Decision-making & Analytics
Leadership: A face that fits by Dawn Eubanks
suggests both party leaders would do well to focus on their personal appeal as the election approaches, particularly the way they smile. The experimental study was conducted with Patrick Stewart from the University of Arkansas, Erik Bucy from Texas Tech University, and Carl Senior from Aston University. We analysed emotional responses to the leaders of the three major UK political parties during the week leading up to the General Election in December 2019. A total of 546 potential voters took part in the study. All could be considered partisan, having declared a political preference for one party or another. We asked participants to watch campaign footage of the three leaders – Boris Johnson, then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson – and report how they felt in response to different smiles from each politician. Did they feel happiness, affinity, anger, or distress? Not all smiles are equal. Some convey ‘affiliation’ or a desire for social interaction. Others convey ‘reward’ and indicate merely that the smiling individual is feeling happiness or satisfaction. Affiliative smiles engage the main muscles typically used for smiling, such as the zygomaticus major, which pulls the corners of the mouth upward. However, these smiles
are rarely seen around the eyes. They are commonly used prior to negotiations to show co-operative intent. Reward smiles engage the same muscles as the affiliative equivalent, but also involve the orbicularis oculi, which produces wrinkles around the eyes. This fosters an overall impression of softness, which is sometimes associated with empathy. When combined with the masseter, a muscle involved in chewing, and the depressor labii inferioris, which exposes the teeth, it may also result in a slight jaw drop. These are often deemed more appropriate after a successful conclusion has been reached. “The dynamic between leaders and followers could be decisive” The emotions of each participant were measured in response to all three leaders as they displayed both affiliative and reward smiles. Ultimately, we wanted to know if the facial expressions of political leaders had any impact on political attitudes and decisions. Our results showed that only one type of smile from one leader had any significant influence. That was the affiliative smile of Boris Johnson. The former Prime Minister’s smile drove the highest level of positive response across the partisan divide.
and Swinson failed to generate a significant shift in participant emotion – as did Johnson’s reward smile. These findings highlight the importance of considering the role of emotional responses in politics. Social identity continues to have a major impact on how voters respond to political parties. However, the individual appeal of party leaders has become increasingly influential. A smile can’t win an election on its own. But Johnson’s strengths are Sunak and Starmer’s weaknesses. His personal appeal transcended party policies, connecting with people who hadn’t intended to vote for him, and in the end the Conservatives went from a minority government to a huge majority. It is akin to the crossover appeal that helped Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan to victory in the US Presidential Elections. That is precisely what Starmer and Sunak are striving for. The dynamic between leaders and followers could be decisive in the context of the next General Election, where votes appear to be up for grabs. The upside for Sunak and Starmer is that charisma is not an innate quality. It can be taught. By paying attention to their facial behaviour and ensuring they display the right smile in the right context, they can still leverage the power of emotional responses. In the event of a closely contested election, that could be enough to ensure they are the one grinning on their way into Downing Street.
TO THE CORE
A ppearances can be deceptive. The adage rings true when selecting a leader. Board members choosing a company CEO – and voters electing a Prime Minister – should weigh all the relevant information, including the competence and trustworthiness of each candidate. Facial appearance should have little bearing on the decision. But it frequently does. Our tendency to form instantaneous judgements based on facial appearance probably served some evolutionary purpose, such as helping social groups quickly identify who could be trusted. My research shows that people can accurately identify different classes of leaders from facial appearance alone. The cues that people use to draw these conclusions are sparse, but nevertheless they are able to identify military, business and sports leaders by domain with a surprising degree of accuracy. Interestingly, political leaders proved more difficult to categorise. While facial appearance appears to be a factor in how leaders are chosen, how we expect them to act, and what salary they are paid, it does not seem to predict their performance as a leader. Perhaps our animal brain is not fully compatible with our current world and all its complexity.
1. Not all smiles are equal. Some convey ‘affiliation’ or a desire for social interaction. Others convey ‘reward’. Research showed Boris Johnson’s ‘affiliative’ smile received a more positive response across the partisan divide than those of other political leaders. 2. Instantaneous judgements based on facial appearance frequently influence our choice of leader, in politics and in business. 3. Charisma can be taught. By adapting their facial behaviour, leaders can leverage the power of emotional responses. 4. Consistently signalling competence and trustworthiness can also help aspiring leaders to convince selectors they are the best candidate.
Simply being aware of bias is not sufficient to prevent it creeping into our decision-making. It needs to be a first step towards ensuring that selection happens in an objective and systematic way.
“Facial appearance should have little bearing”
Failure to protect against our own bias can result in those with ‘the leadership look’ being selected into leadership positions early on and acquiring experience that their colleagues do not. That unfair advantage means their leadership success often owes more to early experience and exposure to leadership situations, and less to them being the most suitable candidate for the role. Other candidates who lacked the ‘leadership look’ may have performed just as well – or better – if they had been given the same opportunities. Aspiring leaders should also be aware of how they can overcome ‘face-ism’. By consistently signalling competence and trustworthiness through what they say and do, they can try to convince selectors that they are the most competent candidate, regardless of whether their face fits.
P ersonality may not be everything in politics, but it goes a long way. Yet the looming UK General Election is shaping as a battle between two managerial leaders who struggle to connect with the electorate on a personal level. Voters face a choice between the courtroom and the boardroom. In the red corner is Keir Starmer, In the blue corner is the current Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak. The former hedge fund director has not presided over the same level of chaos as his predecessor Boris Johnson, but nor does he have the charisma of the man who led the Conservatives to a landslide victory in 2019. Recent research I conducted with a team of collaborators the Labour leader who rose to prominence as Director of Public Prosecutions.
Find out more about Warwick Business School research on Decision-making and Analytics.
In other words, it didn’t matter if you intended to vote for Johnson, Corbyn or Swinson. If you saw Johnson’s affiliative smile, you felt good. The smiles of Corbyn
Sustainable Development Goals
Learn more about studying for an Accelerator MBA at Warwick Business School.
Warwick Business School | wbs.ac.uk
wbs.ac.uk | Warwick Business School
38
39
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog