GUIDELINE FOR LEADERSHIP PROFILE: PRABOWO SUBIANTO

Leadership profiles should bring together all aspects of an individual's leadership style and draw implications from that overall assessment for trying to successfully engage or influence that leader. Good profiles can only be built on the basis of extensive research designed to uncover examples of the individual's past behavior. They reflect your analysis of the patterns in that behavior in relation to the elements of leadership style that form our analytic framework. Finally, the profiles must communicate your assessments in a clear and concise way that is guided by principles that come from the intelligence community but are relevant to good writing in many contexts.

The Parts of the Profile

A profile should have five major sections: Summary Statement, Biographical Note, Profile, Implications, and List of Sources. The Profile section itself may have up to five parts depending on the available data and your assessment of it.

Summary or Overview Statement

Biographical Note

Profile

o Motivation

o Thinking Style

o Belief System

o Information Environment

o Decision-making Style

Implications

List of Sources

All of these sections should begin with some kind of heading (e.g., Motivation, or Why Not the Best?).

Within the Profile section, include only those subsections about which you have something to say. Moreover, the actual order of these subsections will depend on the data and your assessment of the leader's style. The subsections should be included in an order that seems to best build the story you are trying to tell about your subject's style.

The length of the overall profile will vary depending on your data. For most leaders, a paper of 6-9 single spaced pages (11pt font) should be expected. The profile can also have up to two pictures. The first should be a portrait of the subject. A second should in some way graphically portray a point being made in the profile, but it should do so in a non-biasing way.

Summary Statement

This should be one short paragraph that summarizes the most important points of the profile. If someone reads only this paragraph, he or she should still have the necessary information to guide engagement or influence efforts. The last sentence should relate directly to influence efforts.

EXAMPLE: Benjamin Netanyahu sees himself as the savior of Israel and seeks to exercise and maintain political power within Israel toward that end. He is distrustful of others, including close associates, sees politics as a win-lose competition, and disregards all people and points of view with which he does not agree. Influencing Netanyahu requires that he sees proposals as consistent with his personal interests as well as his personal ideology.

Biographical Note

The main body of the profile should begin with a two-to-four paragraph biographical note that identifies who this person is and/or key aspects of his or her background that you want the reader to keep in mind. These paragraphs should be structured the same way as the paragraphs throughout the rest of profile: with an opening statement elaborated with relevant examples/information.

Example: Vladimir Putin, the 71-year-old President of the Russian Federation, served as a KGB officer for 16 years before the fall of the Soviet Union. From an early age, Putin wanted to become a KGB officer and pursued his studies toward that end. While in the KGB, Putin spent most of his time in East Germany and rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Putin rose quickly to power within the Russian Federation. From 1991 to 1996, he served in the administration of Mayor Anatoly Sobchak in Saint Petersburg, earning a reputation as a democratic reformer. He then moved to Moscow and joined the administration of President Boris Yeltsin. Putin became Acting President in 1999 when Yeltsin resigned. Putin was elected president in 2000. Barred from seeking a third consecutive term, Putin arranged to be appointed Prime Minister by Dimitry Medvedev (2008-2012). He was then re-elected President in 2012.

Profile

The main body of the profile should be divided into subsections that mirror the categories of our template. You should, however, only include those subsections and elements that are important to understanding your leader's style. You should focus on inferences in which you have at least moderate confidence or, if you have low confidence, could have a high impact on the success of engagement or influence operations.

It is critical that these sections be well structured and well written. Key principles are:

1. All paragraphs and sentences should be to the point and as brief as possible. Use direct, succinct language. Avoid complex, qualified, and passive verb constructions. Simplify noun phrases as much as possible. Use short sentences. Try to divide complex ideas into multiple, nested, or sequential points.

