Most people would say that President Obama and former President Bush are two very different personalities. Approval for each is split largely on party lines, their policies are virtually opposites in many ways, and the one is famously gifted as a communicator, while the other is not.
And yet there is one way in which the two leaders are very much alike. Both are possessed with enormous self-confidence. Indeed, many commentators wrote of former President Bush that his confidence was so absolute that it prevented him from seeing other sides to issues. These commentators faulted him for a lack of self-reflection. When he was asked at a press conference to discuss a mistake he had made, President Bush was famously unable to come up with any.
Few of those same commentators would make similar comments about President Obama. He has already admitted to mistakes during his short tenure in office. And he is widely credited with being open to considering ideas from all parts of the political spectrum.
But Obama oozes self-confidence even while he appears to be more open-minded than his predecessor. And commentators today commend that self-confidence, arguing that we need a strong leader to take us through these difficult economic times.
Why is self-confidence suddenly an asset for President Obama when it was widely considered to be a liability for President Bush? Is there any difference between the two leaders’ self-confidence? How can we understand the apparent about-face in the reaction of the general population to confidence in their leader?
The answer to these questions lies in both men’s non-verbal communication. When President Bush presided at a press conference, for example, his self-confidence was undercut by his hunched shoulders, his halting answers, his querulous tone, and his defensive posture. His self-confidence seemed to be at odds, therefore, with his non-verbal ‘conversation’ with the audience. When we see this kind of internal tension, we tend to assume that there is something inauthentic going on.
President Obama, on the other hand, has self-consistent body language. His self-confidence is supported by his erect posture, his ready smile, and his confident tone. The package appears to be authentic. He appears to be a person who is comfortable in his own skin.
Regardless of your political views, the two men are a case study in self-confidence and authenticity. You can’t succeed with the former unless you have the latter. I talk much more about this tension in my new book, Trust Me: Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma.
What do you make of Obama’s extraordinary reliance on the teleprompter? I was really surprised when I read this…and the press observation about the absence of eye contact because he’s so focused on the teleprompter screens?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090305/pl_politico/19663_1
What do you make of Obama’s extraordinary reliance on the teleprompter? I was really surprised when I read this…and the press observation about the absence of eye contact because he’s so focused on the teleprompter screens?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090305/pl_politico/19663_1
Great question. When Obama is speaking, he’s performing. Unlike Clinton, who was a consummate ad-libber, Obama sticks pretty close to the text, with only minor ad-libs in the moment. That means that he’s not thinking about the text, per se, as much as he’s thinking about connecting with the audience. It’s hard to do both at once. Some people are better at it than others! During the campaign, when he delivered a speech that was largely the same hundreds of times, he was less dependent on the prompter, except for the new paragraphs that were added day to day.
Great question. When Obama is speaking, he’s performing. Unlike Clinton, who was a consummate ad-libber, Obama sticks pretty close to the text, with only minor ad-libs in the moment. That means that he’s not thinking about the text, per se, as much as he’s thinking about connecting with the audience. It’s hard to do both at once. Some people are better at it than others! During the campaign, when he delivered a speech that was largely the same hundreds of times, he was less dependent on the prompter, except for the new paragraphs that were added day to day.