National Party leader Christoper Luxon reveals his playbook for Cyclone Gabrielle recovery, and responds to his MP Maureen Pugh refusing to say she believes in man-made climate change. Video / NZ Herald
OPINION
A change of leader and a correction in poll results positions Labour as a contender in the 2023 election. Policy differences and potential coalition partners will give the electorate a clear choice. So why bother with talking about who leads Labour or National?
Because in seven of the pasteight elections the politician who was leading the most preferred Prime Minister stakes before the election formed the next government. The exception was Jacinda Ardern in 2017 – there was little between her and Bill English (she was ahead on six of 11 polls), but she came through as the winner with the support of Winston Peters.
This “presidential” effect means that there is serious attention paid to the individuals who could be leaders. What do we know about the two men who will be competing for the role of next New Zealand Prime Minster? What can we deduce about their personality, and how will that play during the campaign?
New Zealand and international research indicate that extroverted, especially dominant people are more likely to achieve leadership positions.
Christopher Luxon describes himself as “an extrovert who knows how to lead people”. He has led big organisations with many employees, most recently Air New Zealand (with 14,000 people). Under Luxon’s lead, Air New Zealand delivered record profits and customer satisfaction ratings. After entering Parliament as a member for Botany, Luxon rapidly gained leadership of the National Party.
Chris Hipkins also has leadership experience. He was head boy at Hutt Valley Memorial College, later known as Petone College (where, according to his father, he was voted the student of his year most likely to become Prime Minister). At Victoria University, he was president of the students association, and then as an MP, leader of the House.
These experiences indicate that both politicians are motivated to take the lead. But what is their style of leadership? Does their personality influence the way they lead?
Both are conscientious. Putting in the effort is more visible in Hipkins’ case as a result of his public roles as the minister of a range of portfolios, and now the face of the Government’s response to Gabrielle’s destruction.
Word preferences can indicate personality. In their maiden speeches, both used task-oriented words such as “challenge”, “ambition”, “goals”, and “plan”. Luxon was consistently ahead in using such “action words”, for example, mentioning “work” or variations such as “hardworking” 20 times to Hipkins’ eight. This “can-do” orientation of Luxon could be the unique flavour of his leadership.
As we know, the use of personal pronouns is also a clue to personality. Job candidates are coached to toot their trumpet by using “I” frequently – making it clear who was responsible for the marvellous accomplishments they describe.
There is evidence that the over-use of such first-person pronouns (including “me”, “my”, “mine”, and ‘myself’) is indicative of personal insecurity, and of relevance to our efforts here, not seen in leaders. Instead, leaders are notable for using first-person plural pronouns (”we”, “us”, “our”). There is evidence that the use of such words indicates trait agreeableness. Interviewers are inclined to interpret such “we-words” as indicators of a candidate’s “teaminess”, or possibly that they are stretching the truth.
No surprise that in their maiden speeches, the two new MPs were keen to talk up their relevant experience and pushed the “I-words”, but Hipkins used a higher proportion of the “we-words”, so he is ahead on this metric.
An inclination to use the inclusive “we” could make it easier to get people onside and aligned with the vision the leader is promoting. Some commentators suggest there is a gap between these two in “relatability”, suggesting Hipkins could have an edge in terms of such influence.
Hipkins expressed what could be described as “righteous anger” in his maiden speech – describing commercial interests profiteering from vulnerable people as “morally repugnant”. Luxon in his speech called out the Government for missed targets (including child poverty) emphasising that this “is not good enough”. Hipkins is probably more volatile in temperament.
Stewart Forsyth. Photo / Supplied
There is another metric that helps identify the final trait – openness. This trait comprises intellectual curiosity and the inclination to challenge conventional wisdom. Conservatives tend to be lower on this trait. John Key described Luxon as, like him, “economically conservative”.
Maiden speeches yielded a difference in the rate the two newbie MPs used “articles” of speech (”a”, “an” and “the”). Analysis of bloggers’ writing indicated a positive correlation between these words and openness. Hipkins is higher than Luxon on this indicator.
Conservatives are less keen on the disruptive innovation that the open-minded might promote. Possibly less disruption is what the New Zealand electorate is yearning for in a threatening and dangerous world.
In summary, Luxon is likely to emphasise getting things done, with an inclination to incrementalism. Hipkins will have a more matey approach to bringing people along, but that inclusiveness will not extend to those he sees working against the interests of his constituency.
From a standing start, Hipkins has been ahead of Luxon in the preferred Prime Minister ratings. He is consistently ahead across three polls (to February 13) since he became PM.
What will enable Luxon to achieve an edge in the preferred PM ratings? Can he lift his matey relatability? Can he land more blows against his opponent? Both would seem to be areas where he needs to take on Hipkins.
- Stewart Forsyth is an executive coach and organisational psychologist.
