Indira Gandhi: The Relationship between Personality

Prole and Leadership Style

Blema S. Steinberg
This article explores the relationship between Indira Gandhis personality prole in the
period before she became Prime Minister and her leadership style during the time she was
Prime Minister. The instrument for assessing the personality prole was compiled and
adapted from criteria for normal personality types and pathological variants. Gandhi
emerges 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 study
also developed an instrument for evaluating leadership styles in a cabinet system of gov-
ernment and postulated the theoretical links between personality patterns and leadership
style proles. Gandhis leadership style was then examined and links between personality
prole and leadership style explored: In eight of the 10 leadership categories, Indira
Gandhis leadership behavior matched our expectations for the Ambitious, Dominant, and
Contentious personality proles but not the Reticent one. Further discussion focused on
the two areas in which personality patterns fell short of predicting leadership style and the
possible explanations for this result.
KEY WORDS: Indira Gandhi, personality proles, leadership style, psychodynamic explanations
Previous studies of the personalities of political leaders developed by politi-
cal psychologists have been largely impressionistic, based on the psychological
insights and categories of various authors. At a more systematic level, Immelman
(1993, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003) developed the concept of personality pro-
les based on Millons (1969, 1986a, 1986b, 1990, 1991, 1994a, 1994b, 1996;
Millon & Davis, 2000; Millon & Everly, 1985) detailed analyses of a number of
personality patterns.
In the present study, largely based on the research design created by Immel-
man (1993, 2003), I chose to prole a political leader who was elected to the
highest political ofcethat of prime minister. From hypotheses developed about
the links between particular personality patterns and leadership behavior, I then
Political Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 5, 2005
0162-895X 2005 International Society of Political Psychology
Published 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 prole and her
leadership style and the extent to which they matched theoretical expectations.
No prime minister, hitherto, has been the subject of this type of personality
prole, and female politicians in general are largely under studied. Indira
Gandhione of the rst female prime ministers in the world (preceded only by
Sirimavo Bandaranaike who became prime minister of Sri Lanka in 1960), as well
as the longest serving prime minister of India, the most populous democracy in
the worldwas an ideal candidate with whom to begin this study.
Born into Indias most prominent political family in 1917, Indira Nehru was
immersed in politics from an early age. Stepping into the void left by her mothers
untimely death in 1936, as a young woman she became her fathers hostess
(notwithstanding her marriage to Feroze Gandhi and subsequent motherhood), a
role that expanded into condant and advisor over the ensuing years. After her
fathers 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 with
Pakistan that saw the creation of Bangladesh, and declaring a State of Emergency
in 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 three
years, she returned triumphantly in 1980, and ruled India with an increased deter-
mination to maintain herself in ofce. Not above manipulating communal griev-
ances to stay in power, ironically she, herself, eventually fell victim of one of
these crises. In 1984, she was assassinated by her own bodyguards, members of
the Sikh community, thus ending a remarkable political career.
An exceedingly complex individual, Indira Gandhi was frequently perceived
as 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 in
1975. If, as I argue, there is a relationship between personality patterns and the
exercise of leadership, how can we account for what is commonly known about
Indira 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 prole prior to her assumption of the ofce of the Prime
Minister and investigated its impact upon her leadership style during her tenure
as Prime Minister.
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this study is to explore, on the basis of a single case study, the
extent to which personality manifests itself in leadership style. In an attempt to
provide some preliminary answers to this question, a personality prole of Indira
Gandhi, 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, a
set of categories for the exploration of prime ministerial leadership style was
developed. A third step involved a discussion of the expected links between
various personality proles and leadership styles. Finally, I examined the leader-
ship behavior exhibited by Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister and the extent to
which her personality prole was predictive of her leadership style.
Personality
Background to the Study of Personality
In his review of the eld of personality and politics, Simonton (1990) sug-
gests that the dominant paradigm for the psychological examination of leaders has
shifted from the earlier preponderance of qualitative, ideographic psychobio-
graphical analysis toward quantitative and nomothetic methods. This trend reects
the impact of Hermanns (e.g., 1974, 1978, 1980, 1984, 1987) investigation of the
inuence of personal characteristics on foreign policy, Winters (1980, 1987)
examination of the role of social motives in leader performance, and Suedfeld and
Tetlocks (1977) and Tetlocks (1985) work in integrative complexity.
Another major approach in the emerging quantitative-nomethetic approach to
the study of personality noted by Simonton (1990, p. 671) involves the extension
of 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 proles based upon
diagnostically relevant content in political-psychological analyses, journalistic
accounts, and biographies and autobiographies of political gures. These proles
are based on the conceptual models of Millon (1996), Millon and Davis (2000),
and Strack (1997), which offer an empirically validated taxonomy of personality
patterns compatible with the syndromes described on Axis II of the fourth edition
of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) of the
American Psychiatric Association (APA, 1994). Adistinguishing attribute of these
models 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 Proles
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 sufce. The Millon Inventory of Diagnos-
tic Criteria (MIDC), based on Millons model of personality, is essentially an
index; it formally charts and scores 12 personality patterns across eight attribute
domains. This assessment tool was compiled and adapted from criteria for normal
personality types and pathological variants (see Immelman and Steinberg, 1999).
Each attribute domain is a distinct facet of human behavior in which personality
traits are manifested. (See Table 1 for a description of the attribute domains across
which personality can be measured.) Table 2 spells out the 12 personality scales
as well as specic descriptors/diagnostic criteria numbering from a to e in
ascending order of importance of that trait within the specic personality scale.
To assess the relative importance of the twelve personality patterns in Indira
Gandhis overall personality prole, the presence of the diagnostic criteria asso-
ciated with each pattern was measured across the ve attribute domains and each
letter value from a to e was given a numerical weight from one to ve. The
Table 1. Millons Eight Attribute Domains
Description Attribute
Expressive behavior
The individuals characteristic behavior; how the individual
typically appears to others; what the individual knowingly or
unknowingly reveals about him- or herself.
Interpersonal conduct How the individual typically interacts with others; the attitudes that
underlie, prompt, and give shape to these actions; the methods by
which the individual engages others to meet his or her needs; how
the individual copes with social tensions and conicts.
Cognitive style How the individual focuses and allocates attention, encodes and
processes information, organizes thoughts, makes attributions, and
communicates reactions and ideas to others.
