What makes hillary clinton a great leader

However, this statement from Hillary Clinton herself shows that, in contrast, she is not only connected to her emotions and has the ability to control them, but also that she is able to perceive that those observing her could misunderstand her ability to stay in control of her emotions as lack of emotion instead. It is obvious that Hillary Clinton possess intelligence, self-confidence, determination, and sociability by observing her and looking into her history. It is more difficult to assess her integrity and emotional intelligence accurately from afar so these are traits that must be assessed using the information we have access to.

It seems that her ability to understand how others perceive her as well as her self-proclaimed ability to stay in control of her emotions, show that she is emotionally intelligent. Her integrity is something we can only discuss in regards to how she handles her duties in public office and the fact that any investigations into the scandals she has been involved in have ended uneventfully and without any tangible proof that she acted dishonestly.

If we were judging her leadership skill based on the trait theory, we would likely conclude that Hillary Clinton possesses what it takes to succeed as a leader. Final Benghazi report details administration failures. Laura Meckler. Northouse, P.

As the Financial Times reported:. Read what an everywomanClub member has to say about authentically changing your personal brand: Vanda Forward on successfully navigating career changes.

Hillary Clinton did both, in one televised debate. When asked by a rabbi how she would treat the balance between ego and humility should she become the next US President, she replied:.

I always wanted to be of service. I met my husband, who was such a natural, knew exactly what he wanted to do…. I never thought I would do this. And when pressed by a CNN anchor on the private email scandal, she shrugged off her earlier defensiveness and said:.

But after hearing it 11, 12, 15 times, I began to take it seriously, ask more questions about it. And as I did, the Gap began to make more sense. Modern presidential campaigns are built to reward people who are really, really good at talking.

What would you do? When Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in , she tried to do something very strange: She tried to campaign by listening. The frustration pulses through the piece. What the hell is a listening tour, anyway? Is it just one more way a secretive politician who combines radical views with a crippling fear of controversy can hide her true beliefs?

How will anyone get close to her? Clinton began her campaign with a listening tour, as well, and it is worth considering the possibility that these tours are not simply bullshit.

When the appointed day arrived, Clinton had laid out two card tables alongside two huge suitcases. She opened the suitcases, and they were stuffed with newspaper clippings, position papers, random scraps of paper. It turned out that Clinton, in her travels, stuffed notes from her conversations and her reading into suitcases, and every few months she dumped the stray paper on the floor of her Senate office and picked through it with her staff.

The card tables were for categorization: scraps of paper related to the environment went here, crumpled clippings related to military families there. These notes, Rubiner recalls, really did lead to legislation. Clinton took seriously the things she was told, the things she read, the things she saw.

She made her team follow up. Her process works the same way today. We ran a lot of elections in the United States before we let women vote in them. You do not need to assert any grand patriarchal conspiracy to suggest that a process developed by men, dominated by men, and, until relatively late in American life, limited to men might subtly favor traits that are particularly prevalent in men.

Talking is a way of changing your status: If you make a great point, or set the terms of the discussion, you win the conversation. And winning allies is how Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination. Given where both candidates began, there is no doubt that Bernie Sanders proved the more effective talker. His speeches attracted larger audiences, his debate performances led to big gains in the polls, his sound bites went more viral on Facebook.

Sanders rally, Chico, California, June Yet Clinton proved the more effective listener — and, particularly, the more effective coalition builder. On the eve of the California primary, members of Congress had endorsed Clinton, and only eight had endorsed Sanders.

Over those 30 years, she has met a lot of those people, stayed in touch with them, treated them decently, campaigned for them.

One way of reading the Democratic primary is that it pitted an unusually pure male leadership style against an unusually pure female leadership style. Sanders is a great talker and a poor relationship builder. Clinton is a great relationship builder and a poor talker.

In this case — the first time at the presidential level — the female leadership style won. Thus was her core political strength reframed as a weakness.

I want to be very clear here. Nor am I saying Clinton should have won. Campaigns built on charismatic oration feel legitimate in a way that campaigns built on deep relationships do not.

And they are particularly relevant to the way Clinton governs. In her book Why Presidents Fail , Brookings scholar Elaine Kamarck argues that "successful presidential leadership occurs when the president is able to put together and balance three sets of skills: policy, communication, and implementation.

The problem, Kamarck says, is that campaigns are built to test only one of those skills. Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination by forming a coalition. And part of how she forms coalitions is by listening to her potential partners — both to figure out what they need and to build her relationships with them.

Admit mistakes. There is such a thing as a good apology. It includes, in addition to good timing usually sooner is better than later , the following:.

Given the logic of this sequence, leaders who are oblivious to the virtues of being vulnerable and who, therefore, deny to the end they were wrong, are, at the least, unsettling. If Hillary is to make good on her early promise, she will have to do so quickly. About Obama she can do nothing—but about Clinton she can do something. You have 1 free article s left this month.