughter. While he was in prison, the authorities punished Nehru by banningfamily visits for a month. Nehru retaliated by voluntarily foregoing visits for sixmore months which meant that Indira had to return to boarding school withoutseeing him for the rest of the summer (Hart, 1976, p. 245). A lonely adolescent,she might have felt rejected when her father seemed so prepared to deny himselfher visits. As Masani observed: From an early age, she had been alternatelypetted and abandoned by those around her. Now she was suspicious of emotionalattachments and shy of wearing her heart on her sleeve: far better to be self-contained (1975, p. 33).

At school, Indira was remembered as shy, aloof, and very unhappy. Indirasmother, Kamala, with whom Indira was very close, died at the age of 35 whenIndira was eighteen. Indiras education was extremely disjointedshe was sentto 13 schools in 18 years, exacerbating her shyness, and she never developed thepassion for learning that her father Jawaharlal so esteemed. As if to compensatefor her shy, aloof nature, Indira fell in love and married Feroze Gandhi, who wasthe direct antithesis. Extroverted, warm, and demonstrative, Feroze proved to besingularly ill-suited to Indira and their relationship became increasingly estranged,the product of Ferozes womanizing and Indiras dutiful decision to act as unof-ficial hostess for her father which meant a great deal of time away from herhusband. Their eventual separation was another major source of sadness anddespondency for Indira.

Other dimensions of Indiras personality, such as the Ambitious pattern (Scale2, score of 21), can also be traced from early childhood. Exposed to a highly politi-cized environmentboth her parents spent time in jailIndiras ambitions werefueled by the struggle against British rule. As a child, she imagined herself leadingher people to victory like Joan of Arc (Malhotra, 1989, p. 37). In 1938, Indirajoined the Indian National Congress party and subsequently became its presidentin 1959, notwithstanding her fathers less than enthusiastic endorsement of theidea (Vasudev, 1974, p. 258).

Indiras Contentiousness (Scale 5B, score of 20) and her determination tochallenge the status quo may well have been nurtured by her mothers experi-ences as a semioutcast from the more sophisticated circle of Nehrus sisters. Asa child, it pained her deeply to see how shabbily her mother was treated, and sheprotested the unjust arrangements in her home (Carras, 1979, p. 89). Her rela-tionship with her father also acted as a stimulus for the Contentious pattern her

Indira Gandhi 769

personality developed. As a leader in the Indian struggle for independence, Nehruwas frequently away from home, and Indira found it difficult as an adolescent toopenly challenge or disagree with her eminent father (Frank, 2001, p. 69).

Another domain in which Indiras Contentious personality pattern revealeditself was in her moodsshe was frequently distraught and despondent. Hermothers illness, her parents imprisonment, her mothers subsequent death at anearly age, as well as her own bout with tuberculosis, were instrumental in thegeneral moodiness she exhibited. Although she took on the responsibility of actingas her fathers hostess, she resented the demands on her time and wrote of feelinglike a caged bird (Frank, 2001, p. 254).

Indira was also a Dominant personality (Scale 1A, score of 19). She wasdetermined not to allow others to control her life, as had her mother. She defiedthe Mahatma and her father on a number of occasions, particularly in her choiceof a husband. In 1959, immediately after she became party president, she againchallenged her father on the Kerala issue. A communist government in Kerala hadcreated significant unrest by introducing a bill to subject parochial schools to statecontrols and accountability. Mass agitation was launched to unseat the govern-ment. When Nehru refused to intervene on the grounds that the government had been duly elected, Indira told a journalist that her father had spoken as PrimeMinister, As Congress president, I intend to fight them and throw them out(Vasudev, 1974, p. 276).

Indira Gandhis first years as Prime Minister were marked by great inneruncertainty and, consequently, by indecision and vacillation in her leadership.Most people were not surprised; indeed, it confirmed the general impression thatalthough she was inherently reticent and retiring, she had been thrust to the centerof power by the memory of her father and the divisions among the Congress politi-cians who survived him. However, the 1967 elections were, according to Bhatia(1974, pp. 197198), a turning point in Gandhis political career. Through herextensive campaigning, she found that she could reach the masses effectively and that their response to her was much more positive than to any of her rivals.From this point on, her self-confidence began to develop and the Ambitious,Dominant, and Contentious patterns in her personality profile received greaterexpression.

Successful in the struggle to control the Congress Party by 1970, IndiraGandhi was largely transformed into a politician whose personality traits of ambi-tion, dominance, and contentiousness were to be far more in evidence than theshy, aloof, aggrieved, and accommodating dimensions of her personality. Theacquisition of power and the sense of accomplishment it engendered seems tohave facilitated Gandhis suppression of the introverted dimensions of her per-sonality profile and permitted a greater expression of the ambitious, dominant,and contentious aspects. Nowhere was this more in evidence than her decision todeclare a State of Emergency in 1975, which effectively suspended civil liberties,the functioning of parliament, and the freedom of the press.

770 Steinberg

But to understand the impact that Indira Gandhis personality patterns had onher leadership behavior, we must turn first to the question of leadership style ingeneral, and then to Gandhis in particular.

Leadership Style

Background to the Study of Leadership Style

The study of political leadership style has been the focus of a number of dif-ferent scholars. (See, for example, Barber (1992); Etheredge (1979); George(1980, 1988); George & George (1998); George & Stern (1998); Greenstein(1993/4, 1994, 1995); Hermann (1977, 1994, 1995); Hermann & Preston (1995);and Renshon (1994, 1995; 1996a,b), who have looked at the American presidency,and Kaarbo (1997) and Kaarbo & Hermann (1998), who have explored primeministerial leadership style in various European countries.) Attempts have beenmade as well to explain particular types of leadership style with such antecedentsas motives and needs by Walker (1995); Walker and Falkowski (1984); and Winter(1973, 1988, 1992, 1995); character and belief systems by George and George(1964, 1998); Hermann (1977); and Renshon (1995, 1996); operational codes by George (1979, 1980); and Walker (1977, 1995); and personality variables byImmelman (1993, 1998); Simonton (1988); and Winter (1995).

While every scholar seems to have his or her own definition of leadershipstyle, the underlying concepts appear to be similarhow the leader carries outthe responsibilities of his or her office; more specifically, the leaders work habits,and how they relate to those around them. After reviewing various studies of pres-idential leadership style Hermann and Preston (1994) distilled five common lead-ership style variablesinvolvement in the policymaking process, willingness totolerate conflict, motivation for leading, and preferred strategies for resolving con-flict. Kaarbo (1997, pp. 561563) adopted and modified these five variables andadded two variables from the literature on organizational leadership stylerelations with members of the cabinet and task orientation.

Leadership Style: A New Synthesis

This study adapted five of the variables (motivation for leading, task orien-tation, cabinet management strategy, information management strategy, and rela-tions with the party) developed by Hermann and Preston (1980) and Kaarbo(1997, pp. 561563), and added another five variables that examine the primeministers relations with personnel, opposition parties, the media, and the public,and his/her investment in job performance. These have been grouped into threespheres of activity: first, the leader and his/her motivation, task orientation, and

Indira Gandhi 771

investment in job performance; second, the leader and the executivecabinet andinformation management strategies; and third, the leader and relations with otherpersonnel, caucus, the party, the opposition, and the media (see Table 4).

The first leadership style variable centers around the question of a prime min-isters motivation for leading. A survey of the literature has suggested that a varietyof needs and incentives induce individuals to assume leadership positions in pol-itics (see Kaarbo & Hermann, 1998, pp. 251252). The leader may be motivatedby pragmatism (a belief in an obligation to the party to shape government poli-cies along incremental lines); by personal validation (the wish to be popular andto be accepted); by an ideological agenda (a coherent system of political beliefsthat shapes government policy); or a desire for power (dominance and control).

The amount of energy and time that a prime minister brings to the office isanother variable of leadership style (Barber, 1972/1992). It demonstrates whetherthe leader places limits on the extent of the commitment to the office or whetherthere is a tireless outpouring of energy. Prime ministers may be interested prima-rily in the process of government, the building of concurrence, and the develop-ment of good relations among the members of cabinet, or they may be more goaloriented, focusing on specific ends and their implementation.

The way in which the prime minister organizes the composition of andmanages the decision-making process within the cabinet is another facet of lead-ership style. How are policy dilemmas resolved? To what extent is there involve-ment in the policy process? Who becomes part of the locus of decision makingis also something the prime minister decides. In these activities, the prime min-isters style may run the gamut from being largely uninvolved, to a consensusbuilder, to an arbitrator, and finally, to a strong advocate.

Although information in a cabinet setting is usually channelled through thevarious ministries, prime ministers will differ as to how they choose to reviewsuch information and how they relate to their close advisers. The same, of course,is true for presidents in a presidential system (George, 1980, 1988; George &George, 1998; Hermann, 1978, 1987; Hermann & Preston, 1995; Kaarbo, 1997).They may want all the facts about the problem or situation and do the interpreta-tion themselves, or they may only be interested in seeing summaries and policyoptions. Of interest here is how much input the prime minister wants into the wayproblems and issues are framed and get onto the agenda.

In managing the flow of information that comes to the office, does the primeminister use a system of individuals to filter information and minimize directinvolvement, or is close scrutiny more likely? Closely related is the question onwhom the prime minister relies for information. Does the prime minister preferto receive policy relevant data from his cabinet and senior civil servants, or isthere a reliance on other sources?

The final cluster of leadership style variables focuses on the prime ministersinterpersonal relations with those with whom he/she works, i.e., state-level

772 Steinberg

Table 4. Leadership Style Categories

CLUSTER A(Focus: Motive, Task Orientation, and Task Performance)(i) MOTIVATION

(What shapes broad political choices)(a) Pragmatism

(shaping government policies along incremental lines with the view of systemmaintenance)

(b) Personal Validation(Popular Approval/Acceptance/Narcissistic issues)

(c) Ideology(a coherent system of political beliefs that shapes government policies with an agendafor significant change)

(d) Power(Dominance and Control)

(ii) TASK ORIENTATION(a) Process

(concurrence buildingthe group and the hierarchy of relations with them/means)(b) Goal

(task accomplishment/issuesend)(iii) JOB PERFORMANCE

(a) Circumscribed(limits placed on amount of energy and commitment)

(b) Tireless(High level of commitment and energy)

CLUSTER B(Focus: decision-making and information management)(iv) CABINET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

(How PM organizes composition of and manages the decision-making process within thecabinet)

(a) Uninvolved(b) Consensus Builder(c) Arbitrator(d) Advocate (Authoritative/Peremptory)

(v) INFORMATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY1. Degree of involvement(a) Low

(use of filters to minimize direct involvement in search for and analysis of policy-relevant data)

(b) High(PM more directly involved)

2. Sources(a) Ministerial

(Cabinet/Civil Service)(b) Independent

(Variety of sources)

Indira Gandhi 773

CLUSTER C(Focus: Inter personal relations)(vi) RELATIONS WITH PERSONAL STAFF AND SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS

(How leader interacts with aides and members of the senior civil service)1. Degree of Involvement(a) Low(b) High2. Type of Involvement(a) Collegial/Egalitarian/Solicitous(Egalitarian)(b) Polite/Formal(c) Attention-seeking/Seductive(d) Demanding/Domineering/Antagonistic/Competitive(e) Manipulative/Exploitative