Mood/temperament How the individual typically displays emotion; the predominant
character of an individuals affect and the intensity and frequency
with which he or she expresses it.
Self-image The individuals perception of self-as-object or the manner in
which the individual overtly describes him- or herself.
Regulatory mechanisms The individuals characteristic mechanisms of self-protection, need
gratication, and conict resolution.
Object representations The residue of signicant past experiences, composed of memories,
attitudes, and affects that underlie the individuals perceptions of
and reactions to ongoing events.
Morphologic organization The structural strength, interior congruity, and functional efcacy of
the personality system.
Note. From Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond (pp. 141146), by T. Millon, 1996, New
York: 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 by
John 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 pattern
a Assertive
b. Controlling
c. Aggressive (Sadistic [DSM-III-R]; Appendix A)
Scale 1B: Dauntless Pattern
a. Venturesome
b. Dissenting
c. Aggrandizing (Antisocial; DSM-IV, 301.7)
Scale 2: Ambitious pattern
a. Condent
b. Self-serving
c. Exploitative (Narcissistic; 301.81)
Scale 3: Outgoing pattern
a. Congenial
b. Gregarious
c. Impulsive (Histrionic; 301.50)
Scale 4: Accommodating pattern
a. Cooperative
b. Agreeable
c. Submissive (Dependent; 301.6)
Scale 5A: Aggrieved pattern
a. Unpresuming
b. Self-denying
c. Self-defeating (DSM-III-R, Appendix A)
Scale 5B: Contentious Pattern
a. Resolute
b. Oppositional
c. Negativistic (Passive-aggressive; DSM-III-R, 301.84)
Scale 6: Conscientious pattern
a. Respectful
b. Dutiful
c. Compulsive (Obsessive-compulsive; DSM-IV, 301.4)
Scale 7: Reticent pattern
a. Circumspect
b. Inhibited
c. Withdrawn (Avoidant; DSM-IV, 301.82)
Scale 8: Retiring pattern
a. Reserved
b. Aloof
c. Solitary (Schizoid; DSM-IV, 301.20)
Scale 9: Distrusting pattern
d. Suspicious
e. Paranoid (DSM-IV, 301.0)
Scale 0: Erratic pattern
d. Unstable
e. Borderline (DSM-IV, 301.83)
Note. Equivalent DSM terminology and codes are specied in parentheses.
760 Steinberg
maximum possible score for each of the rst 10 personality scales was 30. This
gure 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, the
maximum possible score for each of the last two personality patterns was 45. For
example, Indira Gandhis score of 21 on the Ambitious personality pattern was
derived from adding the subscores for each of the ve domains across which per-
sonality was measured. Her expressive behavior and self-image received a coding
of 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, and
mood/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 the
property of rank order, but not of equal intervals or absolute magnitude. In inter-
preting MIDC proles, it must be borne in mind that the measurement scale is
ordinal, intended primarily to classify subjects into a graded sequence of person-
ality classications or levels, ranging from present (scores between 1 and 9);
prominent (scores between 10 and 23); and mildly dysfunctional (scores between
24 and 40). For those individuals exhibiting a paranoid or erratic personality
pattern, a score of between 20 and 36 is deemed to be moderately disturbed and
a score above 36 would be markedly disturbed.
As explained in the MIDC manual, diagnostic signicance and cutoff points
between normal, prominent, and dysfunctional scale variants are based on rational
criteria derived from the specic manner of test construction. As a research instru-
ment, the MIDC is not standardized on some normative sample, as is the case
with conventional, commercially produced personality inventories used in clini-
cal practice. In this regard, the MIDC diagnostic procedure is more akin to the
decision-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-
nicant departure from purely idiosyncratic bases of assessments. (Detailed
information concerning the construction, administration, scoring, and interpreta-
tion of the MIDC is provided in the MIDC manual which is available upon request
from the author (Immelman, 1999, 2002) or on the World Wide Web at
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Research/Research-Instruments.html.)
The MIDC personality inventory was used to code diagnostically relevant
information collected from available biographical source materials. In the case of
Indira Gandhi, this included a detailed extraction and coding of material contained
in 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 their
source materials, and their scholarly contribution to the study. Collectively, these
biographies provided a balance between the more supportive and the more criti-
cal approaches to the subject. As the database involved was extremely large, about
30% 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 single
investigator.
In the construction of Indira Gandhis personality prole, ve of the eight
attribute domains, namely, expressive behavior, interpersonal conduct, cognitive
style, mood/temperament, and self-image, were explored for each of the 12 per-
sonality patterns/scales categorized in Millons taxonomy (1994, p. 292). Due to
the absence of sufcient information regarding Gandhis object representations,
regulatory mechanisms, and morphological organization these attribute domains
could not be meaningfully examined. Figure 1 provides a diagram of Indira
Gandhis scores on each of the 12 personality scales.
Data Analysis
The analysis of the data for Indira Gandhi consisted of the personality scale
scores (see Table 3), a MIDC personality prole (see Figure 1), and a clinical
interpretation of signicant MIDC personality scores derived from the diagnostic
procedure. 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 of
20, and Scale 1A (Dominant) with a score of 19. All these scores fell within the
prominent range (between 10 and 23); indeed, four of them approached the mildly
dysfunctional 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 classied 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 proles empha-
sizes the elevations, i.e., the scores, of the two most prominent personality scales
or patterns, personality functioning in reality involves the aggregation of several
personality patterns (Immelman, 2002, p. 95). This was amply demonstrated in
the analysis of Indira Gandhis personality prole where four of her personality
scales approached the mildly dysfunctional level. The theoretical foundations for
the different personality patterns/scales were largely drawn from Millons
(1994a, 1994b, 1996; Millon & Davis, 2000) models of personality, supplemented
by the theoretically congruent portrait by Strack (1997).
With her elevated scores on Scales 2, 7, 5B, and 1A, Indira Gandhi emerged
from 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 continuum
ranging from normal to maladaptive. At the well-adjusted end (scores between
5 and 9) are the condent, 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
Mildly
dysfunctional
Prominent
Present
Scale:
Score:
Markedly
disturbed
Moderately
disturbed
Ambitious
Dominant
Contentious
Reticent
b
c
e e
d d
b
a a
1A
19 11 21 8 9 14 20 11 21 15 8 0
1B 5A 5B 6 7 8 9 0 2 3 4
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
-
- -
- - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - -
- -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
Figure 1. Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria: Prole Form for Indira Gandhi.