2. The first sentence of any paragraph should communicate an assessment along with your confidence in it. It should be a generalization, using the present or future tense. Readers should be able to read only the first sentence of each paragraph and know all the important points you want to communicate. Subsequent sentences of a paragraph should exemplify or detail the assessment. Include as many examples as are necessary to credibly detail all the aspects of the assessment, but no more.

Example: We assess with high confidence that Spears' chief concern when making decisions is their impact on her image, status, or control. In 2004, Spears immediately severed ties with three long-standing allies who were accused of manipulating government contracts for personal gain. The charges were later dismissed. But Spears did not attempt to reinstate or otherwise bring the dismissed advisors back into the government. Spears herself was subsequently accused of manipulating contracts. At her insistence, the charges were dismissed with no government investigation. Last year, Spears refused to implement a parliamentary mandate for central bank reform that would have reduced her control over central bank decisions. Spears dismissed protests by parliamentarians as the "whining of spoiled children."

Example: In his efforts to protect his image and influence, we assess with moderate confidence that Yanukovych will pay close attention to the costs and risks associated with his political decisions. In meetings last year with European Union leaders, Yanukovych brought up a wide range of economic costs as well as benefits of forging closer ties with the EU. He appeared keenly aware of the political risks attached to any decision. Yanukovych questioned the EU delegation for over two hours. Yanukovych was particularly interested in the potential for a political backlash whether he accepted or rejected closer ties to the EU.

3. Sentences should be written in a formal style using good grammar. Refer to people by their full name once. Thereafter, refer to them by their last name only. Never use simply the first name or a nickname.

4. Avoid third person pronouns unless the reference is absolutely clear. It may sound strange to use names, but clarity trumps style in this case. Never use first person pronouns except for the assessment that begins the paragraph: "We assess with moderate confidence that ..."

5. Avoid all but the most obvious acronyms (e.g., CIA, NSA, EU) and DO NOT invent acronyms. When in doubt, spell it out.

6. Avoid all editorializing, even implicit editorializing, and any hint of approval or disapproval.

7. Avoid jargon. Use the terms for the constructs in the analytic framework only if necessary, and only in the assessment sentence at the beginning of the paragraph.

8. Focus on the subject's actions, not inferences about their feelings, intentions, or understandings. What the subject says is an action, but it has far less weight than what the person does.

9. In the profile, attach confidence levels to the generalizations in the initial sentence of the paragraph, not the examples.

10. As appropriate, alert readers to the sources of attributed generalizations about the subject's behavior (e.g., "... according to Boris Yeltsin, a close associate of Putin's,...").

11. Try to integrate the parts of the profile as much as possible. Be explicit about how the different points flow from one to the next or are related to each other. Be constantly attentive to apparent contradictions between elements. If elements seem to contradict each other in any way, you MUST show how they are consistent.

Implications

This section is the culmination of the profile. It outlines the specific actions or principles that policymakers, diplomats, or operations personnel should keep in mind when trying to engage or influence the leader.

The paragraphs in this section should conform to the principles above, including the basic form of good paragraphs. Generalizations should focus on efforts to engage the leader, encourage some action, or discourage some action. They should also focus on the response of the subject to a type of stimulus rather than a particular stimulus.

Simple implications, based on a single element of the template, are fine.

Example: Spears will respond most favorably to initiatives or proposals that will enhance her status or prestige. Spears routinely pays attention to the impact that actions and policies have on her status. If she sees that a proposal could enhance her image, she will consider it. If it will not enhance her image, she will see the proposal as less relevant.

The best implications will actually emerge from combining elements to produce insights that are less obvious.

Because he is distrustful of others but open to a wide range of information, Mukherjee only responds positively to initiatives that are fully developed and presented by highly knowledgeable interlocutors. Proposals must pay attention to both the benefits and the risks of an action. Both benefits and risks must be fully elaborated. Interlocutors must be able to authoritatively answer the wide array of questions that Mukherjee will raise. If Mukherjee feels that proposals have not been well thought out or that interlocutors are not sufficiently expert, Mukherjee will dismiss the proposal and feel insulted by the apparent lack of respect for him.

