Here’s a news release discussing Vivékin Group’s recent survey results

 

For Immediate Release

First-of-its-kind Survey Finds Clinton Regarded Better “Change-Agent” Than Obama, Has More “Leadership Intelligences”; Edwards Fares Poorly

The ability to handle or create change is indexed by five “leadership intelligences.” A survey conducted by Vivékin Group of Chapel Hill, NC, found that respondents rated Clinton higher than or on par with Obama in four of five intelligences. Obama was better than Clinton in only one category. Biden and Edwards ranked third and fourth respectively. Among Republicans, McCain was ranked best in three categories, with Ron Paul and Huckabee ranked best in one category each. Giuliani and Romney received uneven ratings.

Chapel Hill, NC. January 3, 2007 - Every Presidential candidate claims to be a “change agent.” How do you assess a candidate’s ability to deal with the unexpected or to create change? Such an ability is reflected by the leader’s intelligence-the ability to combine knowledge, experience, perception, and imagination to solve a new, unanticipated problem. But, intelligence does not mean its popular conceptualization as IQ. Through a decade of research at the Wharton School, Purdue University, and the University of Minnesota, the Chapel Hill, NC-based management consultancy firm, Vivékin Group has developed a framework that helps rank Presidential candidates on the basis of five kinds of leadership smarts (LSmarts): Analytical, Operational, Inventive, Communicative, & Ethical LSmarts.

These LSmarts may be defined as follows:

Analytical LSmarts: The ability to respond to new situations that call for analysis

Operational LSmarts: The ability to respond to surprise crises in operations

Inventive LSmarts: The ability to set a vision, to provide new ideas, to provide creative solutions

Communicative LSmarts: The ability to respond to new situations using communication skills

Ethical LSmarts: The ability to understand the ethical dimensions of a new issue or to perceive the ethical standpoints of others

In a four-day, web-based survey, respondents used this framework and rated Hillary Clinton higher than or on par with Obama in four of five intelligences. Obama was rated higher than Clinton in only one intelligence. Biden and Edwards ranked third and fourth respectively. Among Republicans, McCain was ranked best in three categories, with Ron Paul and Huckabee ranked best in one category each. Giuliani and Romney received uneven ratings.

The survey was also unique in involving respondents who are associated with the media. Since 36% of respondents were from media, interesting comparisons can be made between media- and non-media responses.

“This is the first survey of its kind, and we were surprised by the results,” said Dr. Baba Prasad, President and CEO of Vivékin Group. “While Senator Clinton is well-known for her analysis and operations-oriented nature, we were amazed that that she matched Senator Obama in areas that are considered his strengths: the ability to set a vision, and the ability to respond quickly using communication skills.”

Participation Statistics

35% or respondents are media persons - 65% are non-Media

58% Male - 42% Female;

Age Groups

46-60 years: 50%; 31-45 years: 31%; 18-30 years: 11%; 61-75 years: 8%

Other interesting observations from the survey

Respondents associated with the media (MR) versus non-media respondents (NMR)

1. MR rated Huckabee significantly higher for communicative intelligence than NMR did (77.8% versus 42.8%)

2. MR rated Clinton significantly higher for communicative intelligence than NMR did (94% versus 67%)

3. MR rated Obama higher for communicative intelligence than NMR did (89% versus 73.3%)

4. MR rated Clinton less for ethical intelligence than NMR did (44.0% versus 52.7%)

5. MR rated Obama significantly more for ethical intelligence than NMR did (77.7% versus 46.7%)

Gender differences?

Women were generally more guarded in giving candidates high ratings. Specifically, with regard to Clinton, women were harsher to her than men in three categories.

Men rated Huckabee significantly higher than women on communicative intelligence.

Overall, however, there was no significant trend in women or men favoring one candidate over another.

