During my years as a senior executive I found that one of the most important tools we had for hiring the right managers and avoiding bullies was a psychological assessment. The results spoke for themselves and most went on to be outstanding leaders. Should the top jobs in the United States government be held to no less a standard?
As excellent as some of the questions have been during the cabinet nominee confirmation hearings —kudos to Sen. Elizabeth Warren for being extremely well prepared—what is not being assessed is psychological and emotional stability. In my new book, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire I have devoted an entire chapter to understanding a candidate’s emotional and psychological fitness. The congressional committees currently questioning Donald Trump’s nominees need this information in order to do their jobs properly.
What seems clear is that Trump is populating his cabinet with people who because of wealth or temperament are used to getting their own way and don’t factor in the information they need to make informed decisions. In this recent article in POLITICO, Trump’s biographers discussed how his competitive personality and fragile ego has created someone who prefers to pick fights and game the system for his own profit. The people he’s assembled (with perhaps the exception of Marine General James Mattis) seem to be cut from the same cloth. They are clearly lacking in inclusiveness, sensitivity and temperament. Sadly, the same can be said for the man who will be inaugurated tomorrow. His lack of psychological suitability is no surprise—The Atlantic wrote about it back in June—but a law requiring an assessment for these top jobs would go a long way to protecting the country, and the world, from unsuitable leaders.
Credit: Washington Post