EXAMPLE OF LEADERSHIP PROFILE ESSAY:

Overview

Recep Tayyip Erdogan's primary objective as the President of Turkey is to maintain political power and exercise control over his subordinates. He perceives his environment as inherently hostile and responds aggressively to those who oppose him. Erdogan is comfortable challenging social and political norms, and prefers the use of punishments, rather than diplomacy, to achieve his goals. To influence Erdogan, proposals must appear to grant him more power over the bureaucracy and enhance his public image.

Background Information

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the 12^th President of Turkey, has had a long and distinguished political career. Beginning in 1984, Erdogan was elected as a district head of the Islamist Welfare Party. Over the following ten years, he climbed the ranks until he was eventually elected Major of Istanbul. During his tenure as Mayor, he received significant public appraisal. Future success appeared imminent until 1998, when Erdogan's political ambitions were jeopardized. That year, the Turkish state declared the Islamist Welfare Party unconstitutional.

Influenced by his religious upbringing, Erdogan was determined to introduce Islam into the public sphere without reprimand or admonition. He became a high-profile speaker, rallying support for his party's autonomy. In 1997, Erdogan recited a religiously charged poem in defiance of Turkish secularism, and was charged with 10 months in prison. He only served four months, but was forced to abandon his mayoral position and retreat from the political arena. Despite these efforts to quell his ascendancy, Erdogan still managed to establish a public following. In 2001, with the help of reformist factions and new politicians, he founded the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Within one year, the party won a two-thirds majority in parliament. In 2003, Erdogan was appointed Prime Minister.

For 11 years, Erdogan served as the Prime Minister of Turkey, and over the course of his administration, faced various opposition movements. In April 2007, approximately one million people protested against the possibility of Erdogan's presidency. These demonstrations continued for almost an entire month, even after Gl was appointed President. In 2013, another round of civil unrest began. Named the Gezi Park protests, an estimated three and a half million people protested Erdogan's infringement on secularism and suppression of free speech. A crackdown ensued and eventually silenced the protestors. That same year, a massive corruption scandal involving key members of the AKP broke, exposing a "gas for gold" scheme in which Turkish officials illegally exported billions of U.S dollars' worth of gold to Iran in exchange for natural gas and oil. Regardless of this scandal and subsequent public dissatisfaction, Erdogan was elected President in 2014 during Turkey's first-ever direct elections.

Two years into his Presidency, Erdogan survived the bloodiest coup d'tat attempt in Turkey's political history. On July 15^th, 2016, soldiers and tanks took to the streets and Turkish fighter jets bombed parliament. Media outlets were forced off air, and the military issued a statement claiming that the political administration had lost all legitimacy. Amidst the chaos, Erdogan addressed the nation via Facetime and urged supporters to fill the streets and oppose the coup. Crowds resisted tank-fire and with the help of loyalist police forces defeated the coup within a few hours. As a result, 241 people were killed and 2,194 were injured. Erdogan emerged victorious and immediately regained control of the government.

Leadership Style

Driven by Domination

We assess with high confidence that Erdogan is primarily focused on consolidating power and establishing control over the Turkish government. In June 2015, Erdogan's political party failed to win a parliamentary majority. Fearing the loss of control over parliament, Erdogan called for new elections to take place that November. As a result of these "do-over" elections, Erdogan's political party regained their majority within parliament.[i] The next year, immediately after the 2016 attempted coup d'tat, Erdogan declared a three-month State of Emergency that granted the government extra powers to pass laws. Erdogan used the newly granted authority from the State of Emergency to order the detention and dismissal of 6,000 military members, 9,000 police officers, 3,000 judges, 30 governors, and one third of all generals and admirals. During this purge, Erdogan also dismissed his military attach and ordered the firing of 21,000 teachers and 1,577 university deans.[ii] Erdogan claimed that the State of Emergency would be in effect for the duration in which authorities pursued individuals suspected of attempting to topple Erdogan's government. It has been in effect for more than two years.[iii]

