Why we follow some leaders and not others

This could be a good thing. Many leaders start to believe their own hype and think they are doing well. If the polls never carry the message of him doing well he won't fall into the trap of believing his own marketing.

So which approach to emotional connection is better? Is it better to go the negative emotions of fear as Hanson and Abbott have done and scare people into following you? Or is it better to go the positive emotions of Turnbull, and offer hope even when you can't achieve what you want?

While Hanson attracted enough support to elect four senators she was unable to hold on to them. She was also unable to match her much-hyped prediction for the West Australian election. Tony Abbott won the election, but he never gelled with the electorate. We quickly started to see through his 'no stop don't, only I can fix it' mantra.

The positive emotions that Turnbull used to connect will always be more popular. Even though the Coalition was not popular with the electorate Turnbull was. After the Wentworth by-election even the Liberal party conceded as much. They said they would have won if he had campaigned for them!

Connecting from a position of positivity will always yield better results. When people feel safe they connect to their leader and contribute more. As a leader, having followers connect to you is what the game is all about.