DETAILS OF RESULTS

[Percentage score reflects how many respondents ranked the candidate "High" or "Very High" in each leadership intelligence category; other categories were "Average", "Low", and "Very Low"]

Analytical LSmarts

(ability to respond to new situations requiring analysis)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
McCain	75.0%	Biden	80.0%
Giuliani	65.4%	Clinton	76.9%
Romney	61.6%	Obama	57.7%
Huckabee	15.4%	Edwards	52.0%

Operational LSmarts

(ability to respond to surprise crises in operations)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
McCain	75.0%	Clinton	70.9%
Giuliani	74.6%	Biden	56.5%
Romney	60.9%	Obama	45.9%
Ron Paul	28.5%	Richardson	41.0%
Huckabee	16.7%	Edwards	37.6%

Inventive LSmarts

(ability to set a vision, to provide new ideas)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
Ron Paul	61.9%	Clinton	68.0%
Giuliani	48.0%	Obama	68.0%
McCain	45.5%	Biden	57.7%
Romney	33.3%	Kucinich	39.1%
Huckabee	20.8%	Edwards	37.5%

Communicative LSmarts

(ability to respond to new situations using communication skills)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
Huckabee	56.7%	Clinton	79.2%
Ron Paul	54.6%	Obama	79.2%
Giuliani	50.0%	Edwards	52.1%
Romney	50.0%	Biden	39.1%
McCain	16.7%	Richardson	25.0%

Ethical LSmarts

(ability to understand the ethical dimensions of a new issue or

to perceive the ethical standpoints of others)

REPUBLICANS		DEMOCRATS
McCain	50.0%	Obama	58.4%
Romney	45.9%	Clinton	50.0%
Huckabee	39.1%	Biden	43.5%
Giuliani	24.7%	Edwards	43.4%
Ron Paul	23.8%	Richardson	33.3%

Vivékin Group has now opened a similar web-based survey to the general public at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=CVDmCfy5onWirBylihce0A_3d_3d

About Vivékin Group

Vivékin Group is a management consulting firm working with innovation and leadership development. Its pioneering ISmarts and LSmarts frameworks apply theories of human intelligence to innovation management and leadership development in corporate environments. Vivékin’s growing list of clients includes firms in India and Fortune 500 companies in the USA. Dr. Baba Prasad, President and CEO, got his Ph.D. at the Wharton School and taught at prestigious business schools before he founded Vivékin Group.

Interview Contact

Baba Prasad (Ph.D., The Wharton School)

President and CEO
Vivékin Group
919-338-8164
http://www.vivekingroup.com

###

Presidential Elections and “Change”

The 2008 Presidential election is all about change. As the candidates profess change and each claims to be “a change-agent”, we are left with the question of how to assess which candidate will be most able to achieve change. We’d like to invite you to rate the candidates (see link at bottom) but before that, let me give you a short introduction to a new framework.

At Vivékin Group, through a decade of research at the Wharton School, Purdue University, and the University of Minnesota, we have developed the LSmarts framework. This framework, which draws on theories of multiple intelligences, allows us to rank the Presidential candidates on their ability to handle and bring change on the basis of 5 leadership intelligences.

The Five Intelligences of Leadership
A true leader demonstrates the ability to chart a path in unmapped territory, and to lead a group, a community, a nation, or all of humankind itself, along this path toward progress. This ability of a leader becomes all the more critical when times are uncertain–the true leader demonstrates a flexibility to plan and take action in the face of unforeseen circumstances.

Leadership ability is thus reflected by that which marks us as quintessentially human: Intelligence—the ability to combine knowledge, experience, perception, and imagination to solve a problem. But, by intelligence we do not mean its popular conceptualization as IQ.

Building on recent advances in psychology research, we view leadership intelligence as more comprehensive and multi-faceted. A true leader for the future needs to possess five different kinds of leadership smarts (LSmarts): Analytical, Operational, Inventive, Communicative, & Ethical LSmarts.