Indira Gandhi 763
personalities. Exaggerated Ambitious features (scores between 10 and 23) occur
in those individuals characterized by self-promotion, arrogance, a sense of enti-
tlement, and a lack of empathy for others. In its most deeply ingrained inexible
form (scores between 24 and 30), the Ambitious pattern displays itself in an
exploitative, manipulative style that may be consistent with a clinical diagnosis
of a narcissistic personality disorder (Millon, 1994b, p. 32; Immelman, 1999).
Indira Gandhis score on Scale 2 was well within the prominent but generally
adaptive (i.e., self-serving) style of the Ambitious pattern.
Normal adaptive variants of the Ambitious pattern (i.e., condent and self-
serving types) correspond to Stracks (1997) Condent style and Millons (1994a)
Asserting pattern. Millon has summarized the Asserting (i.e., Ambitious) pattern
as follows:
An interpersonal boldness, stemming from a belief in themselves and
their talents, characterizes those high on the . . . Asserting scale. Com-
petitive, ambitious, and self-assured, they naturally assume positions of
leadership, act in a decisive and unwavering manner, and expect others
to 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 Joan
of Arc and told her aunt that some day she would lead her people to freedom as
the 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 12.8
1B Dauntless: Venturesome-Dissenting-Aggrandizing (Antisocial) 11 7.4
2 Ambitious: Condent-Self-serving-Exploitative (Narcissistic) 21 14.1
3 Outgoing: Congenial-Gregarious-Impulsive (Histrionic) 8 5.4
4 Accommodating: Cooperative-Agreeable-Submissive (Dependent) 9 6.0
5A Aggrieved: Unpresuming-Self-denying-Self-defeating (Masochistic) 14 9.4
5B Contentious: Resolute-Oppositional-Negativistic (Passive-aggressive) 20 13.4
6 Conscientious: Respectful-Dutiful-Compulsive (Obsessive-compulsive) 11 7.4
7 Reticent: Circumspect-Inhibited-Withdrawn (Avoidant) 21 14.1
8 Retiring: Reserved-Aloof-Solitary (Schizoid) 15 10.1
Scales 18 149 100.0
9 Distrusting: Suspicious-Paranoid (Paranoid) 8 5.1
0 Erratic: Unstable-Borderline (Borderline) 0 0.0
Full-scale total 157 105.1
Note. For the basic Scales 18, ratio scores are the raw scores for each scale expressed as a
percentage of the sum of raw scores for Scales 18 only. For Scales 9 and 0, ratio transformed
scores 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 scale
gradations and equivalent DSM terminology (in parentheses).
764 Steinberg
the Congress Party because of her youth, Indira was infuriated and formed an
organization of her own, the Monkey Brigade (Vasudev, 1974, p. 60). Later, as a
member 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 not
want 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 are
the watchful, private, and socially reserved personalities. Exaggerated Reticent
features (scores between 10 and 23) occur in guarded, insecure, inhibited, and
self-conscious personalities. In its most deeply ingrained, inexible form (scores
between 24 and 30), the Reticent pattern displays itself in overanxious, reclusive,
and withdrawn behavior patterns that may be consistent with a clinical diagnosis
of 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 inated variant of the Reticent pattern suggesting
exaggerated features of the basic personality pattern, with the potential for a mild
personality 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 Stracks
Inhibited 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 indifference
or 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-condent dimensions of Gandhis personality, her reticent and
self-effacing behavior could be observed since childhood. She was hesitant of con-
ding 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 give
a speech to the India League. She reluctantly agreed, but at the meeting she froze
and was unable to utter a word (Frank, 2001, p. 129). Even at 42, as a married
woman and president of the Indian National Congress party, she was described
as 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
inexible form, (scores between 24 and 30), the Contentious pattern displays itself
in 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 prole rendered
it the third most important pattern in her personality prole. The oppositional
style is an inated variant of the Contentious pattern which is associated with
complaining, 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 of
the Contentious pattern:
Sensitive [Contentious] personalities tend to be unconventional and
individualistic in their response to the world. . . . They may be quick to
challenge 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 inated variants of the Contentious pattern
are noted below.
Those scoring high on the Complaining [Contentious] scale often assert
that they have been treated unfairly, that little of what they have done
has been appreciated and that they have been blamed for things that they
did not do. . . . Often resentful of what they see as unfair demands placed
on them, they may be disinclined to carry out responsibilities as well as
they 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 difcult for Indira to express her
aggressive feelings spontaneously. However, she acknowledged a stubborn streak
as a child, and stubbornness is a passive way of expressing aggression (Carras,
1979, p. 37). Gandhi was an indifferent student who frequently complained that
she 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 being
treated shabbily (1989, p. 85). As her fathers hostess and condant, 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 are
the 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, inexible 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 of
Sadistic personality disorder.
As reected in Gandhis score of 19 on Scale 1B (Dominant), the controlling
style was the fourth-ranked pattern in her personality prole. The controlling style
is a more inated 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 abrasive
behavior. Controlling individuals, though often somewhat disagreeable, tend to
be 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 evoke
obedience and respect from them. They tend to be tough and unsenti-
mental . . . Although many sublimate their power-oriented tendencies in
publicly approved roles and vocations, these inclinations become evident
in occasional intransigence, stubbornness, and coercive behaviors.
Despite these periodic negative expressions, controlling types typically
make effective leaders, being talented in supervising and persuading
others 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 the
things she knew belonged to her Mommy and Papu and Dadu, she went after
them, 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 gain
control 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 father
quarreled, 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 Feroze
Gandhi, she told her father that her mind was made up and again threatened to
stop 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-condence, and the shy and
retiring young hostess of Teen Murti was developing rapidly into an assertive and
imperious woman who could no longer be dismissed or ignored with impunity
(1975, p. 110). When language riots broke out in Madras in March 1965, Shastri
decided to wait out the crisis. Indira, however, immediately hopped on a plane to
Madras where she gave assurances to the protesters opposed to Hindi and helped
restore 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 clear
that 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 think
this government can survive if I resign today? I am telling you it wont. Yes, I
have jumped over the Prime Ministers head and I would do it again whenever
the need arises (Malhotra, 1989, p. 83).
The Personality Prole of Indira Gandhi
Unlike other political leaders proled using this model, Indira Gandhi dis-
played a personality prole in which all 10 of the personality scales that have an
adaptive component (i.e., excluding the borderline and paranoid) were diagnosti-
cally signicant; that is, they received scores of ve or more. Each pattern was
either present or prominent and the scores of four of themthe Ambitious,
Reticent, Contentious, and Dominantwere so high in the prominent range as to
be close to the mildly dysfunctional level. Such ndings are not that surprising,
given the assessment of her many biographers that she had an extraordinarily
complex character. As Masani observed: While one part of her personality sought
fulllment in political leadership, the other craved the greater intimacy, peace and
security of private life (1975, p. 126).
With her prominent Ambitious (Scale 2), Reticent (Scale 7), and Contentious
(Scale 5B) personality congurations, 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 early
experiences of compensating narcissists are not too dissimilar to those
of the avoiding and negativistic personalities. All have suffered
wounds early in life. Rather than collapse under the weight of inferi-
ority and retreat from public view, like the avoiding, or vacillate between
loyalty and anger, like the negativist, however, the compensating nar-
cissist develops an illusion of superiority. Life thus becomes a search to
fulll aspirations of status, recognition, and prestige. . . . they seek to
conceal their deep sense of deciency 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 prole, developed early in
Indira Gandhis life. As Gandhis biographers discussed her childhood, the most
common 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 very
young child, Indira was indulged by her grandfather; however, his death, her
mothers tuberculosis when she was eight, and her father and mothers frequent
imprisonment meant that Indira grew up a lonely, solitary child largely in the
company of servants. At the age of 13, all of Indiras relatives were either jailed
or away from home (Vasudev, pp. 6667). Her fathers sister, Vijayalakshmi,
regarded Indira as a gangling awkward girl and made no secret of her disdain for
her (Bhatia, 1974, p. 41). Even Indiras father was capable of walling off his
daughter. While he was in prison, the authorities punished Nehru by banning
family visits for a month. Nehru retaliated by voluntarily foregoing visits for six
more months which meant that Indira had to return to boarding school without
seeing 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 himself
her visits. As Masani observed: From an early age, she had been alternately
petted and abandoned by those around her. Now she was suspicious of emotional
attachments 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. Indiras
mother, Kamala, with whom Indira was very close, died at the age of 35 when
Indira was eighteen. Indiras education was extremely disjointedshe was sent
to 13 schools in 18 years, exacerbating her shyness, and she never developed the
passion for learning that her father Jawaharlal so esteemed. As if to compensate
for her shy, aloof nature, Indira fell in love and married Feroze Gandhi, who was
the direct antithesis. Extroverted, warm, and demonstrative, Feroze proved to be
singularly ill-suited to Indira and their relationship became increasingly estranged,
the product of Ferozes womanizing and Indiras dutiful decision to act as unof-
cial hostess for her father which meant a great deal of time away from her
husband. Their eventual separation was another major source of sadness and
despondency for Indira.
Other dimensions of Indiras personality, such as the Ambitious pattern (Scale
2, score of 21), can also be traced from early childhood. Exposed to a highly politi-
cized environmentboth her parents spent time in jailIndiras ambitions were
fueled by the struggle against British rule. As a child, she imagined herself leading
her people to victory like Joan of Arc (Malhotra, 1989, p. 37). In 1938, Indira
joined the Indian National Congress party and subsequently became its president
in 1959, notwithstanding her fathers less than enthusiastic endorsement of the
idea (Vasudev, 1974, p. 258).
Indiras Contentiousness (Scale 5B, score of 20) and her determination to
challenge the status quo may well have been nurtured by her mothers experi-
ences as a semioutcast from the more sophisticated circle of Nehrus sisters. As
a child, it pained her deeply to see how shabbily her mother was treated, and she
protested 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, Nehru
was frequently away from home, and Indira found it difcult as an adolescent to
openly challenge or disagree with her eminent father (Frank, 2001, p. 69).
Another domain in which Indiras Contentious personality pattern revealed
itself was in her moodsshe was frequently distraught and despondent. Her
mothers illness, her parents imprisonment, her mothers subsequent death at an
early age, as well as her own bout with tuberculosis, were instrumental in the
general moodiness she exhibited. Although she took on the responsibility of acting
as her fathers hostess, she resented the demands on her time and wrote of feeling
like a caged bird (Frank, 2001, p. 254).
Indira was also a Dominant personality (Scale 1A, score of 19). She was
determined not to allow others to control her life, as had her mother. She deed
the Mahatma and her father on a number of occasions, particularly in her choice
of a husband. In 1959, immediately after she became party president, she again
challenged her father on the Kerala issue. Acommunist government in Kerala had
created signicant unrest by introducing a bill to subject parochial schools to state
controls 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 Prime
Minister, As Congress president, I intend to ght them and throw them out
(Vasudev, 1974, p. 276).
Indira Gandhis rst years as Prime Minister were marked by great inner
uncertainty and, consequently, by indecision and vacillation in her leadership.
Most people were not surprised; indeed, it conrmed the general impression that
although she was inherently reticent and retiring, she had been thrust to the center
of 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 her
extensive 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-condence began to develop and the Ambitious,
Dominant, and Contentious patterns in her personality prole received greater
expression.
Successful in the struggle to control the Congress Party by 1970, Indira
Gandhi was largely transformed into a politician whose personality traits of ambi-
tion, dominance, and contentiousness were to be far more in evidence than the
shy, aloof, aggrieved, and accommodating dimensions of her personality. The
acquisition of power and the sense of accomplishment it engendered seems to
have facilitated Gandhis suppression of the introverted dimensions of her per-
sonality prole and permitted a greater expression of the ambitious, dominant,
and contentious aspects. Nowhere was this more in evidence than her decision to
declare 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 on
her leadership behavior, we must turn rst to the question of leadership style in
general, 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 prime
ministerial leadership style in various European countries.) Attempts have been
made as well to explain particular types of leadership style with such antecedents
as 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 by
Immelman (1993, 1998); Simonton (1988); and Winter (1995).
