the art of leading

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The main reasons why Hillary Clinton is on top of the Democratic field are NOT found in the following list:

• lots of money
• well-connected husband
• lots of experience
• good looks
• charm
• charisma
• political organization
• some special circumstance
• intelligence
• representing change
• Etc.

I’m not saying the above factors aren’t important. Some of them do contribute to her lead. But there’s another factor that I believe is just as relevant, or perhaps even more so, than the others.

The real reason why Hillary Clinton is on top

It’s contrast. No, not contrast with past candidates. Not even contrast with her Democratic opponents, although candidates should differentiate themselves from the others (after all, how else are we supposed to decide who is the best candidate?).

I’m talking about two specific types of contrast:

1. Contrast between what she is supposed to be like as a woman and her hardline image, at least in the public eye.

Of course, there is no general ’set’ of female personality rules. But, unfortunately, we all have some automatic associations between femininity and certain traits. We may unconsciously label women as emotional, delicate, and, let’s face it, not as capable as men. As wrong as that may be, we are somewhat pre-conditioned to think in that manner, and it takes a lot of work for some people to get rid of those horrible prejudices.

So when we are presented with the antidote of what we are taught a woman should be like, we take notice. A projection of strength, analytical skills, and capability has a level of attraction. Remember, this doesn’t even factor in public policy and other political issues. So, I’m sure a great deal of Republicans are attracted to Sen. Clinton, even if they don’t vote for her in the end.

2. Contrast between her preconceived hardline image and a more approachable image.

Again, contrast is powerful in the eyes of potential followers who are are looking for a new leader. The preconceived image of Sen. Clinton, as was mentioned, is that of a hardline, strong, capable, and somewhat rough politician. That in itself is a break from what many expect from a woman.

That image, as part of the political campaign and perhaps as a projection of her real self (who knows), is being challenged. She shows more humor. She lightens her interviews and public appearances. She seems “softer”. She seems more “feminine” (whatever that may mean).

What does all this contrast really mean?

Simple. It may have one of two consequences:

1. Confusion and disappointment

Sen. Clinton might be seen as inconsistent in terms of leadership qualities. People who are fond of her rough image may be disappointed with her soft image (if there is one). The inverse may also be true. In that case, this clearly works against her.

2. Excitement

My theory is that she is being helped by those contrasts, as strange as that may seem. The interest of potential followers is aroused by these contrasts between preconceived ideas and actual projections. They keep you honest, as when a batter is surprised by a curveball when he was actually waiting for a 100 mph fastball.

One last clarification

Contrast is not the same as inconsistency. Obviously, no candidate or potential leader is helped by changing stances on important public policy issues every week, or depending on the wave of public opinion (which is how most politicians work). I’m also aware that this contrast I mention isn’t enough to win an election by itself. In fact, other candidates from every party may have them. But Sen. Clinton’s contrasts provide a very clear example of what potential followers may, perhaps unconsciously, look for in their potential leaders.

Categories : Change, General Leadership, Politics //