(vii) RELATIONS WITH THE PARTY(Relationship between leader and caucus)

1. Caucus(a) Uninvolved(b) Cooperative/Harmonious(c) Competitive/Oppositional(d) Controlling/Combatative/Overbearing/Manipulative/Exploitative2. Extra-Parliamentary Party Organization(a) Uninvolved(b) Cooperative/Harmonious(c) Competitive/Oppositional(d) Controlling/Combative/Overbearing/Manipulative/Exploitative

(viii) RELATIONS WITH OPPOSITION PARTIES(a) Uninvolved(b) Cooperative(c) Competitive/Oppositional(d) Controlling/Combatative/Overbearing/Manipulative/Exploitative

(ix) RELATIONS WlTH THE MEDIA(a) Open

(accessible, informative, friendly)(b) Closed

(inaccessible, uninformative, unfriendly)(x) RELATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC

(a) Active(prefers direct engagement with the public)

(b) Passive(little direct engagement with the public and/or preference for government officials toarticulate and defend government policy)

774 Steinberg

governmental officials, members of the judiciary, etc., with his or her own party,with the opposition, the media, and the public. The prime minister interacts witha number of individuals on a daily basis. The extent of the involvement may behigh or low; stylistically it may encompass patterns ranging from solicitous, topolite, attention seeking, demanding, and even exploitative. With both the caucusand the extra-parliamentary party organization, the prime minister may behavecooperatively or be competitive or combative and overbearing. Since conflict isa very pervasive element in cabinet life, especially in highly factional single partycabinets and in coalition cabinets (see t Hart, 1994), the management of partyrelations by a prime minister is extremely important.

Analysts have also focused on how the leader carries out or implements deci-sions, the way in which the leader mobilizes, orchestrates, and consolidatessupport for his or her policy decisions (Renshon, 1996a, 1996b). Does the primeminister attempt to sell policies by going beyond the party and parliament toappeal to the public at large? Does he or she try to educate or manipulate thepublic? Or does the leader display little direct engagement with the public, pre-ferring government officials to articulate and defend government policy? Thoseprime ministers who focus on policy achievements are more likely to use the officeof the prime minister as a bully pulpit, while those who stress the policy processwill be less inclined to try to generate additional support among the attendantpublic.

Lastly, in relations with the media, the prime minister may be accessible andinformative or inaccessible and hostile. Prime ministers who emphasize theimplementation of significant policy changes are more likely to generate greateropposition, which in turn will be reflected in some parts of the media, than thosewho are more concerned with maintaining the political process with incrementalchanges. In the face of hostility on the part of the media, the Prime Minister ismore likely to become less accessible and more hostile.

Method for Assessing Leadership Styles

Information concerning Indira Gandhis leadership style during the periodthat she was Prime Minister was gathered from primary (speeches and letters) andsecondary (biographies and journal articles) sources. Although biographies werealso used to assess personality patterns, the potential problem of shared variancein this case is more apparent than real. First, Indira Gandhis personality wasassessed only from the biographical material that dealt with her life before shebecame Prime Minister, while her leadership style was evaluated only from thematerials that described her behavior after she became Prime Minister. Thus, aclear time differentiation exists. Second, the variables that were used to measurepersonality patterns were very different from the variables used to assess leader-ship style, thus minimizing the problems of circularity.

Indira Gandhi 775

Leadership Style Inventory

The assessment framework (Steinberg, Kotsovilis, & Osweiler, 2002; seeTable 4) developed for this part of the study consists of 10 categories and sub-categories that qualitatively assess the dynamics of leadership style. The goal wasto produce an index that captures the quantitative proportion of each of the qual-itative measures within each category. Thus, for example, in the category of motivation for leadership, four qualitatively different reasons were examined:pragmatism, personal validation, ideology, and power. Then the proportion of eachof these four variables was calculated so that the strength of each as a percentageof the total could be assessed. This was done for each of the remaining nine cat-egories and subcategories in order to produce a leadership style profile of IndiraGandhi. Given the size of the data base, about 35% of the data was extracted andcoded independently by two investigators with agreement on 85.8% of the items,while the remainder was coded by a single researcher. A total of 1,273 items thatpertained to the 10-category leadership style inventory were coded.

Indira Gandhis Leadership Style

This section examines the empirical evidence of Gandhis leadership style:motivation for leading; task orientation; investment in job performance; manage-ment style, both with the cabinet and in the realm of information gathering; andher interpersonal relations with her associates, the caucus, the extra-parliamentary party, the opposition, the media, and the public. Results showedthat she was motivated primarily by pragmatism and power, focusing on goalsrather than process. With her cabinet, she functioned largely as an advocate forher goals and preferred to rely on independent sources of information. In her deal-ings with personnel, the party caucus, the extra-parliamentary party organizationand the opposition parties, she was largely demanding, domineering, competitive,controlling, and oppositional. She was capable of being both accessible andfriendly to the media as well as being hostile and closed, depending on the timeperiod. It was only with the public that Indira demonstrated a consistent patternor openness and warmth (see Table 5).

