Charisma is, obviously, a compelling characteristic precisely because those who have it effortlessly draw our attention – and, sometimes, our “followership” as well. This latter is why it is so often identified as a leadership trait; by some even as a requisite one.
But there are many types of charisma. It can be oddly individual, as in personal magnetism. It might derive from passion (not a generally passionate personality; that’s just a strangely unfocused form of magnetism), an intense devotion to and energy radiating from belief in a particular idea or vision.
Another common source is empathy; a knack for connecting with others and displaying a profound appreciation of their hopes, ambitions, disappointments, struggles. Closely related to this is a charismatic ability to communicate, to place an audience in thrall to one’s power of expression and ability to evoke particular enthusiasms and emotions.
There’s a sort of charisma that flows from the simple possession of power, or more precisely, from one’s unthinking ease and comfort with it. Or, even, one’s almost unconscious flaunting of it.
This sort of swagger, as evinced by a prominent figure on the contemporary American political scene, was actually the topic of a fairly substantial prime-time “report” on a major television news channel, recently. It came complete with film clips of various examples of the behavior by this person, the import of which was illuminated by, believe it or not, experts, pressed by the anchor’s probing questions to unlock for us the personal origin and social meaning of all of this. Moreover, in order to present the story in a meaningful and relevant way for we viewers, “swagger” was pronounced throughout, with agonizingly pretentious unpretentiousness, in the vernacular.
How much, do you suppose, dialogue like this really contributes to our understanding of leadership? Indeed, what does the very occurrence of such a news item at such a venue reveal about the state of our appreciation of leadership, its origins and functions, and our various roles with respect to it?
Is it possible that this sort of aimless, drifting superficiality – immaturity, even – emanates precisely from our insufficient consideration of the premises for the very concept we presume to discuss? Or, perhaps, from our willful dismissal of the matter, altogether?
Surely simplicity like this is troubling, but the other side of this coin offers no real refuge from it. We’ll look at that tomorrow. See you then!
—
Today’s tips: Speaking of swagger, please be sure to see this item by Miki Saxon, offering a particularly illuminating example of innovation that you aren’t likely soon to forget.
Next, stop over to consider if you recognize any of Frank Roche’s cautions about principle and practice.
Finally, please do visit this must-read piece by Dan McCarthy about what sorts of leadership development programs to avoid, and why.
—
Did you know that as a subscriber to this blog (by either RSS reader or email), you are entitled to a FREE download (.pdf format, 344KB) of the first chapter from Jim’s critically-acclaimed book, Managing Leadership? Download your free chapter now! (Even if you haven’t subscribed, yet – download it anyway! – (and then subscribe!))
Technorati Tags: characteristic, attention, followership, leadership, trait, charisma, magnetism, passion, devotion, energy, belief, idea, vision, empathy, hope, ambition, communicate, power, expression, swagger, America, news, expert, dialogue, understanding, function, Miki Saxon, innovation, Frank Roche, principle, Dan McCarthy
Sphere: Related Content
7 Comments
Quite often, people confuse charm, magnetism and charisma (and now “Swagger”). In fact, they use the terms interchangeably. It is understandable how this could be the case, but a bit of demarcation of the terms is necessary. The Core Edge Image & Charisma (Core Edge) define “Charisma” as “The creating of perceptions that impact the mind and emotions of others through flair, finesse and glib language.” In other words, charisma is the ability to capture the hearts and minds of people through the use of compelling self-expression. One of the tools used by charismatics is charm. Dictionary.com defines “Charm” as “The power or quality of pleasing or delighting; attractiveness…” Charismatics have a high prescience about human nature and people. As a result, they use charm to enchant the emotional aspect of individuals. This enchantment serves as a magnet for charismatics to attract others. Invariably, charismatics are comfortable and confident in their ability to persuade people by understanding what makes them “tick.” Charisma as such is a mindset, philosophy, paradigm and position on the world stage. Core Edge defines the comprehensiveness of charisma under the banner, ”Charismatolgy,” which is the study of charisma in all its dimensions.
For many theoreticians, charisma has been like “trying to catch air in a bottle.” The intangibility leads many to provide random opinions without the forethought of empirical data or case studies on popular charismatics. By understanding the charismatic personality and his manifestations, the layman can actually use some of the tools of charismatic’s for greater influence on the world stage.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
http://www.charismatoday.blogspot.com
Excellent treatise on charisma, Jim.
But you left out what I consider to be the most important observation, that charisma is almost the antithesis of being a good leader.
As Lao Tzu said many centuries ago – “A leader is best when the people are hardly aware of his existence, not so good when people stand in fear, worse, when people are contemptuous.”
Best regards, Ben
Ben, I disagree with your analysis of charisma being antithetical to good leadership. According to a USA Today article, Charmed, I’m sure by Steve Bodow (12/9/02), charismatic leaders enhance profitability during economic downturns. Jay Conger, a London Business School professor and USC researcher says that the traits that allow charismatic leaders to help enhance profitability are:
· A restless compulsion to challenge the status quo. The charismatic leader is most at home, and most effective, in chaos.
· A clear vision within uncharted territory to explore
· An ability to articulate a vision compellingly to any audience and to imbue it with a sense of great importance.
· An ability to create a sense that no other person could–or would–take the same tactic.
· An ability to inspire and permit those around him to do extraordinary things.
An example of a charismatic leader who has lead his company to explosive profitability is Apple Computer’s Steve Jobs. According to computer analysts for USA Today, Apple has sold millions of ipods and has a 70.4% share of digital music player revenue, according to market trackers NPD Group. Jobs’ legendary flair for unveiling new products and his passionate insights for describing Apple’s future has consistently made him an icon within the computer industry.
