Readers have been listening to and watching the ongoing national election sagas in both Canada and the United States for some time now.

Each of the party leaders has been criss-crossing the country and sharing their vision of the future. They speak to one crowd of listeners after another in their attempt to woo support as they strive to land that coveted job of national leader.

Unlike corporate selection campaigns, national elections are highly aggressive and competitive. They are flanked by large groups of both supporters who participate and try to influence the vote.

On the other hand, there are always the naysayers who constantly seek out candidate flaws or those who act as underground investigators busily researching any sign that previous actions could potentially be used to sling mud and defame candidates, thus influencing the outcome of the selection process.

Day after day we hear promises from candidates, critiques from the analysts and a tally of costs from groups of observers. The scrutiny is incredible. At the same time, both the Canadian and U.S. national election campaigns offer some good lessons for all of us, candidates and employers included.

First of all, it is very obvious that selecting a candidate for the top job is not easy. There are so many variables to consider. The selection criteria required for a job at that level are pretty comprehensive.

Yet at the same time, it is a good lesson on how the difference between charisma and substance influences voter choice. We know that TV producers often select people for "personality, personality and personality," yet we well know that charisma alone will not make a successful leader. In fact, corporate experience and national political experience have shown that personality and charisma without substance often leads to plenty of trouble.

It doesn't take long to think of those previously well-known, charismatic, narcissistic and arrogant leaders, who could quickly charm a roomful of people. Unfortunately, the problem was they believed the normal rules didn't apply to them. Today, some of these corporate folks are now in jail as a result of their troubled legacy, while the political field is littered with dropouts who now hide from the public.

On the other hand, some candidates try to impress us with their intellectual prowess and advanced vocabulary. They spend their "face time" trying to prove they know more than all of the others. Instead, they end up talking over people and demeaning them in the process. Their audience might view them as smart and having excellent critical thinking skills, but neither the voters nor corporate selection teams will be won over. In fact, they will be seen as having a rather annoying personality.

So, here we are, stuck with the overwhelming challenge of assessing candidates on the value and influence of charisma versus intelligence versus experience versus the complex job at hand. Guaranteed, it is no easy task.

So what can organizations do? In my mind, there is no way around it; organizations must develop a rigorous process for interviewing and measuring their potential candidates. The following candidate selection tips should be kept in mind.

Determine the selection criteria -- This is much more than simply listing a series of duties. It involves the identification of specific skills required for the job accompanied by sample accomplishments you would like to see in a candidate. This allows you to definitively measure the candidate against your skillset.

Measure charisma -- Accept the fact that there is no doubt charisma will be important in terms of creating a sense of energy and influence in your organization. But take time to determine what level of charisma will be effective versus a negative influence. Next, conduct a personality and communication style assessment that can predict on-the-job performance and which will enable you to determine whether the charisma is simply self confidence and/or whether it is so extreme it represents too much of the dark side. If you aren't confident in doing this assessment yourself, hire an expert.

Apply behaviour descriptive question format -- Research has proven time and time again that future on-the-job performance is predictable based on previous performance. This has led to the behaviour descriptive interview question format that asks for real examples of previous work. Charismatic candidates often cannot get specific enough with the details of their previous work while intellectuals bury into so many details that they lose the big picture. Look for a balance of these traits.

Assess for team credit -- Senior executive candidates, either charismatic or those who tout their intellectual prowess, have difficulty sharing credit for accomplishments and success. Be sure to ask questions that focus on this willingness to share credit.

Assess for admissions -- Charismatic and intellectual type candidates also have difficulty admitting mistakes, accepting blame or receiving challenging personal feedback. They get defensive in both their body language and their words. Their answers are frequently nothing more than glib responses that leave you puzzled and confused about their role.

Build in multiple levels of assessment -- Candidates act differently in various situations, so it is important to involve them in a variety of selection activities such as dinner, a presentation, group meetings and/or a tour. Watch for signs of arrogance, argumentativeness, competitive, skepticism, blunt or abrasive behaviour.

Conduct broad reference checks -- The more broad you can be with your assessment, the more accurate the picture of the candidate's leadership style will be. Ask the candidates for a reference representing someone they reported to, someone who reported to them, a peer or colleague and a customer/vendor if possible.

Watch for behaviour change -- Charismatic and intellectual candidates often change their behaviour as you get closer to the salary negotiation stage for their new job. As this occurs, you begin to see "control" behaviours starting to emerge. Watch for requests to clarify misunderstandings, sudden unexpected demands and a changing of requests that may set the candidate apart from the rest of your standard policies. If ignored, red flags at this stage will more often than not turn into disaster within a few short months.

Source: Charisma in the workplace, Maggie Van Ostrand, © 2008 MDA Leadership Consulting, Inc. 2008