Motivation

In the area of motivation we find that, notwithstanding a brief flirtation withsocialism, Indira Gandhi was a decidedly nonideological leader. Only 7.4% (24)of the items on motivation mention ideology as a reason for her policy choices.Nor was she particularly motivated by the need for personal validation. Again,only 7.5% (25) of the coded items on this subject refer to this dimension. Politi-cal pragmatism was a far more important motivator than ideology or personal

776 Steinberg

Table 5. Leadership Style CategoriesTotal Score for Indira Gandhi

(i) MOTIVATION (330 codings) (ii) TASK ORIENTATION (82 codings)(a) Pragmatism 138 41.8% (a) Process 7 8.6%(b) Personal Validation 25 7.5 (b) Goal 75 91.4(c) Ideology 24 7.3(d) Power 143 44.3

(iii) INVESTMENT IN JOB PERFORMANCE (iv) CABINET MANAGEMENT(64 codings) STRATEGY (88 codings)

(a) Circumscribed 6 9.4% (a) Uninvolved 0 0.0%(b) Tireless 58 90.6 (b) Consensus Builder 1 1.1

(c) Arbitrator 3 3.4(d) Advocate 84 95.5

(v) INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (vi) RELATIONS WITH PERSONNELSTRATEGY (120 codings) (129 codings)

1. Degree of Involvement (35 codings) 1. Degree of Involvement (29 codings)(a) Low 5 14.3 (a) Low 1 3.5%(b) High 30 85.7 (b) High 28 96.52. Sources (105 codings) 2. Type of Involvement (100 codings)(a) Ministerial 11 13.0% (a) Collegial 11 11.0%(b) Independent 74 87.0 (b) Polite 6 6.0

(c) Seductive 16 16.0(d) Demanding 39 39.0(e) Manipulative 28 28.0

(vii) RELATIONS WITH PARTY (vii) RELATIONS WITH OPPOSITION(172 codings) (94 codings)

1. Caucus (59 codings)(a) Uninvolved 2 3.4% (a) Uninvolved 3 3.2%(b) Cooperative 5 8.5 (b) Cooperative 8 8.5(c) Competitive 31 52.6 (c) Competitive 36 38.3(d) Controlling 21 35.6 (d) Controlling 47 50.02. Extra-Parliamentary organization (113 codings)(a) Uninvolved 4 3.5%(b) Cooperative 13 11.5(c) Competitive 70 62.0(d) Controlling 26 23.0

(ix) RELATIONS WITH MEDIA (89 codings) (x) RELATIONS WITH PUBLIC(105 codings)

(a) Open 44 49.4% (a) Open 105 100.0%(b) Closed 45 50.6 (a) Closed 0 0.0%

Indira Gandhi 777

validation accounting for 41.8 % (138) of the items coded. While pragmatism wasa central factor in Indira Gandhis motivations, the evidence suggests that the drivefor power, although marginally, was even more significant. Of all the items codedon motivation, 44.3% (143) indicate that issues of power were predominant.

Investment in Job Performance

Indira Gandhi was heavily involved in her role as Prime Minister. Politicstook over her life as she traveled extensively crisscrossing India with extraor-dinary energy (Gupte, 1992, p. 331). A 16-hour or longer working day was thenorm with very little time for family, friends, or relaxation (Frank, 2001, p. 355).Of the 64 coded items, 90.6% showed a strong investment in her job performance.

Task Orientation

The empirical evidence indicates that Indira Gandhi was overwhelminglyconcerned about task implementation and little concerned with the issue of build-ing concurrence among her cabinet. Rather, she treated many of her cabinet col-leagues as potential challengers, and if any grew too powerful, she saw to it thattheir powers were curbed, even if it meant dismissing capable individuals. Of the82 items coded on this dimension, 91.4% focused on goal implementation.

Cabinet Management Strategy

Indira Gandhis dealings with her cabinet demonstrated overwhelmingly(95.5% of the 88 items coded) that her preferred role was to act as an advocate,rather than a consensus builder, or arbitrator between various government min-isters. But advocacy only partly captures the extent to which she dominated hercolleagues; she dismissed those who might have challenged her and placed herfavorites in senior government posts. Her advocacy was, in fact, an authoritative,peremptory exercise of power.

Information Management Strategy

As part of her overall activist stance as Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi demon-strated a high degree of involvement in the management of information, prefer-ring to search out what she wanted to know, rather than waiting for it to bepresented to her. Of the 35 items coded on this topic, 85.7% displayed Gandhishigh-level involvement in the process. Information was sought largely from inde-pendent sources and of the 120 items coded on this subject, and 87% revealed apreference for independent sources of information; Gandhi relied on her minis-ters only 13% of the time.

778 Steinberg

Relations with Personnel

Indira Gandhis dealings with her aides, advisers, and members of otherbranches of government were coded for the degree of involvement and the typeof behavior exhibited. In general, there were few references to the degree ofinvolvement; only 29 items were coded and, of these, 96.5% were coded as high.In contrast, 100 items were coded for the type of involvement: 11% were codedas collegial/egalitarian, 6% as polite/formal, 16% were attention-seeking/seduc-tive, 39% were demanding/domineering, and 28% were manipulative/exploitative.

Party Caucus

Indira Gandhis relationship with the party caucusand more particularly her cabinet colleagueswas overwhelmingly contentious from 1966 until 1970.From 1970 on, as power shifted from the Cabinet to the Prime Ministers Secre-tariat, her relations with the party caucus became manipulative/exploitative. Later,power would shift even more to the Prime Ministers house next door (Frank,2001, p. 354). The party caucus and the cabinet increasingly assumed a rubberstamp function and the cabinet no longer operated as a center of policy making.Of the 59 items that were coded in this category, 3.4% were uninvolved, 8.5%were cooperative/harmonious, 52.6% were competitive/oppositional, and 35.6 %were controlling/overbearing/manipulative.

Extra-Parliamentary Party Organization

Indiras relations with the party organization largely mirrored those with theparty caucus. Of the 113 items coded on this topic, 62% were competitive or oppo-sitional, and 23% were controlling, overbearing, or manipulative for a total of85%. In only 3.5% of her dealings with the party organization was Indira unin-volved, while she exhibited a spirit of cooperation only 11.5% of the time.

