National leaders’ thinking: What we’ve learned so far…
In this article, I’ll be providing a summary of results from each group of leaders observed as part of Lectica’s National Leaders’ Study. Each time my colleagues and I complete a round of research for a particular group of national leaders, the results will first be presented in a special article, then summarized here. This article will be written and rewritten over several months, with regular updates. If at any point you want to get a quick sense of what we’ve learned so far, just come back to this article for an overview.
Summary of quantitative results
The following table compares the scores received by the leaders of countries included in the National Leaders’ Study so far. (If you don’t yet know what I mean by complexity level, see the first article in this series.
- Lowest score: The average complexity level of President Trump’s interviews was 1054 — near the average score received by 12th graders in a good high school.
- Highest score: The mean score for President Obama’s first two interviews was 1193. This is well above the average score received by CEOs in Lectica’s database and is in the ideal range for a national leader, who must be able to comprehend and work with issues that have a complexity level of 1200 and above.
- Fit-to-role: With the exception of Barack Obama, none of the leaders so far has demonstrated (in their interviews) a level of complexity that is a good match for the complexity level of many of the problems faced in office (1200+).
- Third interview scores: The scores of three out of 5 leaders whose scores at time 1 were above the level of average media scores — Barack Obama, Tony Abbott, and Malcolm Turnbull — dropped closer to media averages in their third interviews. We’re monitoring this potential trend.
- Media score comparison: The mean score for sampled U. S. media was 13 points higher than the mean score for Australian media.
- Leader score comparison: If we exclude President Trump as an extreme outlier, the average score for U. S. Presidents was 9 points higher than the average score for Australian prime ministers.
- Difficulty evaluating candidates: In the interest of accessibility, voters are systematically being deprived of the evidence required to evaluate the competence of candidates. High-profile interview responses of national leaders are often the only place to observe anything like the actual thinking of candidates for office, yet it is well known that candidates and leaders are trained to simplify responses to interview questions. Moreover, national leaders’ speeches are written in language that simplifies issues to make them more accessible to the general public, and many candidates have not produced written works that can be relied upon as evidence of current capacity.
- Danger of electing incompetent candidates: When all candidates produce responses and read speeches in which issues are systematically simplified, it becomes very difficult to distinguish between different candidates’ level of understanding. This makes it easier to elect candidates that lack the level of understanding and skill required to cope with highly complex national and international issues.
Other articles in this series
- If a U.S. President thought like a teenager…
- The complexity of national leaders’ thinking: How does it measure up?
- National leaders’ thinking: U.S. Presidents
- National leaders’ thinking: Australian prime ministers
- President Trump on climate change
- President Trump on immigration
- President Trump on intelligence
- President Trump passed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment