Dear Mr. Brown/Core Edge:
I have read your previous blogs and viewed your You Tube videos on charisma where you focus a great deal of attention on charismatic individuals needing power and control. I’m not sure I totally agree with your philosophy about charismatic people needing the level of power and control you suggest. I would go as far as to say that people like Hitler, Gadhafi and maybe even Fidel Castro may fit this mode, but I personally know charismatic people who appear not to be driven by power. Do you think you have overly generalized in your analysis?
Saul Goldberg
Buffalo, NY
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
Thank you for your insightful observations. When discussing the needs and behavior of charismatic individuals, I tend to look at historical and present day figures qualitatively to assess their paradigms and psychodynamics for pattern formulation. Obviously, charismatic individuals are different in personality as well as overall demeanor, but they do share common traits unique within themselves. For example, basketball great, Michael Jordan had the same cut-throat and relentless desire for power within basketball as Adolph Hitler had for conquering Europe and the world. The colorful stuntman Evel Knievel had the same intensity and drive as the founding father and first Secretary of the Treasury for the United States, Alexander Hamilton. To pierce the veil of what these charismatic individuals were driven by surpasses the conventional thinking of the average citizen. It is easy to confuse charismatic behavioral traits with the genuine charismatic personality. Basketball player Kobe Bryant mimics the skills of Michael Jordan to portray a relentless, charismatic player on the basketball court. However, Kobe Bryant would not be described as charismatic. Individuals may mimic the behavior of charismatic personalities, but not genuinely be charismatic. The manifestation of charismatic traits is different than the inner workings of the charismatic mind. Kobe Bryant is relentless, but does not come from the same core as Michael Jordan. The same would be true of R&B singer Usher versus Michael Jackson or even boxing great Sugar Ray Leonard versus Muhammad Ali. The core of Jordan, Jackson and Ali was to self-actualize or become all they could be within their industries. Whether the dominating effect these individuals had on their industries was motivated by a quest for power or power is a result of a dominating effect, their desire to excel at the highest heights brought about influence they used for business and political interests. To this extent, they were conquerors not unlike Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan.
Arguably, what people view as charisma within others is advanced interpersonal relationship skills. Michael Jordan, Evel Knievel, Michael Jackson and Muhammad Ali used personal power that transformed the industry where they reigned. Their level of power controlled the standard of which individuals afterwards would be judged. Power and control were not only internal motivators, but a means of reshaping worldviews. These charismatic individuals taught the world how to imagine and as a result, how to bring imagination into reality.
There is a huge difference between an individual who draws you in with passion, great stories and advanced oratorical skills versus one who transforms the world.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
For more information, visit: Charisma
Showing posts with label adolph hitler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adolph hitler. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Charisma, “We’re Winning”
The latest on-air tirade of actor Charlie Sheen prompted me to begin thinking about how and why charismatic personalities win more often than average people. (Note: I do not suggest that Charlie Sheen is charismatic). One thing that Sheen did that is reminiscent of charismatic personalities is the ability to impact others through graphic and compelling imagery. Sheen’s use of terms like possessing “Tiger Blood,” or having “Adonis DNA” were exaggerated terms charismatics would have uttered, but couched within the context of a larger vision. In Sheen’s case, these powerful connotations were defensive shields used from a position of weakness. He was essentially fired and largely exposed as egotistical and lacking the proper comportment to inspire potential converts. That is not the mark of a winner! However, charismatic personalities differ in their degree of winning to achieve an objective, because they are relentless. Words are not defensive tools. Rather they are a means of expressing the manifestation of an idea. If the charismatic loses ground, he quickly assesses the situation and creates alternate routes to a destination. In Sheen’s case, he had no destination. His actions were a feeble attempt at bullying network executives into giving him his job back on the sitcom “Two and a Half Men.” It was tantamount to a fired worker picketing outside the company that terminated him. In this instance, Sheen was using competing networks that found his antics entertaining to further destroy the successful sitcom’s brand. Within this context, Sheen was essentially saying “If I can’t run it, I’ll wreck it.
Similar antics have been used by charismatic personalities. Adolph Hitler did it. Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi is doing it. The difference between the use of rhetoric between charismatic personalities and Charlie Sheen is the depth of the vision and the impact on supporting characters. For charismatic personalities, the power of their passion, perspective and personality are the driving forces that adherents support and get behind. On the contrary, Sheen was one piece of several parts of a puzzle. Successful projects that require an assembly of individuals to thrive are rendered ineffective when one of the pieces is missing. Charlie Sheen could not carry “Two and a Half Men,” by himself and the show’s formulaic success is not solely based on Sheen’s personal appeal. Rather, the success of the show hinges on the characters playing off each other. With charismatic personalities, their roles are seemingly indispensable. In short, they are the reason for the project’s existence.