Opposition Parties

Given the nature of her competitive and controlling relationships with bothher caucus and the Congress party organization, it is hardly surprising that Gandhiwould manifest the same type of behavior with the various opposition parties. Of the 94 items that were coded on this subject, 38.3% were competitive/oppositional, while 50% were controlling/overbearing.

Media

Gandhis relations with the media vacillated between being accessible,informative, and friendly to being uninformative, inaccessible, and unfriendly. Of

Indira Gandhi 779

the 89 items that were coded on this topic, 49.4% were coded as open and 50.6%as closed. Virtually all of the items coded as open occurred prior to the imposi-tion of Emergency Rule (1975), while the vast majority of the items coded asclosed took place after.

Public

In her relations with the public, Indira Gandhis leadership style wasextremely open. The Indian crowds seemed to energize her, and she felt a specialbond with the Indian masses who loved the combination of her aristocratic back-ground and her simple down-to-earth manner. Of the 105 items coded on thisissue, 100% demonstrated an open style.

Theoretical Links between Personality Profiles and Leadership Styles

Although human beings tend to exhibit more than one significant or pre-dominant personality pattern, it is perhaps most useful to begin a discussion onthe links between personality patterns and leadership style with a delineation ofsome pure types. Given space limitations, I chose to focus on the four most impor-tant personality patterns I discussed earlierthose that reached a score of 19 ormore in Indira Gandhis personality profile. Once we can theorize about the con-tribution of Dominant (Scale 1A, a score of 19), Ambitious (Scale 2, a score of21), Contentious (Scale 5B, a score of 20), and Reticent (Scale 7, a score of 21)personality patterns to leadership style, we are then in a position to examineGandhis actual leadership style and to explore the ways in which a combinationof personality patterns impacted upon it.

Dominant and Ambitious Leaders

For the very ambitious leader, narcissistic components may also produce anenhanced emphasis on the need for personal validation as a motivation for policyinitiatives. Both the Dominant and Ambitious leaders are more likely to be goal-oriented rather than process-oriented. Motivated by power and/or ideology, theyare less interested in maintaining good relations between their colleagues andmore interested in accomplishing goals. For these reasons, their investment in jobperformance is more likely to be tireless, rather than circumscribed. Not for themrelaxed, laissez faire approaches.

Both these types of prime ministers are also more likely to act as advocateswithin their cabinets rather than as consensus builders or arbitrators. Given theirpersonalities that stress dominance or self-promotionas well as the nature oftheir goals and the energy they bring to bear on their implementationthey arealso more likely to exhibit a higher degree of involvement in managing informa-

780 Steinberg

tion and to prefer to obtain their information from a variety of independentsources, rather than relying merely on the cabinet and the civil service.

In the area of personnel management, we would expect Dominant and Ambi-tious leaders to be highly interactive with aides, assistants, and staff, and thetreatment of their subordinates to be extremely demanding if not domineering,and perhaps even exploitative. Ambitious leaders are also more likely to engagein attention seeking behavior with their aides. In their dealings with members oftheir caucus, the extra-parliamentary party organization, and the opposition, bothDominant and Ambitious leaders are unlikely to be uninvolved or to behave in acooperative and harmonious fashion. Given the status of these constituencies asthe wellspring of both continuity in and challenges to their leadership, we wouldexpect relations to be oppositional and competitive and even controlling and overbearing.

Outside the parliamentary arena, we would expect that Dominant prime min-isters do not enjoy harmonious relations with the media as they would want tocontrol and dominate it; their relationship, therefore, is more likely to be charac-terized as hostile and uncooperative. Relations with the media will be more prob-lematic for Ambitious leaders. They may attempt to cultivate the media to fueltheir ambitious plans. If, however, they are criticized, their wounded narcissismmay distance them from the media and result in strained relations.

Dominant and Ambitious leaders can be expected to be active rather thanpassive in their relations with the public. Given either their strong-willed, out-spoken personalities in the first instance, or their self-assured, self-promoting per-sonalities in the second, such leaders are unlikely to want to have others articulateor defend their policies for them.

Contentious Leaders

The core diagnostic feature of Contentious leaders is their nonconformity.They are outspoken, unconventional, and frequently unhappy with the status quo.Since they are quick to challenge rules and authority, they are more comfortablewhen they themselves are the authority. Therefore, they are more likely to be moti-vated by power and ideology and less likely by pragmatism. Given their individ-uality and independence, Contentious leaders are unlikely to exhibit much concernwith or interest in the machinery of government or care about concurrence build-ing. Rather, they are more likely to be goal, rather than task, oriented.

Like Controlling and Ambitious leaders, Contentious leaders will be likely toinvest a substantial amount of energy and effort in their jobs. Since they frequentlyfeel put upon and consequently behave in a complaining, obstructive fashion, theywill make strenuous efforts to alter the dynamics of their environment in the beliefthat other people will then be more responsive to their demands. In their dealingswith their cabinets, Contentious leaders will be more likely to act as advocates,

Indira Gandhi 781

since they are determined, resolute, and even willful personalities. Such leadersare also skeptical, doubting, and critical; they are more likely to prefer to bedirectly involved in the search for and analysis of policy-relevant data and to usea variety of sources to assuage their doubts.

The degree of involvement with personnel is likely to be higha function oftheir complaining and obstructive personalities; in addition, the type of involve-ment will most likely be of a demanding/domineering nature. In their relationswith their party caucus, the extra parliamentary, party organization, and opposi-tion parties, Contentious leaders are more likely to exhibit competitive/opposi-tional behavior. With the media, such leaders are unlikely to be open; lacking trustand being skeptical, they are more likely to be uninformative and unfriendly.