There have been charismatic leaders like: Hitler, Mussolini and Idi Amin who besmirched the Charismatic Leadership Model, but it doesn’t take away its potency as a concept for innovation and advancement.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
http://www.charismatoday.blogspot.com
Edward,
Jim Collins reported extensive research in “Good to Great” that strongly supported Lao Tzu’s contention, not that of Bodow or Conger. Charisma is weak tea in achieving great results compared to great leadership because it focuses on self rather than on those being led.
Certainly, Obama is the quintessential charismatic leader as was Hitler. But I would not place Jobs in that category, however, because his influence came from results not charisma.
We will have to agree to disagree since the subject is too complex for simple analysis.
Best regards, Ben
Hello Edward and Ben,
Edward, thanks very much for stopping in with this vigorous defense of the role of charisma in individual leadership. I know that you have strong and well-developed views about this (visitors can link through from Edward’s comments to his excellent site to learn more), as well as about the damage that can be done by its improper understanding and employment by powerful figures.
I must say that I share Ben’s skepticism about this, and that at this stage we should probably just agree to continue to disagree. We’ll see what opportunities future posts offer to clarify our positions.
Ben, the Lao Tzu quote perfectly captures what I think is the essence of this topic. It points to the direction this series is taking.
In general, it is probably a good idea to make a statement here about widely recognized charismatic leaders. I would include Steve Jobs in the category, because whatever the source of the charisma, if it takes a dominant role in our view of and interaction with the “leader,” then it takes as well a dominant characteristic in that leadership that is as distorting as is to be feared in any charismatic leader.
I think this may get to the comparisons – which Ben refers to and which have been features of the mainstream and new media of late – of President Obama to other charismatic leaders who were obviously less to be admired than he. The point of these comparisons, it seems to me, are twofold.
First, they address the same concerns about the dangers of the dynamics of charismatic individual leadership, which tend to create a cult-like atmosphere leading to group-think and the surrender of vigorous debate of issues vital to us all.
Second, they address a separate concern altogether, which is the fear that progressive liberalism leads to undue government power with is viewed by many as, in many ways, antithetical to the American experience.
The prospect of a powerful government reaching into the minutiae of our lives, making so many of our decisions for us, at the beck and call of a charismatic leader to whom we have yielded unquestioned – even abject – authority, is one that genuinely gives many Americans pause.
So, it is my point here to emphasize that pairings of our current president with people like Hitler are intended to shock people into confronting the factors just described. President Obama, after all, is an American elected by Americans in a free and fair election comparable neither with the rise of such charismatic “leaders” as are sometimes mentioned in this context, nor with the character and intent either of this president or this country’s people, who, thankfully, remain distinctly unlike those that gave rise to the others.
While these sorts of considerations can be said to be represented in the current series here, it must be said as well that this series is not really about putative leaders, but about us and the consequences of our own decisions and actions. Moreover, this site’s positions rise from a liberal capitalist philosophy, rather than from partisan politics.
So, it is my hope that we can all agree that it is on such a basis that we can profitably conduct the discussion.
Thanks again to both of you!
Eminent philosopher Thomas Carlyle said, “Humans seem hard-wired for hero-worshipping.” The shortcoming of many leadership models is that they view human nature idealistically at its core. This overly optimistic view of people often leaves the aspiring leader insufficiently equipped to build upon. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a belief system is determined by what emanates from its core which affects the desired outcome. Most religious reformers like John Wesley, founder of the Methodist faith, based their religious zeal on the notion that man is decadent and through a higher power he can only be saved. Man left to his own devices would wreak havoc on the world much more than he has without the buffer of religion, laws and governance. While the temperament of man among other members of the animal kingdom, may not be the most destructive (scientists have said that the temperament of a baboon is such that it would nuke the whole world if it had the capacity), the consequences of his decadence is evident throughout the world. There is no true utopia where all are treated justly and fair. Every economic system throughout the world has its version of the “Haves” and the “Have-Nots”.
To be totally responsible and accountable for one’s lot in life comes with great toil. This is the kind of work that most people would rather pass on to someone else. Whether it’s dictatorships or representative forms of governments, the citizenry ultimately abdicates responsibility to those who aspire to govern, so that they may pursue their leisure for liberty and happiness. Charismatic leadership fills the void because the leader is willing to do what the next man is unwilling to do. The idea of transformational leadership calls for leaders to “get inside” the people they are trying to influence. The Ohio State Leadership Center online newsletter, Leadership Discoveries warns against the abuses of leaders having charismatic appeal: A leader’s use of power reflects integrity.
Leaders who lack integrity can rely upon deceit and manipulative methods to get people to follow their agendas for the leader’s benefit alone. Power becomes a potential danger if leaders have their focus on themselves or on building resources alone rather than on building their followers (Bass & Steidlmeir, 1999). Two of the most obvious perils in leadership are pride and egoism (Sanders, 1994). The Leadership Discoveries newsletter goes on to suggest that leaders and organizations may institute safeguards to prevent against such abuses. While this is a great notion, the circular logic that continues asks the question of the role and responsibility of the individual to become astute enough to protect himself.
Remember, human nature consistently operates from its own self interest, it only is altruistic when it engages in “hard-core” altruism (family & friends) for a small core of close-knit individuals and the majority of people opt to let others make their decisions for them, because of life’s choices have rendered them incapable of being as vigilant. With all these dynamics occurring simultaneously, we are still requiring leaders to check themselves, not for people to check the leaders. The patriarchal notion that people need to be “fathered” is part and parcel why again charismatic leadership gets a bad rap. Charismatic leaders should be accountable and responsible, but undue trust and allegiance should never go unchecked by the populous.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
http://www.charismatoday.blogspot.com
Hello Edward,
An excellent summary of your position, and of the discussion here – the final word is yours with this frank and thoughtful contribution.
Thanks!