It could be argued that the results of taking away the key component of a project is similar, whether the component is charismatic or merely the centerpiece. This may be correct. The loss of a key player is similar, but the impact is different in severity. The actors on “Two and a Half Men” are tied to a successful body of work and will be able to work on other projects. Conversely, the charismatic personality that goes down in ruins, not only destroys the project, he shakes the very foundation of the belief system of his followers. Sheen’s antics affects purse strings and pocketbooks, charismatic personalities affect hearts and minds. One can always regain money, but he loses everything when he loses his mind.
Related: Charisma
Similar antics have been used by charismatic personalities. Adolph Hitler did it. Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi is doing it. The difference between the use of rhetoric between charismatic personalities and Charlie Sheen is the depth of the vision and the impact on supporting characters. For charismatic personalities, the power of their passion, perspective and personality are the driving forces that adherents support and get behind. On the contrary, Sheen was one piece of several parts of a puzzle. Successful projects that require an assembly of individuals to thrive are rendered ineffective when one of the pieces is missing. Charlie Sheen could not carry “Two and a Half Men,” by himself and the show’s formulaic success is not solely based on Sheen’s personal appeal. Rather, the success of the show hinges on the characters playing off each other. With charismatic personalities, their roles are seemingly indispensable. In short, they are the reason for the project’s existence.
It could be argued that the results of taking away the key component of a project is similar, whether the component is charismatic or merely the centerpiece. This may be correct. The loss of a key player is similar, but the impact is different in severity. The actors on “Two and a Half Men” are tied to a successful body of work and will be able to work on other projects. Conversely, the charismatic personality that goes down in ruins, not only destroys the project, he shakes the very foundation of the belief system of his followers. Sheen’s antics affects purse strings and pocketbooks, charismatic personalities affect hearts and minds. One can always regain money, but he loses everything when he loses his mind.
Related: Charisma
Monday, December 13, 2010
Charisma: Does Measuring It Make It Valid?
Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus assert in “Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge,” that “charisma is the result of effective leadership, not the other way around.” A recent report on the measurability of charisma co-authored by Kenneth Levine, Communications Studies Professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, suggests that traits like: empathy, good listening skills, eye contact, enthusiasm, self-confidence and skillful speaking are measurable by social scientists. After surveying students to assess the means of defining and characterizing charisma, these learnable traits were viewed as the hallmark of charisma. Following this line of thinking to its logical conclusion suggests that any individual demonstrating these traits would be described as charismatic. In this sense, charisma would be the affectation of certain physical traits, not a specific personality trait or worldview. In this context, charismatic traits are not inborn, but learned. Going even farther, one could assert that the world would have more charismatic leaders if only more individuals possessed these physical traits. This notion is contrary to the work established by Charisma Researcher Edward Brown of Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute.
Brown asserts that traits like eye contact, effective listening skills, enthusiasm, passion and other traits are the manifestations of charisma, not charisma in its pristine form. If everyone learned the skills for becoming more charismatic, there would not be a larger number of charismatic leaders, but a larger number of people demonstrating charismatic traits. Brown is careful to not “split hairs,” when demarcating the differences. The likes of Adolph Hitler, Alexander Hamilton and Martin L. King, Jr. represent perspectives of grand ideas that transcend the physical mannerisms of charismatic personalities. Charismatic traits are the means by which charismatic leaders express ideas. The reason there would not be more charismatic leaders in the world if more people learned these behaviors (greater eye contact, empathy, effective listening, etc…) is because these individuals would not necessarily be motivated by compelling ideas. This is the critical distinction between charismatic personalities and individuals exhibiting charismatic traits. In addition, when charisma is measured based on these physical attributes, the results could be a “false positive.” Yes, one may score high on charismatic mannerisms, but low on the ability to create transformational ideas. The distinction can be characterized as one merely going through the motions versus one who thinks, feels, analyzes, synthesizes and embodies a crusade or mission. To relegate charismatic leaders to mere “actors” would suggest that behind the mask is a chameleon who seeks merely to inspire good feelings within others rather than transform a specific human condition. This is largely why charismatic leaders have been more effective during times of crisis and instability. Charismatic leaders believe they are best suited for the situation at hand, which encompasses ego, narcissism, insecurity and visions of grandeur which are inextricable traits within charismatic personalities. Individuals who score high on charismatic scales would view such traits as oppositional to their self-image as well as antithetical to their ideals on charisma.
Measuring charisma and its manifestation is valuable for developing more effective interpersonal skills within organizations. The ability to coordinate and create alliances will always be indispensable to the viability of organizations. However, there must be a distinction between what it means to be congenial versus what it means to be transformational within organizations. To confuse the two would merely create more questions than answers.
