Table 5.
Importance of factors for leadership support 2010, by role (percentages)
Structural leadership | Directional leadership | Idea-based leadership | Common good | Self interest | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
High | Low | High | Low | High | Low | High | Low | High | Low | |
Negotiator (n = 142) | 42 | 8 | 52 | 2 | 49 | 3 | 75 | 5 | 43 | 10 |
Government (n = 131) | 44 | 7 | 47 | 1 | 57 | 3 | 76 | 6 | 46 | 11 |
NGO (n = 181) | 45 | 7 | 60 | 3 | 63 | 4 | 81 | 3 | 22 | 28 |
Research (n = 40) | 42 | 11 | 55 | 2 | 46 | 2 | 80 | 2 | 22 | 19 |
Business (n = 50) | 41 | 9 | 45 | 11 | 60 | 0 | 67 | 8 | 29 | 17 |
UN and IGO (n = 32) | 47 | 12 | 35 | 9 | 45 | 16 | 63 | 12 | 32 | 28 |
Media (n = 40) | 38 | 7 | 46 | 12 | 53 | 2 | 65 | 5 | 34 | 14 |
All | 43 | 8 | 50 | 5 | 56 | 4 | 74 | 4 | 33 | 19 |
The importance of the factors for supporting a particular leader are measured on a scale from 1 (respondents disagree strongly) to 7 (respondents agree strongly). For each of the five factors, the first column, “High,” displays the share of respondents answering with a “6” or “7,” thus indicating a high degree of importance for this factor. The second column, “Low,” displays the share of respondents answering with a “1” or “2,” thus indicating a low degree of importance for this factor