While every scholar seems to have his or her own denition of leadership
style, the underlying concepts appear to be similarhow the leader carries out
the responsibilities of his or her ofce; more specically, 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 ve common lead-
ership style variablesinvolvement in the policymaking process, willingness to
tolerate conict, motivation for leading, and preferred strategies for resolving con-
ict. Kaarbo (1997, pp. 561563) adopted and modied these ve variables and
added two variables from the literature on organizational leadership style
relations with members of the cabinet and task orientation.
Leadership Style: A New Synthesis
This study adapted ve 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 ve variables that examine the prime
ministers relations with personnel, opposition parties, the media, and the public,
and his/her investment in job performance. These have been grouped into three
spheres of activity: rst, the leader and his/her motivation, task orientation, and
Indira Gandhi 771
investment in job performance; second, the leader and the executivecabinet and
information management strategies; and third, the leader and relations with other
personnel, caucus, the party, the opposition, and the media (see Table 4).
The rst leadership style variable centers around the question of a prime min-
isters motivation for leading. Asurvey of the literature has suggested that a variety
of needs and incentives induce individuals to assume leadership positions in pol-
itics (see Kaarbo & Hermann, 1998, pp. 251252). The leader may be motivated
by 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 and
to be accepted); by an ideological agenda (a coherent system of political beliefs
that shapes government policy); or a desire for power (dominance and control).
The amount of energy and time that a prime minister brings to the ofce is
another variable of leadership style (Barber, 1972/1992). It demonstrates whether
the leader places limits on the extent of the commitment to the ofce or whether
there 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 goal
oriented, focusing on specic ends and their implementation.
The way in which the prime minister organizes the composition of and
manages 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 making
is also something the prime minister decides. In these activities, the prime min-
isters style may run the gamut from being largely uninvolved, to a consensus
builder, to an arbitrator, and nally, to a strong advocate.
Although information in a cabinet setting is usually channelled through the
various ministries, prime ministers will differ as to how they choose to review
such 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 policy
options. Of interest here is how much input the prime minister wants into the way
problems and issues are framed and get onto the agenda.
In managing the ow of information that comes to the ofce, does the prime
minister use a system of individuals to lter information and minimize direct
involvement, or is close scrutiny more likely? Closely related is the question on
whom the prime minister relies for information. Does the prime minister prefer
to receive policy relevant data from his cabinet and senior civil servants, or is
there a reliance on other sources?
The nal cluster of leadership style variables focuses on the prime ministers
interpersonal 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 system
maintenance)
(b) Personal Validation
(Popular Approval/Acceptance/Narcissistic issues)
(c) Ideology
(a coherent system of political beliefs that shapes government policies with an agenda
for signicant 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 the
cabinet)
(a) Uninvolved
(b) Consensus Builder
(c) Arbitrator
(d) Advocate (Authoritative/Peremptory)
(v) INFORMATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
1. Degree of involvement
(a) Low
(use of lters 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) High
2. 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/Exploitative
2. 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 ofcials to
articulate and defend government policy)
774 Steinberg
governmental ofcials, members of the judiciary, etc., with his or her own party,
with the opposition, the media, and the public. The prime minister interacts with
a number of individuals on a daily basis. The extent of the involvement may be
high or low; stylistically it may encompass patterns ranging from solicitous, to
polite, attention seeking, demanding, and even exploitative. With both the caucus
and the extra-parliamentary party organization, the prime minister may behave
cooperatively or be competitive or combative and overbearing. Since conict is
a very pervasive element in cabinet life, especially in highly factional single party
cabinets and in coalition cabinets (see t Hart, 1994), the management of party
relations 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 consolidates
support for his or her policy decisions (Renshon, 1996a, 1996b). Does the prime
minister attempt to sell policies by going beyond the party and parliament to
appeal to the public at large? Does he or she try to educate or manipulate the
public? Or does the leader display little direct engagement with the public, pre-
ferring government ofcials to articulate and defend government policy? Those
prime ministers who focus on policy achievements are more likely to use the ofce
of the prime minister as a bully pulpit, while those who stress the policy process
will be less inclined to try to generate additional support among the attendant
public.
Lastly, in relations with the media, the prime minister may be accessible and
informative or inaccessible and hostile. Prime ministers who emphasize the
implementation of signicant policy changes are more likely to generate greater
opposition, which in turn will be reected in some parts of the media, than those
who are more concerned with maintaining the political process with incremental
changes. In the face of hostility on the part of the media, the Prime Minister is
more likely to become less accessible and more hostile.
Method for Assessing Leadership Styles
Information concerning Indira Gandhis leadership style during the period
that she was Prime Minister was gathered from primary (speeches and letters) and
secondary (biographies and journal articles) sources. Although biographies were
also used to assess personality patterns, the potential problem of shared variance
in this case is more apparent than real. First, Indira Gandhis personality was
assessed only from the biographical material that dealt with her life before she
became Prime Minister, while her leadership style was evaluated only from the
materials that described her behavior after she became Prime Minister. Thus, a
clear time differentiation exists. Second, the variables that were used to measure
personality 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; see
Table 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 was
to 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 each
of these four variables was calculated so that the strength of each as a percentage
of 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 prole of Indira
Gandhi. Given the size of the data base, about 35% of the data was extracted and
coded 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 that
pertained 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; and
her interpersonal relations with her associates, the caucus, the extra-
parliamentary party, the opposition, the media, and the public. Results showed
that she was motivated primarily by pragmatism and power, focusing on goals
rather than process. With her cabinet, she functioned largely as an advocate for
her goals and preferred to rely on independent sources of information. In her deal-
ings with personnel, the party caucus, the extra-parliamentary party organization
and the opposition parties, she was largely demanding, domineering, competitive,
controlling, and oppositional. She was capable of being both accessible and
friendly to the media as well as being hostile and closed, depending on the time
period. It was only with the public that Indira demonstrated a consistent pattern
or openness and warmth (see Table 5).
Motivation
In the area of motivation we nd that, notwithstanding a brief irtation with
socialism, 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 PERSONNEL
STRATEGY (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 96.5
2. 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 50.0
2. 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 was
a central factor in Indira Gandhis motivations, the evidence suggests that the drive
for power, although marginally, was even more signicant. Of all the items coded
on 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. Politics
took 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 the
norm 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 overwhelmingly
concerned 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 that
their powers were curbed, even if it meant dismissing capable individuals. Of the
82 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 her
colleagues; she dismissed those who might have challenged her and placed her
favorites 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 be
presented to her. Of the 35 items coded on this topic, 85.7% displayed Gandhis
high-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 a
preference 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 other
branches of government were coded for the degree of involvement and the type
of behavior exhibited. In general, there were few references to the degree of
involvement; 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 coded
as 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 rubber
stamp 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 the
party 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 of
85%. 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 both
her caucus and the Congress party organization, it is hardly surprising that Gandhi
would 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 as
closed took place after.