In their relations with the public, Contentious leaders may exhibit a mixedpattern of behavior. If they resent the demands on their time, they may prefer to allow their designated spokespersons to do the job for them, an arrangementthat gives them the opportunity to complain about their ostensible inadequacies.Alternatively, their dealings with the populace are more likely to be active, ratherthan passive, if their dissatisfaction with their own officials handling of publicrelations forces them to become more involved.

Reticent Leaders

We expect that those leaders who demonstrate a high score on the Reticent per-sonality pattern will have a leadership style pattern that differs markedly from thoseof the Dominant and Ambitious personality types. Since the Reticent leader is char-acterized by social inhibition and withdrawal, this personality type can be expectedto demonstrate similar patterns of leadership behavior. The circumspect, inhibitedReticent is unlikely to be motivated by power, ideology, or self-validation, whichrequire a greater sense of self. Issues of pragmatismkeeping the governmenttogether and handling day-to-day businessrequire less assertive leadership and,thus, are likely to be more appealing to the Reticent personality profile.

For the same reasons, these personality types are more likely to be process-oriented rather than goal-oriented, preferring to invest only a certain circum-scribed amount of effort in their jobs. Because Reticent leaders are more likely tobe insecure and ill at ease, they are less likely to take on the role of consensusbuilder, arbitrator, or advocate within their cabinets. We would expect the Reti-cent personality to be relatively uninvolved.

In the management of information, the somewhat withdrawn Reticent leaderis more likely to manifest a low degree of involvement and to prefer to rely onthe cabinet and the civil service for information. Relations with aides are alsolikely to follow the same pattern. As befits the ill-at-ease Reticent, the extent ofthe involvement will be low and is likely to be characterized by a polite/formalmanner.

782 Steinberg

In their various party relationswith their caucus, the extra-parliamentaryparty organization and the opposition, the Reticent personality can be expected tohave little or no involvement. This type of leader will tend to be closed, ratherthan open with the media and more passive than active in their contacts with thepublic.

Mixed Personality Profile Leaders

What happens, however, when leaders exhibit mixed personality profiles?One may be able to theorize about the leadership style of leaders with only oneor two important personality profiles that largely predict similar behavior (i.e.,like the Dominant/Ambitious or the Reticent/Retiring personality profiles);hypothesizing about leadership behavior when faced with a leader with a numberof salient and conflicting personality patterns is more complicated. A solutionemployed in the case of Indira Gandhi was to measure the combined weight ofthe most important personality patterns that were hypothesized to predict leader-ship behavior and to analyze the results. Of the four most important personalitypatterns, threethe Ambitious, the Contentious and the Controlling with a com-bined score of 60 (21, 20 and 19, respectively)predict a relatively consistent setof leadership behaviors, whereas the Reticent personality pattern with a score of21 predicts a nearly opposite set of leadership behaviors. Thus one would expectthat Indira Gandhi might exhibit a mixed pattern of leadership behaviors, but witha greater emphasis on those behaviors that are linked to the Ambitious, Con-tentious, and Dominant personality profiles.

Indira Gandhis Leadership Style and Personality Profile

The empirical analysis of Indira Gandhis leadership behavior in the 10selected categories revealed that in eight of the 10, the leadership style patternsstrongly matched our theoretical expectations for the Ambitious, Dominant, andContentious personality profiles. Indira Gandhi emerged as strongly goal-oriented, tireless in the exercise of her job, an advocate within her cabinet with apreference for receiving information from independent sources. As well, the typeof involvement she exhibited with associates, the caucus, the party organization,and the opposition, which was largely competitive and controlling, also fittedexpectations for the Ambitious, Controlling, and Contentious leader. Gandhisdealings with the public also matched the theoretical expectations for the Ambi-tious, Dominant, and Contentious personality profiles.

There were two areas in which Indira Gandhis leadership profile exhibiteda more equivocal picture. In the area of motivation, our theoretical expectationwas that Dominant, Controlling, Ambitious, and Contentious personalities weremore likely to be motivated by issues of power and ideology. In the case of theAmbitious profile, the desire for personal validation was also anticipated to be

Indira Gandhi 783

important. In the case of Indira Gandhi, we found that while power was a signif-icant motivator, ideology and popular approval did not play a major role. Instead,pragmatism, which is theoretically linked to the leadership behavior of the Reticent personality pattern (as well as the Retiring, Aggrieved, Accommodating,Outgoing, and Conscientious profiles), also emerged as a very important sourceof motivation.

That Indira Gandhis motivations did not fit my theoretical expectations canperhaps be explained by an implicit assumption that there would be a one-to-onerelationship between personality profiles and motivations for policy choices.Thus, as a primarily ambitious, contentious, and dominant personality, Gandhishould have been much more strongly motivated by power and ideology. Thiscould suggest the fact that in a democratic society, with opposition parties thatare in a position to challenge the government, a leader who successfully retainspower for a considerable period of time, as Gandhi did, may have curbed thoseaspects of her personality and instead, exhibited a greater degree of pragmatismin her leadership behavior.

A second area in which my theoretical expectations were not borne out con-cerned the media. Rather than strongly demonstrating a closed (inaccessible andunfriendly) stance vis-a-vis the media, the results suggested an almost equal divi-sion between a pattern of open and closed behavior. However, when these resultswere examined more closely, I found that Gandhi was far more open to the mediaprior to the declaration of a State of Emergency in 1975 and increasingly closedfrom 1972 on. From 1966 to 1972, she was trying to acquire and consolidate herpower in the struggle with the Congress Party bosses. In those circumstances, sheviewed media coverage both domestically and externally as assisting her in theseendeavors. During 197577, she was fighting to hold onto power and suppressedthe media, which she then saw as undermining her efforts. After her defeat at thepolls in 1977, she returned to power in 1980, but remained closed and inaccessi-ble to the media which she continued to view as hostile.

