The Emotional Intelligence of Contrary Combinations: The Doublechecker-Politician

As I have blogged earlier we should consider our temperament as a web with seven strands.  Each strand represents one of the seven Humm components.  We have all seven strands in our personality but some are stronger than others.  Typically for most of us two strands are stronger than average, three are around average and two are weaker than average.  What makes for interesting combinations is when the two stronger strands are antagonistic.  For example take a temperament where the two strongest strands are the Doublechecker and Politician components.  Politician loves to make decisions while Doublecheckers do not because of the fear they will make a mistake.

Whether two components work together or fight each other depends of the level of Normal component.  The DP suffers from underlying feelings of insecurity but attempts to mask these feelings beneath a veneer of aggressive criticism.  They like to look important but will probably never be satisfied.  In their Normal is low they will be outspoken in criticism of their work situation and will be disgruntled without cause.  Often their attitudes have an undertone of bitterness.  Obtaining the co-operation of a DP is difficult. They are negative perfectionists, seeing all those areas in which proposals fall short of ideal.  They are outspoken in their criticism of new ideas or innovations.  If your proposal is not well thought out, their cynicism will often destroy it.  You need to overlook their sarcastic and often unfounded criticism, and counteract their pessimism with optimism.

DPs often become either operational or administration managers.  They make decisions carefully but having made the decision adhere to it.  They suspect that people are trying to take advantage of them and are very watchful for such attempts.  Their staff often fears them because they freely criticise shortcomings in their employees' performance.

If the Normal is high then the D and P work together and lead to carefully considered decisions.  A great example of such a person is the former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard.  Howard comes across a compassionate, conscientious individual.  The Labor party often tried to criticise Howard for being over-cautious and dithering.  Howard was certainly cautious making decisions which is in conflict with his P component.  Ps generally like to make decisions.  On the other hand, if a D decides to adopt a cause, he can attack it with an energy and persistence that surprises his colleagues.  So it was with Howard when he attacked the issues of gun-control and tax reform.  Although he was attacked incessantly by the media during his tenure he did manage to win four elections.  Even more surprising in a recent poll Howard has been named Australia’s best prime minister of the past 40 years attracting 39% of the vote, followed by Bob Hawke with 14%.