Public
In her relations with the public, Indira Gandhis leadership style was
extremely open. The Indian crowds seemed to energize her, and she felt a special
bond 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 this
issue, 100% demonstrated an open style.
Theoretical Links between Personality Proles and Leadership Styles
Although human beings tend to exhibit more than one signicant or pre-
dominant personality pattern, it is perhaps most useful to begin a discussion on
the links between personality patterns and leadership style with a delineation of
some 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 or
more in Indira Gandhis personality prole. Once we can theorize about the con-
tribution of Dominant (Scale 1A, a score of 19), Ambitious (Scale 2, a score of
21), 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 examine
Gandhis actual leadership style and to explore the ways in which a combination
of personality patterns impacted upon it.
Dominant and Ambitious Leaders
For the very ambitious leader, narcissistic components may also produce an
enhanced emphasis on the need for personal validation as a motivation for policy
initiatives. Both the Dominant and Ambitious leaders are more likely to be goal-
oriented rather than process-oriented. Motivated by power and/or ideology, they
are less interested in maintaining good relations between their colleagues and
more interested in accomplishing goals. For these reasons, their investment in job
performance is more likely to be tireless, rather than circumscribed. Not for them
relaxed, laissez faire approaches.
Both these types of prime ministers are also more likely to act as advocates
within their cabinets rather than as consensus builders or arbitrators. Given their
personalities that stress dominance or self-promotionas well as the nature of
their goals and the energy they bring to bear on their implementationthey are
also 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 independent
sources, 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 the
treatment of their subordinates to be extremely demanding if not domineering,
and perhaps even exploitative. Ambitious leaders are also more likely to engage
in attention seeking behavior with their aides. In their dealings with members of
their caucus, the extra-parliamentary party organization, and the opposition, both
Dominant and Ambitious leaders are unlikely to be uninvolved or to behave in a
cooperative and harmonious fashion. Given the status of these constituencies as
the wellspring of both continuity in and challenges to their leadership, we would
expect 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 to
control 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 fuel
their ambitious plans. If, however, they are criticized, their wounded narcissism
may distance them from the media and result in strained relations.
Dominant and Ambitious leaders can be expected to be active rather than
passive in their relations with the public. Given either their strong-willed, out-
spoken personalities in the rst instance, or their self-assured, self-promoting per-
sonalities in the second, such leaders are unlikely to want to have others articulate
or 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 comfortable
when 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 concern
with 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 to
invest a substantial amount of energy and effort in their jobs. Since they frequently
feel put upon and consequently behave in a complaining, obstructive fashion, they
will make strenuous efforts to alter the dynamics of their environment in the belief
that other people will then be more responsive to their demands. In their dealings
with 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 leaders
are also skeptical, doubting, and critical; they are more likely to prefer to be
directly involved in the search for and analysis of policy-relevant data and to use
a variety of sources to assuage their doubts.
The degree of involvement with personnel is likely to be higha function of
their complaining and obstructive personalities; in addition, the type of involve-
ment will most likely be of a demanding/domineering nature. In their relations
with 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 trust
and being skeptical, they are more likely to be uninformative and unfriendly.
In their relations with the public, Contentious leaders may exhibit a mixed
pattern 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 arrangement
that gives them the opportunity to complain about their ostensible inadequacies.
Alternatively, their dealings with the populace are more likely to be active, rather
than passive, if their dissatisfaction with their own ofcials handling of public
relations 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 those
of the Dominant and Ambitious personality types. Since the Reticent leader is char-
acterized by social inhibition and withdrawal, this personality type can be expected
to demonstrate similar patterns of leadership behavior. The circumspect, inhibited
Reticent is unlikely to be motivated by power, ideology, or self-validation, which
require a greater sense of self. Issues of pragmatismkeeping the government
together and handling day-to-day businessrequire less assertive leadership and,
thus, are likely to be more appealing to the Reticent personality prole.
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 to
be insecure and ill at ease, they are less likely to take on the role of consensus
builder, 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 leader
is more likely to manifest a low degree of involvement and to prefer to rely on
the cabinet and the civil service for information. Relations with aides are also
likely to follow the same pattern. As bets the ill-at-ease Reticent, the extent of
the involvement will be low and is likely to be characterized by a polite/formal
manner.
782 Steinberg
In their various party relationswith their caucus, the extra-parliamentary
party organization and the opposition, the Reticent personality can be expected to
have little or no involvement. This type of leader will tend to be closed, rather
than open with the media and more passive than active in their contacts with the
public.
Mixed Personality Prole Leaders
What happens, however, when leaders exhibit mixed personality proles?
One may be able to theorize about the leadership style of leaders with only one
or two important personality proles that largely predict similar behavior (i.e.,
like the Dominant/Ambitious or the Reticent/Retiring personality proles);
hypothesizing about leadership behavior when faced with a leader with a number
of salient and conicting personality patterns is more complicated. A solution
employed in the case of Indira Gandhi was to measure the combined weight of
the most important personality patterns that were hypothesized to predict leader-
ship behavior and to analyze the results. Of the four most important personality
patterns, threethe Ambitious, the Contentious and the Controlling with a com-
bined score of 60 (21, 20 and 19, respectively)predict a relatively consistent set
of leadership behaviors, whereas the Reticent personality pattern with a score of
21 predicts a nearly opposite set of leadership behaviors. Thus one would expect
that Indira Gandhi might exhibit a mixed pattern of leadership behaviors, but with
a greater emphasis on those behaviors that are linked to the Ambitious, Con-
tentious, and Dominant personality proles.
