1. The article compares the personality and leadership style of Mao Zedong and Xi Jinping using the Big Five personality model, focusing on charisma, political tolerance, and need for achievement.
2. The study finds that both leaders exhibit charisma, limited political tolerance, and a strong need for achievement, but there are also differences in their personalities and leadership styles.
3. The use of the Big Five model provides a more meaningful and concrete comparison between the two leaders and can help assess political leadership in general.
The article "Can Xi Jinping be the next Mao Zedong? Using the Big Five Model to Study Political Leadership" by Francesco Sisci seeks to compare the personalities and leadership styles of Mao Zedong and Xi Jinping using the Big Five personality model. The author argues that while both leaders share charisma, limited political tolerance, and a need for achievement, their similarities do not necessarily lead to similar political outcomes.
The article provides a comprehensive review of previous studies on political leadership and the Big Five model, highlighting its potential in determining leadership style. However, it fails to acknowledge potential biases in using this model as a tool for analysis. The Big Five model is based on Western cultural values and may not accurately reflect personality traits in other cultures. Additionally, the use of psycholinguistic analysis to assess personality traits from speeches may not provide an accurate representation of a leader's true personality.
The article also presents some unsupported claims, such as the assumption that Xi Jinping deploys a similar leadership style and political practice to those of Mao Zedong without providing sufficient evidence for this claim. Furthermore, the article does not explore counterarguments or alternative explanations for similarities between Mao and Xi's leadership styles.
There is also a lack of consideration given to potential risks associated with comparing contemporary leaders to historical figures like Mao Zedong. This comparison could potentially lead to oversimplification and misinterpretation of current events in China.
Overall, while the article provides an interesting perspective on comparing political leadership using psychological models, it falls short in acknowledging potential biases and limitations in its methodology and presenting balanced arguments.