The first presidential debate has been broadcast and pollsters have Mrs Clinton as the champion of round one, following a confident performance, with CNN declaring her the winner of the debate - at least according to 62 per cent of viewers. As the dust settles, CNN’s view seems to be shared across all media outlets. For now, at least, Clinton is the boss
Clinton certainly demonstrated preparation when she took to the stage, while the hot-headed Trump did not seem to have control of his facts and reverted to bluster on occasion. (It remains to be seen whether or not the latter will have hurt himself much with this outing). Unsurprisingly, Trump was quick to get personal, accusing Clinton of not having the right temperament to be president.
The issue of temperament is not to be overlooked as whoever finds him or herself with the top job is also going to have to take instruction from Congress. That individual will have to manage and be managed and will need to be able to take on board the views of a team. What would these personalities actually be like and how would they act if given the presidency?
It’s interesting to look at Clinton and Trump and consider how they would manage others, once in the role, because there are offices up and down our own country filled with bad managers and we all know that it can be a nightmare situation. Taken on this level, with the stakes so high, it could be nigh on catastrophic if the wrong ‘manager’ gets the job – and not just for the United States !
Trump has often been described as having a narcissistic personality. He is clearly prone to grandiosity and self-importance; combative, provocative and utterly self-absorbed. He’s one of the most unconventional characters to enter any US presidential race yet, however some of those characteristics, including the more damning ones, are shared by many business leaders and managers around the world and have been used to obtain great results.
Clinton, on the other hand, is an assertive planner and a steady and unflappable individual. Although her public perception took a battering following the leaking of private emails (with many seeing this as evidence that she is an untrustworthy candidate), she is resilient and is more than a match for all opponents.
Like many bosses, both candidates polarize opinion. Some would say that it is a choice between two evils with these opposing characters. As it has been pointed out, this race would most definitely benefit from a third runner as there doesn’t seem to be much middle ground.
The reality of it, though, is that most bosses are larger than life figures with a lot of energy and authority and there are some characteristics that are not necessarily attractive but are universal to those who hold positions of power.
As long as the good outweighs the bad, in the main, then it works okay. We’re happy with strong, direct and clear; however, none of us cope that well with controlling and distant.
In American politics, it’s been a battle of the sexes and Trump has historical issues with sexism; he’s been hauled up in the media over the years, (including during this campaign), each time he has very publicly dropped major clangers with reference to women. And so, with regard to the large number of women who state that they prefer male bosses overall, I am assuming that they weren’t thinking Donald Trump.
As for female bosses, I suspect that Hilary has a core strength that comes from years and years of experience, in life and in politics, and is a woman who takes no prisoners.
We’re ahead of the States in that we’re on to our second female prime minister in the UK now; whether it’s a man or a woman leading the country, it’s of no issue on our shores.
Let’s see if the US follows suit…