Indira Gandhis Leadership Style and Personality Prole
The empirical analysis of Indira Gandhis leadership behavior in the 10
selected categories revealed that in eight of the 10, the leadership style patterns
strongly matched our theoretical expectations for the Ambitious, Dominant, and
Contentious personality proles. Indira Gandhi emerged as strongly goal-
oriented, tireless in the exercise of her job, an advocate within her cabinet with a
preference for receiving information from independent sources. As well, the type
of involvement she exhibited with associates, the caucus, the party organization,
and the opposition, which was largely competitive and controlling, also tted
expectations for the Ambitious, Controlling, and Contentious leader. Gandhis
dealings with the public also matched the theoretical expectations for the Ambi-
tious, Dominant, and Contentious personality proles.
There were two areas in which Indira Gandhis leadership prole exhibited
a more equivocal picture. In the area of motivation, our theoretical expectation
was that Dominant, Controlling, Ambitious, and Contentious personalities were
more likely to be motivated by issues of power and ideology. In the case of the
Ambitious prole, 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 proles), also emerged as a very important source
of motivation.
That Indira Gandhis motivations did not t my theoretical expectations can
perhaps be explained by an implicit assumption that there would be a one-to-one
relationship between personality proles and motivations for policy choices.
Thus, as a primarily ambitious, contentious, and dominant personality, Gandhi
should have been much more strongly motivated by power and ideology. This
could suggest the fact that in a democratic society, with opposition parties that
are in a position to challenge the government, a leader who successfully retains
power for a considerable period of time, as Gandhi did, may have curbed those
aspects of her personality and instead, exhibited a greater degree of pragmatism
in 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 and
unfriendly) 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 results
were examined more closely, I found that Gandhi was far more open to the media
prior to the declaration of a State of Emergency in 1975 and increasingly closed
from 1972 on. From 1966 to 1972, she was trying to acquire and consolidate her
power in the struggle with the Congress Party bosses. In those circumstances, she
viewed media coverage both domestically and externally as assisting her in these
endeavors. During 197577, she was ghting to hold onto power and suppressed
the media, which she then saw as undermining her efforts. After her defeat at the
polls 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 nding was how little impact the Reticent pattern in Indira
Gandhis personality prole seems to have had on her leadership style. One expla-
nation may be that since this personality pattern accounted for only 26.9% of the
four patterns that were ranked at 19 or more, the other 73.1 % that are reected
in the Dominant, Ambitious, and Contentious patterns that produced a personal-
ity prole of compensatory narcissism that overwhelmed the impact of the
Reticent dimension in Gandhis personality prole.
A second possible explanation for the largely insignicant impact of the
Reticent personality pattern on Gandhis personality prole may be related to the
time period in which the materials for the personality prole were extracted. All
the materials coded were extracted from biographical accounts that began in child-
hood, adolescence, young adulthood, and during her political career prior to her
becoming 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 adult
and 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 stronger
pattern of reticence than what actually existed by late adolescence and adulthood.
A third potential explanation involves the impact of role responsiveness (see
Goldstein & Keohane, 1993, p. 3). Although Indira Gandhi demonstrated some
Reticent personality traits when she assumed the ofce of the Prime Minister, the
demands of the job and the initial hostility she encountered from the Congress
elitesthe Syndicateseem to have galvanized the Ambitious, Dominant, and
Contentious dimensions of her personality into action. Compensatory narcis-
sism allowed Indira to appeal over the heads of the Syndicate and establish a
strongly personal and very effective relationship with the masses that bolstered
her self-esteem and fueled this aspect of her personality.
Conclusion
This paper began with the primary purpose of investigating the relationship
between personality patterns and leadership style. Looking beyond the traditional
focus on American presidents, I chose to study a female leader in a parliamentary
system of government. The goal was to develop hypothesized linkages between
various personality patterns and leadership style behaviors. Methodological tools
appropriate to these tasks were either modied or created. Then, these tools were
applied in the context of a single-case studythat of Indira Gandhi, the former
Prime Minister of India, in order to examine the extent to which her personality
prole and leadership style matched our theoretical expectations.
For the most part, psychodynamic personality studies of political leaders have
been insightful, but idiosyncratic and, thus, incapable of precise replication. In
contrast, 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 systematic
measurement toolthe MIDCpermits a comparative analysis of multiple
leaders.
In their examination of presidential leadership style, some scholars began
with inventories of leadership style archetypes and then described those presidents
that best seemed to exemplify them. (See, for example, Barber (1972/92) who
developed a theory of presidential leadership style that encompassed active and
passive and positive and negative behaviors and George and Stern (1998) who
categorized presidential management styles as competitive, formalistic, and col-
legial). Others began with the presidents themselves and then examined their
unique leadership behavior. (See, for example, Greenstein (1993/94, 1994) and
Indira Gandhi 785
Renshon (199596)). In contrast, this study approached leadership style based on
a functional analysis of the range and intensity of prime ministerial duties. A
detailed analysis of the data for Indira Gandhi revealed important connections
between 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 of
leadership style.
Apart from the relationship demonstrated between Gandhis personality
prole and her leadership style, her personality prole, itself, presented an intrigu-
ing picture. Certainly, Gandhi appears to be an anomaly when compared with male
political leaders in terms of the seemingly contradictory dimensions of her per-
sonality prole (see Immelmans (1998, 2000, 2002) personality proles). Should
one expect female leaders, more than their male counterparts, to manifest a wider
variety 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 not
the complexity of her prole was sui generis, after I explore the personality pro-
les of other female prime ministers. If their personality proles resemble that of
Indira Gandhis, then it may be gender that is playing a role. Alternatively, if
Gandhis personality prole is markedly different from that of other female prime
ministers in terms of its complexity, it may be that diverse cultural values can
explain 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 formal
methodological approach. To this end, my research will continue with studies of
Golda Meir of Israel and Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My warm appreciation to Jeff Osweiler and Spyridon Kostsovilis for their
input in the preparation of this papertheir retrieval of library materials, coding
of 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 support
and expertise and to Professor Juliet Kaarbo who read an earlier draft and offered
some very constructive comments. Correspondence regarding this article should
be sent to Blema S. Steinberg, 4931 McGill University, Glencairn Avenue,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3W2B1. Email: blema.steinberg@mcgill.ca
786 Steinberg
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4
th
ed.). Washington: Author.
Barber, J. D. (1972/92). The presidential character: Predicting performance in the White House
(4
th
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 information
and 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. New
York: Dover Publications.
George, A. L., & George, J. L. (1998). Presidential personality and performance. Boulder: Westview
Press.