Choking the Critics

We assess with high confidence that Erdogan aggressively responds to those who criticize him in order to protect his public image. In 2014, Erdogan ensured the arrest of a 16-year-old boy for publicly criticizing Erdogan during a speech.[iv] Likewise, when two cartoonist depicted Erdogan in a negative light on the front cover of Turkey's most famous cartoon magazine, Erdogan ordered the government to sentence the cartoonists to 14 months in prison.[v] In 2016, Erdogan sued a rival politician for "slander" when accused of having gold-plated fixtures in Erdogan's personal bathrooms.[vi]To put Erdogan's behavior into perspective:over the course of Erdogan's presidency, Erdogan has filed more than 2,000 suits for defamation.[vii]

We assess with high confidence that Erdogan actively delegitimizes information that conflicts with his pre-existing beliefs because he feels that such information threatens his authority. Between July 2016 and March 2017, Erdogan ordered the closure of 173 media outlets, including newspapers, magazines, radio stations, websites and news agencies because these outlets threatened his political credibility.[viii] On a similar note,in February 2018 Erdogan accused a medical association of committing treason because the association denounced Erdogan's military campaign in Afrin, Syria. Erdogan's government detained 11of the medical association's senior members.[ix] Demonstrating Erdogan's desire to protect himself further, during a one-on-one interview Erdogan was confronted with an incriminating question and responded by accusing the journalist of being a member of an outlawed Islamist group.[x] Erdogan felt that the question jeopardized his authority, and in order to preserve his position as president, Erdogan castigated the journalist.

Heightened Paranoia

We assess with high confidence that Erdogan sees his surroundings as threatening and believes that individuals, groups, and foreign powers are innately working against him. Erdogan's own personal testing room best exhibits this. Out of fear of being poisoned, Erdogan has his food tested both at home and abroad. Erdogan's presidential palace contains a specialized laboratory in which a team of scientists work day and night to ensure that Erdogan is not poisoned.[xi] Erdogan believes that someone is always plotting against him, and is taking extreme precautions to protect himself.According to a former official, Erdogan is "deeply suspicious of Turkey's pious underclass" and believes that "foreign powers are plotting to destroy him."[xii]Indicative of this fear is a court-case involving Turkey's 2013 corruption scandal. Reza Zarrab, a Turkish-Iranian businessman, pleaded guilty to charges of assisting Iranian entities evade U.S sanctions and was tried in Manhattan, New York. Erdogan heavily criticized the trial and claimed that it was a U.S. plot to undermine Turkey's economy.Three years later, when asked about the attempted coup d'tat, Erdogan replied with: "I don't think we have come to the end of it yet," indicating that he believed there were more people plotting against him. Erdogan has also accused Fethullah Gulen, an adversary, of planning the 2016 coup. Gulen has lived in Pennsylvania since 1999, so there is not enough evidence to prove him guilty of attempting the coup. On the basis of insufficient evidence, the United States has not cooperated with Erdogan's requests to extradite Gulen to Turkey. Erdogan has interpreted this decision as proof that the U.S is aiding his adversaries.[xiii]

Strongman of Turkey

We assess with moderate confidence that Erdogan believes the most productive way to establish political effectiveness is through the use of threats and punishments. For example, after the Kurds voted for independence in September 2017, Erdogan threatened to invade Iraq. Emphasizing the Turkish military exercises taking place on the Iraq-Turkey border, Erdogan stated that the Turkish "military is not [at the border] for nothing." Erdogan then threatened to cut off an oil pipeline to Iraq with the intention of increasing pressure on the autonomous Kurdish region. [xiv] In March 2017, Germany and the Netherlands barred Erdogan's surrogates from holding political rallies and warned Erdogan that his war rhetoric must stop. Erdogan responding by directly threatened all of Europe: ''if you go on behaving like this, tomorrow nowhere in the world, none of the Europeans will be able to walk the streets in peace, safely."[xv] To accentuate this point further, in April 2018 Erdogan ordered secret agents to seize 80 Turks across 18 countries who were suspected of having links to the group accused of plotting the 2016 coup. During a public speech Erdogan said: "we will rip off the heads of those traitors...and be sure that none of the traitors who betrayed this country will remain unpunished."[xvi]

A Strong Belief in the Ability to Influence

We assess with moderate confidence that Erdogan believes he can personally influence future outcomes, attitudes, and events within the political arena. In December 2017, when the United States announced that it would build its embassy in Jerusalem, Erdogan launched an initiative at the United Nations to annul the decision. Less than a few weeks later, Erdogan declared that Turkey was going to build its own embassy in East Jerusalem. This move was in direct defiance of the United States and exhibits Erdogan's firm belief that he can influence the U.S through individual actions.[xvii]Erdogan's conviction in controlling future outcomes was also illustrated on April 13^th, 2018. Immediately before the United States launched an airstrike attack on Syria, Erdogan assumed a mediator role between Russia and the United States. Erdogan considered himself to be the only person capable of de-escalating the conflict, claiming that he "had leverage" and the ability to facilitate dialogue between the two great powers.[xviii] The fact that Erdogan was absolutely certain he could influence the attitudes of both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin exemplifies his belief that individuals control their future. During a public speech, Erdogan said: "civilization cannot be achieved through verbalizing; it can only be realized via the practice of saying 'we have achieved it.'"[xix]

Innovative and Audacious

We assess with high confidence that when making decisions, Erdogan challenges political and social norms, policies, and traditions that appear to constrain his ability to achieve his goals. Since the start of Erdogan's political career, Erdogan has challenged highly contentious political and social norms, even when faced with condemnation. Erdogan entered the bureaucratic system as an Islamist who overtly espoused religious freedom in a country that traditionally defended institutionalized secularism. Recognizing the military's devotion to upholding secularism and Turkey's history of coup d'tats, Erdogan still chooses to use religious dogma as a political tool. His policies reflect this further. In October 2013, Erdogan lifted a decades-old restriction banning women from wearing headscarves, breaking a long established symbol of Turkish secularism.[xx] In regards to the legal system, Erdogan has pushed multiple boundaries. In 2007, Erdogan promoted the nomination of Abdullah Gul as President, but refused to seek consensus among key actors of society before the parliamentary vote. The political norm for decades was to seek consensus, but this step was restricting to Erdogan's ability to gain more power.[xxi] In 2017, Erdogan held a referendum proposing a new constitution that would strengthen his position as president. The referendum passed, granting Erdogan the ability to appoint cabinet members without requiring the vote from parliament, propose budgets, appoint more than half the members of the nation's highest judicial body, dissolve the national assembly, and impose states of emergency. Rather than work around the constitution to legally grant himself more power, Erdogan directly challenged the legal system that was constraining his control over the bureaucracy.[xxii]

Unambiguous and Uncomplicated

We assess with high confidence that Erdogan simplifies complex issues and problems so that he can better comprehend them. For instance, without any further analysis or description, Erdogan stated in a public speech that "Israel is a terror state. Israel is an occupying state."[xxiii] Erdogan never mentioned the complexities of Israel, Israel's motives, or the state's relevance in the Middle East. Likewise, when speaking to an AKP official, Erdogan said "there is no difference in killing the fetus in a mother's womb or killing a person after birth."[xxiv]Erdogan reduced a highly complicated argument into one simplistic statement so that he could interpret it. On a similar note, during an interview,when asked why Turkey has more journalists jailed than any other nation, Erdogan responded with "they're not journalists, they're terrorists," demonstrating his black and white thinking style and inability to recognize the different dimensions of people.[xxv] More recently, Erdogan was asked about Turkey's foreign policy in regards to the Kurdistan Worker's Party and ISIS. Erdogan explained that: "for [Turkey], there is no difference between terrorist organizations. Whatever their purpose is, a terrorist organization is a terrorist organization." Erdogan proceeded to answer further questions, all while failing to elaborate on this oversimplified statement.[xxvi]