Another intriguing finding was how little impact the Reticent pattern in IndiraGandhis personality profile seems to have had on her leadership style. One expla-nation may be that since this personality pattern accounted for only 26.9% of thefour patterns that were ranked at 19 or more, the other 73.1 % that are reflectedin the Dominant, Ambitious, and Contentious patterns that produced a personal-ity profile of compensatory narcissism that overwhelmed the impact of the Reticent dimension in Gandhis personality profile.

A second possible explanation for the largely insignificant impact of the Reticent personality pattern on Gandhis personality profile may be related to thetime period in which the materials for the personality profile were extracted. Allthe materials coded were extracted from biographical accounts that began in child-hood, adolescence, young adulthood, and during her political career prior to herbecoming Prime Minister. Interestingly enough, most of the coding that demon-strated her Reticent personality pattern was drawn from childhood and adoles-

784 Steinberg

cence and could well have been suppressed by the time she was a young adultand began to play a political role. If personality is only consolidated in late ado-lescence, the calculation of the Reticent pattern in her childhood and early ado-lescence may have given greater weight to the overall results, producing a strongerpattern of reticence than what actually existed by late adolescence and adulthood.

A third potential explanation involves the impact of role responsiveness (seeGoldstein & Keohane, 1993, p. 3). Although Indira Gandhi demonstrated someReticent personality traits when she assumed the office of the Prime Minister, thedemands of the job and the initial hostility she encountered from the Congresselitesthe Syndicateseem to have galvanized the Ambitious, Dominant, andContentious dimensions of her personality into action. Compensatory narcis-sism allowed Indira to appeal over the heads of the Syndicate and establish astrongly personal and very effective relationship with the masses that bolsteredher self-esteem and fueled this aspect of her personality.

Conclusion

This paper began with the primary purpose of investigating the relationshipbetween personality patterns and leadership style. Looking beyond the traditionalfocus on American presidents, I chose to study a female leader in a parliamentarysystem of government. The goal was to develop hypothesized linkages betweenvarious personality patterns and leadership style behaviors. Methodological toolsappropriate to these tasks were either modified or created. Then, these tools wereapplied in the context of a single-case studythat of Indira Gandhi, the formerPrime Minister of India, in order to examine the extent to which her personalityprofile and leadership style matched our theoretical expectations.

For the most part, psychodynamic personality studies of political leaders havebeen insightful, but idiosyncratic and, thus, incapable of precise replication. Incontrast, a psychodiagnostic analysis, i.e., the use of the MIDC personality inven-tory, allows for personality to be formally charted and scored across a compre-hensive range of matters, such as expressive behavior, interpersonal conduct,cognitive style, mood, and self-image. As well, the application of a systematicmeasurement toolthe MIDCpermits a comparative analysis of multipleleaders.

In their examination of presidential leadership style, some scholars beganwith inventories of leadership style archetypes and then described those presidentsthat best seemed to exemplify them. (See, for example, Barber (1972/92) whodeveloped a theory of presidential leadership style that encompassed active andpassive and positive and negative behaviors and George and Stern (1998) whocategorized presidential management styles as competitive, formalistic, and col-legial). Others began with the presidents themselves and then examined theirunique leadership behavior. (See, for example, Greenstein (1993/94, 1994) and

Indira Gandhi 785

Renshon (199596)). In contrast, this study approached leadership style based ona functional analysis of the range and intensity of prime ministerial duties. Adetailed analysis of the data for Indira Gandhi revealed important connectionsbetween her observed leadership behavior and her antecedent personality patterns.Given the presence of these links, this study has provided an encouraging result.It suggests that were similar outcomes to be observed for other female prime min-isters, we would have an enriched explanation of some important dimensions ofleadership style.

Apart from the relationship demonstrated between Gandhis personalityprofile and her leadership style, her personality profile, itself, presented an intrigu-ing picture. Certainly, Gandhi appears to be an anomaly when compared with malepolitical leaders in terms of the seemingly contradictory dimensions of her per-sonality profile (see Immelmans (1998, 2000, 2002) personality profiles). Shouldone expect female leaders, more than their male counterparts, to manifest a widervariety of personality patterns? Not only did Indira Gandhi exhibit Dominant,Dauntless, Ambitious, and Contentious patterns, comparable to her male counter-parts, but Reticent, Retiring, and Aggrieved personality patterns not usually asso-ciated with men in leadership roles. I should have a clearer idea of whether or notthe complexity of her profile was sui generis, after I explore the personality pro-files of other female prime ministers. If their personality profiles resemble that ofIndira Gandhis, then it may be gender that is playing a role. Alternatively, ifGandhis personality profile is markedly different from that of other female primeministers in terms of its complexity, it may be that diverse cultural values canexplain some of the differences.

To explore the impact of both gender and culture more meaningfully, the per-sonality patterns and leadership styles of other female prime ministers from different cultures need to be examined, using the same rigorous and formalmethodological approach. To this end, my research will continue with studies ofGolda Meir of Israel and Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My warm appreciation to Jeff Osweiler and Spyridon Kostsovilis for theirinput in the preparation of this papertheir retrieval of library materials, codingof relevant information, and their participation in the development of an instru-ment for measuring leadership styles in parliamentary systems of government.Special thanks also go to Professor Aubrey Immelman for his ongoing supportand expertise and to Professor Juliet Kaarbo who read an earlier draft and offeredsome very constructive comments. Correspondence regarding this article shouldbe sent to Blema S. Steinberg, 4931 McGill University, Glencairn Avenue, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3W 2B1. Email: blema.steinberg@mcgill.ca

786 Steinberg

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington: Author.