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. Political
Science 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, ndings, and methods (pp. 201234). New York:
Wiley.
Hermann, M. G. (1977). (Ed.). The psychological examination of political leaders. New York: Free
Press.
Hermann, M. G. (1978). Effects of personal characteristics of political leaders on foreign policy. In
M. A. East, S. A. Salmore, & C. F. Hermann (Eds.), Why nations act: Theoretical perspectives
for 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: Astudy of 53 heads of gov-
ernment. In D. A. Sylvan & S. Chan (Eds.), Foreign policy decision making: Perception,
cognition, and articial 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: Duke
University Press.
Hermann, M. G. (1994). Presidential leadership style, advisory systems and policy making: Bill
Clintons 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 psychology
of 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 and
Bob Dole. Leadership Quarterly, 9(3), 335366.
Immelman, A. (1999/2002). Millon inventory of diagnostic criteria manual (2
nd
ed.). Unpublished
manuscript, St. Johns University, Collegeville, Minn. Available on the web at
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Research/Research-Instruments.html.
Immelman, A. (2000). The political personality of U.S. vice president Al Gore. Paper presented at the
Twenty-third Annual Scientic 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 (2
nd
ed.).
Unpublished research scale, St. Johns University, Collegeville, Minn. Available on the Web at
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Research/Research-Instruments.html.
Kaarbo, J. (1997). Prime minister leadership styles in foreign policy decision-making: A framework
for research. Political Psychology, 18, 553581.
Kaarbo, J., & Hermann, M. (1998). Leadership styles of prime ministers: How individual differences
affect the foreign policymaking process. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 131152.
Kowert, P. A. (1996). Where does the buck stop? Assessing the impact of presidential personality.
Political Psychology, 17, 421452.
Malhotra, I. (1989). Indira Gandhi: A personal and political biography. London: Hodder and
Stoughton.
Masani, Z. (1975). Indira Gandhi. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Millburn, T. W. (1977). The Q-sort and the study of political personality. In M. G. Hermann (Ed.),
The psychological examination of political leaders (pp. 131144). New York: Free Press.
Millon, T. (1969). Modern psychopathology: A biosocial approach to maladaptive learning and func-
tioning. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. (Reprinted 1985 by Waveland Press, Prospect Heights,
IL).
Millon, T. (1986a). Atheoretical derivation of pathological personalities, In T. Millon & G. L. Klerman
(Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM-IV (pp. 639669). New
York: Guilford.
788 Steinberg
Millon, T. (1986b). Personality prototypes and their diagnostic criteria. In T. Millon & G. L. Klerman
(Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM-IV (pp. 671712). New
York: Guilford.
Millon, T. (1990). Toward a new personology: An evolutionary model. New York Wiley.
Millon, T. (1991). Normality: What may we learn from evolutionary theory? In D. Offer & M. Sabshin
(Eds.), The diversity of normal behavior: Further contributions to normatology (pp. 356404).
New York: Basic Books.
Millon, T. [with Weiss, L. G., Millon, C. M., & Davis, R. D.] (1994a). MIPS: Millon index of per-
sonality styles manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Millon, T. [with Millon, C., & Davis, R. D.] (1994b). Millon Clinical Multaxial InventoryIII.
Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.
Millon, T. [with Davis, R. D.] (1996). Disorders of personality DSM-IV and beyond. New York: Wiley.
Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (2000). Personality disorders in modern life. New York: Wiley.
Millon, T., & Everly, Jr., G. S. (1985). Personality and its disorders: A biosocial learning approach.
New York: Wiley.
Renshon, S. A. (1994). Apreliminary assessment of the Clinton presidency: Character, leadership and
performance. Political Psychology, 15, 375393.
Renshon, S. A. (Ed.). (1995). The Clinton presidency: Campaigning, governing, and the psychology
of leadership. Boulder: Westview Press.
Renshon, S. A. (1996a). High hopes: The Clinton presidency and the politics of ambition. New York:
New York University Press.
Renshon, S. A. (1996b). The psychological assessment of presidential candidates. New York: New
York University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1986). Presidential personality: Biographical use of Gough Adjective Check List.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 149160.
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Biography, personality and performance. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 55, 928936.
Simonton, D. K. (1990). Personality and politics. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality:
theory and research (pp. 67092). New York: Guilford.
Steinberg, B., Kotsovilis, S., & Osweiler, J. (2002). Leadership style inventory. In B. Steinberg, Indira
Gandhi: The relationship between personality prole and leadership style. Paper presented to the
International Society for Political Psychology, Berlin.
Strack, S. (1997). The PACL: Gauging normal personality styles. In T. Millon (Ed.), The Millon inven-
tories: Clinical and personality assessment (pp. 477497). New York: Guilford.
Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1977). Integrative complexity of communications in international crises.
Journal of Conict Resolution, 21, 169184.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Integrative complexity of American and Soviet foreign policy rhetoric: A time-
series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 15651585.
Vasudev, U. (1974). Indira Gandhi: Revolution in restraint. Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Walker, S. G. (1977). The interface between beliefs and behavior: Henry Kissingers operational code
and the Vietnam War. Journal of Conict Resolution, 21, 120168.
Walker, S. G. (1995). Psychodynamic processes and framing effects in foreign policy decision-making:
Woodrow Wilsons operational code. Political Psychology, 16, 697717.
Walker, S. G., & Falkowski, L. S. (1984). The operational codes of U.S. presidents and secretaries of
state: Motivational foundations and behavioral consequences. Political Psychology, 5, 237265.
Winter, D. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press.
Winter, D. (1980). An exploratory study of the motives of southern African political leaders measured
at a distance. Political Psychology, 2, 7585.
Indira Gandhi 789
Winter, D. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive proles of leaders and follow-
ers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 52, 196202.
Winter, D. (1988). The power motive in womenand men. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 54, 510519.
Winter, D. (1992). Personality and foreign policy: Historical overview of research. In Singer, E., &
Hudson, V. (Eds.), Political psychology and foreign policy. Boulder: Westview Press.
Winter, D. (1995). Presidential psychology and governing styles: Acomparative psychological analy-
sis of the 1992 presidential candidates. In S. A. Renshon (Ed.), The Clinton presidency: Cam-
paigning, governing and the psychology of leadership (pp. 113134). Boulder: Westview Press.