Competent Commanders: Why Leader Backgrounds Affect Conflict Management

• In Event: Poster Session: International Security II

Abstract

How does the public assign culpability for international conflict outcomes (e.g. casualties, territorial gain/loss) when the reasons a conflict began are unclear? Findings indicate that individuals are more likely to blame leaders for conflicts they initiate and that leaders are more likely to exert effort to winning a conflict when they are perceived as culpable (Croco 2011). However, determining whether a given leader is responsible for the initiation of conflict can be difficult when leaders commonly frame any conflict as a last resort option that the other side forced them to choose. I theorize that individuals heuristically analyze the competence of their leaders by reviewing their professional experience prior to office to determine if they are responsible for the outcomes generated from conflict. It is possible that leaders with high levels of experience in military affairs prior to reaching office are treated differently than those without traits that generate perceived competence over conflict even when these leaders generate similar gains/losses from fighting. Initial results from an original survey utilizing an embedded natural experiment indicate that a leader’s professional background affects the amount of competence an individual perceives them to have. Additionally, a high level of perceived competence possesses the potential to shield leaders from criticism where low levels make them easy targets for blame. This research employs Bayesian Factor Analysis to generate measures of perceived competence over conflict from the LEAD data for political executives (e.g. presidents, prime ministers, and dictators). With these scores in hand, I examine whether a leader’s perceived competence affects the ways in which they fight wars in a cross-national setting.

Author

• William Christiansen, University of South Carolina