Implications

Persuading the Powerful

Any proposal that appears to restrict his control over the bureaucracy will be dismissed as an attempt to remove him from power. Interlocutor's must take extra steps to establish trust when trying to influence Erdogan, and should frame their arguments around Erdogan's increased ability to maintain control over the Turkish government. A proposal that appears to grant his subordinates considerable autonomy will also be perceived as a direct attack upon Erdogan's legitimacy as president. Erdogan is likely to respond with threats or punishments if he believes that an interlocutor's goal is to erode his dominance. As a result of this intense desire to control all aspects of the government, Erdogan best responds to proposals that appear to expand his authority and strengthen his position as president.

Acknowledging Beliefs and Reputations

Erdogan responds aggressively to initiatives that could damage his public image. Erdogan believes that if his image is damaged, public dissention will rise, increasing the likelihood of another coup. Therefore, if interlocutors want Erdogan to respond positively to a proposal, they must emphasize the proposal's ability to enhance his public image. By contrast, interlocutors can easily deter Erdogan from making a decision if they persuade him into believing that it will harm his reputation.

Interlocutors must remain cautious when providing alternative perspectives to Erdogan because he is highly sensitive to information that conflicts with his pre-established beliefs. If Erdogan feels that a proposal criticizes his policies or decisions in any way, he will delegitimize the interlocutor. In order to ensure a positive response, an interlocutor must present conflicting information in a non-threatening manner. Additionally, interlocutor's should frame their opposing information around the possibility that by acquiring this knowledge, Erdogan can heighten his control over the government.

Staying Alert and On Guard

Erdogan believes that diplomats have ulterior motives, which is why he will respond favorably to proposals that highlight his protection from the political environment. Interlocutors need to frame their arguments around the safety of proposals while emphasizing the proposals ability to protect Erdogan's position as president. From another point of view, interlocutor's can easily deter Erdogan from making a decision if they introduce the possibility that those involved with the decision are plotting against him.

Encouraging Peaceful Pursuits

When presented with a proposal or initiative that requires diplomacy, Erdogan will resist and push for the use of punishments and threats. Interlocutors must be prepared to handle this resistance. However, if Erdogan believes that peaceful means will enhance his public image, he is more likely to pursue diplomacy. Therefore, interlocutors must persuade Erdogan that the use of threats and punishments will damage his public image and weaken his control over the government.

Determining Outcomes

Erdogan will approach proposals that he favors with a driven attitude. Erdogan will readily take on challenges because he feels that he has the ability to determine their outcomes. On the other hand, if interlocutors desire restraint within a certain proposal, they will need to persuade Erdogan that by becoming too involved, he risks losing control over his government. To fully deter Erdogan from tackling an initiative, interlocutors can also complicate the agenda because Erdogan will feel the need to begin working on each new proposal.

Handling Challenges

If a political constraint is present within a proposal, Erdogan will be inclined to challenge it. Interlocutors need to persuade Erdogan that working around restrictions is more beneficial politically because this type of approach does not risk damaging his public image. Diplomats must also persuade Erdogan that if he crosses too many political boundaries, his power will be threatened. However, if interlocutors do want Erdogan to challenge a specific political or societal norm, they will not be met with resistance.

Maintaining Consistency and Avoiding Ambiguity

Erdogan responds well to diplomats that are of his own complexity level because he feels less threatened and can comprehend their arguments. Therefore, interlocutors need to speak to Erdogan in black-and-white terms. Erdogan is unable to distinguish between the differing dimensions of people and events, so proposals must always be highly simplified. If interlocutors present a proposal with complex descriptions and characterizations, Erdogan will feel overwhelmed and dismiss it.