1. Analytical LSmarts

A leader with Analytical LSmarts quickly defines or identifies problems and appropriate solutions. The leader is able to systematically acquire new knowledge and demonstrates an ability to learn both from successes and failures. Analytical LSmarts also allows the leader to monitor performance and take corrective action when necessary. For instance, one illustration of Analytical LSmarts will be when a candidate finds a smart–and yet, legal–way of getting around campaign finance laws.

2. Operational LSmarts

A leader with Operational LSmarts transforms ideas into action even when circumstances are not congenial. Such a leader is an agent of change, and is efficiency oriented.
Operational LSmarts can be seen when a candidate (or a campaign) is able to find ways of getting around factors such as bad weather or technology glitches that adversely affect operations, or during a hostage crisis.

An excellent example of a leader demonstrating Operational LSmarts is that of Jack Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis.

3. Inventive LSmarts

A leader with Inventive LSmarts demonstrates imagination. Such a leader carries and conveys a vision, and inspires the public with new ways of solving both old and new problems.

4. Communicative LSmarts

A leader with Communicative LSmarts demonstrates a capacity to persuade audiences. Such an ability is clearly evident in the Presidential debates where an example is that of Ronald Reagan who in the 1984 Presidential debate with Democrat Walter Mondale intelligently remarked that he would not make his opponent’s “youth and inexperience” an issue in the campaign.

5. Ethical LSmarts

A leader displays Ethical LSmarts when faced with an ethical dilemma. Ethical LSmarts are not about the ethical beliefs of a leader or how ethical you perceive the leader to be. It is also not about doing “good work” (as in “the ethical mind” that Howard Gardner of Harvard has proposed.) Rather, this aspect of intelligence reflects how capable the leader is of recognizing and understanding the ethical implications of a new situation. Ethical LSmarts bestow upon the leader a capacity to understand the ethical standpoints of people who do not share his or her ethics. Good examples of leaders who demonstrated ethical LSmarts are Abraham Lincoln (especially, his Gettysburg address) and Mahatma Gandhi.

An Invitation to You

We invite you to participate in the first-ever public application of this framework to assess leadership. We have an survey that you can access online and provide your assessment on both the Republicans and Democrats who wish to become the next President of the USA.

If you wish to participate in this unique experiment, please access the survey here.
It will open in a new window.

In an article in today’s New York Times, Matt Bai makes an interesting point about leadership. Toward the end of the article, he asks,

At the risk of triangulating, I think you could make a case that it would be awfully nice to have a leader who is both practiced and intuitive. But this question of where leadership comes from is a worthy one for people to think about.

At Vivekin Group, through research that brings together psychology and management, we find that leadership is closely tied to intelligence. Recent work by Howard Gardner of Harvard (see his book Five Minds for the Future), although slightly different from our framework, corroborates it. We find that leadership smarts (LSmarts) are five-dimensional: Analytical, Operational, Inventive, Communicative, and Ethical. LSmarts reflect a leader’s ability to think flexibly along these five dimensions. The framework brings together both left-brained thinking (Analytical and Operational LSmarts) and right-brained thinking (Communicative and Inventive LSmarts), apart from addressing the ethical dimension.

Ron Paul’s blimp is in the news because it’s flying near where I live. As the local news reports it,

“The blimp is being paid for by supporters who aren’t officially connected to Paul’s campaign. The blimp is scheduled to float up the East Coast past major cities.

The aerial billboard is emblazoned on one side with ‘Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul.’ The other side reads ‘Ron Paul Revolution.’”

I’m not a Ron Paulite, but I find this first Presidential blimp to be a fascinating innovation in campaign communication. Obviously, it is an excellent example of communicative ISmarts.

But the blimp idea is also a fantastic illustration of analytical ISmarts–in the way it gets people to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign while getting around campaign finance rules. Ron Paul supporters created a private company, Liberty Political Advertising, LLC, to finance it. However, since Liberty Political Advertising is not a political action committee or officially affiliated with the Paul campaign, it is not subject to campaign finance laws or regulations. So supporters who pay for the blimp are not considered contributors, but are instead, purchasers!