Abstract
The external image of party leaders has often been analysed through their behaviour or reflection in the media. However, we know little about how party leaders are seen internally. This article addresses this gap in the literature and seeks to explain what determines the variation in party members’ perceptions of leadership styles. It builds on the transactional–transformational continuum and uses original survey data from a modified version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The analysis includes 12 political parties with parliamentary representation from Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania between 2004 and 2018. The findings of the mixed-effects linear regression illustrate that in general older and active party members are more likely to see their leaders as transformational. The determinants of leadership style assessment differ greatly across political parties.
Highlights
Party leaders are of great importance to politics and to their political parties
This article addresses this gap in the literature and focuses on members’ assessment of party leadership styles. It seeks to explain what determines the variation in party members’ perceptions about leadership styles by looking at 12 political parties with parliamentary representation in three East European countries (Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania) between 2004 and 2018. It builds on the transactional–transformational continuum (Avolio and Bass, 1995; Bass, 1999; Burns, 1978) and uses original survey data from a modified version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
The results indicate that longer membership in a political party is positively associated with more transformational assessments of the leadership style
Summary
Many transformations in contemporary democracies are triggered by party leaders They pursue a series of actions ranging from voter mobilisation or the use of political power in their (or their party’s) best interest to policymaking for a higher quality of governance. Within their parties, leaders are actively involved in the recruitment of political personnel; in adopting, setting and promoting the party policy agenda; in establishing connections with the electorate; coordinating the party and shaping its organisation; or becoming its public image (Cross and Pilet, 2016; Hazan and Rahat, 2010; Norris, 1997; Scarrow et al, 2000; Webb et al, 2012). Whether it is the case of new parties, fringe parties or mainstream parties, leaders rise to prominence (Blondel and Thiébault, 2010; Bolleyer and Bytzek, 2017; Poguntke and Webb, 2005; Rahat and Sheafer, 2007)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The British Journal of Politics and International Relations
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