Barber, J. D. (1972/92). The presidential character: Predicting performance in the White House (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bhatia, K. (1974). Indira Gandhi: A biography of a prime minister. London: Angus Wilson.Carras, M. C. (1979). Indira Gandhi: In the crucible of leadership. Boston: Beacon Press.Etheredge, L. (1979). Hard-ball politics: A model. Political Psychology, 1, 326.Frank, K. (2001). Indira: The life of Indira Nehru Gandhi. London: HarperCollins.George, A. L. (1979). The causal nexus between cognitive beliefs and decision-making behavior:

The operational code. In L. Falkowski (Ed.), Psychological models in international politics(pp. 697718). Boulder: Westview Press.

George, A. L. (1980). Presidential decision making in foreign policy: The effective use of informationand advice. Boulder: Westview Press.

George, A. L. (1988). Presidential management styles and models. In C. W. Kegley Jr. & E. R. Wittkopf (Eds.), The domestic sources of American foreign policy: Insights and evidence(pp. 107126). New York: St. Martins Press.

George, A. L., & George, J. L. (1964). Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A personality study. NewYork: Dover Publications.

George, A. L., & George, J. L. (1998). Presidential personality and performance. Boulder: WestviewPress.

George, A. L., & Stern, E. (1998). Presidential style, management and models. In A. L. George & J. L. George, Presidential personality and performance (pp. 199280). Boulder: Westview Press.

Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: An analytical framework. In J. Goldstein & R. O. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and foreign policy (pp. 330). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Greenstein, F. I. (1993/4). Presidential leadership style of Bill Clinton: an early appraisal. PoliticalScience Quarterly, 108, 589601.

Greenstein, F. I. (1994). The two leadership styles of William Jefferson Clinton. Political Psychology,15, 351361.

Greenstein, F. I. (1995). Political style and political leadership: The case of Bill Clinton. In S. A.Renshon (Ed.), The Clinton presidency: Campaigning, governing, and the psychology of lead-ership (pp. 137147). Boulder: Westview Press.

Gupte, P. (1992). Mother India. New York: Charles Scribners Sons.Hart, H. C. (1976). Indira Gandhi: determined not to be hurt. In H. C. Hart (Ed.), Indira Gandhis

India: A political system reappraised (pp. 241273). Boulder: Westview Press.t Hart, P. (1994). Groupthink in government. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Hermann, M. G. (1974). Leader personality and foreign policy behavior. In J. N. Rosenau (Ed.),

Comparing foreign policies: Theories, findings, and methods (pp. 201234). New York: Wiley.

Hermann, M. G. (1977). (Ed.). The psychological examination of political leaders. New York: FreePress.

Hermann, M. G. (1978). Effects of personal characteristics of political leaders on foreign policy. InM. A. East, S. A. Salmore, & C. F. Hermann (Eds.), Why nations act: Theoretical perspectivesfor comparative foreign policy studies (pp. 4968). Beverly Hills/London: Sage.

Hermann, M. G. (1980). Explaining foreign policy behavior using the personal characteristics of polit-ical leaders. International Studies Quarterly, 24, 746.

Indira Gandhi 787

Hermann, M. G. (1984). Personality and foreign policy decision making: A study of 53 heads of gov-ernment. In D. A. Sylvan & S. Chan (Eds.), Foreign policy decision making: Perception,cognition, and artificial intelligence (pp. 5380). New York: Praeger.

Hermann, M. G. (1987). Assessing the foreign policy role orientations of sub-Saharan African leaders.In S. G. Walker (Ed.), Role theory and foreign policy analysis (pp. 161198). Durham: DukeUniversity Press.

Hermann, M. G. (1994). Presidential leadership style, advisory systems and policy making: BillClintons administration after seven months. Political Psychology, 15, 363374.

Hermann, M. G. (1995). Advice and advisers in the Clinton presidency: The impact of leadership style.In S. A. Renshon (Ed.), The Clinton presidency: Campaigning, governing and the psychologyof leadership (pp. 14964). Boulder: Westview Press.

Hermann, M. G., & Preston, J. T. (1995). Presidents, advisers, and foreign policy: The effects of lead-ership style on executive arrangements. Political Psychology, 15, 7596.

Immelman, A. (1993). The assessment of political personality: A psycho-diagnostically relevant con-ceptualization and methodology. Political Psychology, 14, 725741.

Immelman, A. (1998). The political personalities of 1996 U.S. presidential candidates Bill Clinton andBob Dole. Leadership Quarterly, 9(3), 335366.

Immelman, A. (1999/2002). Millon inventory of diagnostic criteria manual (2nd ed.). Unpublishedmanuscript, St. Johns University, Collegeville, Minn. Available on the web athttp://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Research/Research-Instruments.html.

Immelman, A. (2000). The political personality of U.S. vice president Al Gore. Paper presented at theTwenty-third Annual Scientific meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology,Seattle.

Immelman, A. (2002). The political personality of U.S. presidential candidate George W. Bush. In L. O. Valenty & O. Feldman (Eds.), Political leadership for the new century: Lessons from the study of personality and behavior among American leaders (pp. 81103). Westport, CT:Praeger.

Immelman, A. (2003). Personality in political psychology. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.), T. Millon, &M. J. Lerner (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 5. Personality and social psychology(pp. 599625). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Immelman, A., & Steinberg, B. (Compilers) (1999). Millon inventory of diagnostic criteria (2nd ed.).Unpublished research scale, St. Johns U