For more information, visit: http://coreedgehrworkforcesolutions.core-edge.com/
Brown asserts that traits like eye contact, effective listening skills, enthusiasm, passion and other traits are the manifestations of charisma, not charisma in its pristine form. If everyone learned the skills for becoming more charismatic, there would not be a larger number of charismatic leaders, but a larger number of people demonstrating charismatic traits. Brown is careful to not “split hairs,” when demarcating the differences. The likes of Adolph Hitler, Alexander Hamilton and Martin L. King, Jr. represent perspectives of grand ideas that transcend the physical mannerisms of charismatic personalities. Charismatic traits are the means by which charismatic leaders express ideas. The reason there would not be more charismatic leaders in the world if more people learned these behaviors (greater eye contact, empathy, effective listening, etc…) is because these individuals would not necessarily be motivated by compelling ideas. This is the critical distinction between charismatic personalities and individuals exhibiting charismatic traits. In addition, when charisma is measured based on these physical attributes, the results could be a “false positive.” Yes, one may score high on charismatic mannerisms, but low on the ability to create transformational ideas. The distinction can be characterized as one merely going through the motions versus one who thinks, feels, analyzes, synthesizes and embodies a crusade or mission. To relegate charismatic leaders to mere “actors” would suggest that behind the mask is a chameleon who seeks merely to inspire good feelings within others rather than transform a specific human condition. This is largely why charismatic leaders have been more effective during times of crisis and instability. Charismatic leaders believe they are best suited for the situation at hand, which encompasses ego, narcissism, insecurity and visions of grandeur which are inextricable traits within charismatic personalities. Individuals who score high on charismatic scales would view such traits as oppositional to their self-image as well as antithetical to their ideals on charisma.
Measuring charisma and its manifestation is valuable for developing more effective interpersonal skills within organizations. The ability to coordinate and create alliances will always be indispensable to the viability of organizations. However, there must be a distinction between what it means to be congenial versus what it means to be transformational within organizations. To confuse the two would merely create more questions than answers.
For more information, visit: http://coreedgehrworkforcesolutions.core-edge.com/
Friday, July 23, 2010
Charisma Through Ideas
Often charisma is experiential based on the connection between the charismatic leader and followers. But, could charismatic leaders be detached from adherents and connect purely through ideas? Weisberg (2010) asserts that there is a difference between the charismatic traits of Presidents Clinton, G.W. Bush, Reagan and Obama. Clinton, Bush and Reagan were described as “relaters” in that they made visceral or deep connections with the people they came in contact with through shared experiences and common interests. A great deal of their political savvy was attached to this ability to “feel the other person’s pain.” However, Obama is described as cool, aloof, detached, not warm, and highly analytical. Supporters are more enamored with his ideas than his connectivity. If this description of Obama is correct, how does this bode with the idea of his being charismatic?
Such a notion actually upends the traditional concept of charisma as a driving force based on sheer magnetism. If ideas can be described as charismatic, what is more important, the message or the messenger? Ideally, the pure charismatic is a combination of both. He can arouse audiences with a compelling idea through sheer passion and steel determination as well as conceptualize the larger vision. To the point, either President Obama fits squarely into the Charismatic leadership model albeit less of a connector than Clinton, Bush and Reagan, has some traits of charismatic leaders, but is not a full- fledged charismatic or charismatic ideas stand on their own devoid of the charismatic personality. If research suggests that the prototypical charismatic leader has a compelling vision as well as passionate oratory, than the message is only part of the total picture. In reading Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” there is no evidence that Obama has a mesmerizing personality nor had a far reaching vision such as that demonstrated by Adolph Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”. In fact, there is no evidence provided in “Dreams from My Father” that Obama had political ambitions, let alone aspirations for the presidency. This is in stark contrast to Bill Clinton’s political aspirations in David Marinnass’ book, “First in His Class.”
The compelling passion of an overarching vision is so intertwined that one would be hard pressed to determine where the idea begins and where the passion articulated by the charismatic leader ends. All told, President Obama would probably best fit into the category of possessing some charismatic traits of charismatic leaders, but not a full-fledge charismatic. As articulated in the movie, “V for Vendetta,” ideas are perspectives. Without the will, passion and fortitude of the charismatic leader, ideas mean nothing in the long run. Action is the active ingredient for moving a mere idea to its ultimate manifestation.
Can ideas be charismatic? Only when the will of a leader is committed to an overarching vision tailored to the need of the people who believe the time has come and waiting would engender a missed opportunity.
Related: Charisma
References
Weisberg, J. (2010 Feb. 1). Alone in a crowd. Newsweek, Vol. 155, Issue 5, p. 14-14, 1p.
Such a notion actually upends the traditional concept of charisma as a driving force based on sheer magnetism. If ideas can be described as charismatic, what is more important, the message or the messenger? Ideally, the pure charismatic is a combination of both. He can arouse audiences with a compelling idea through sheer passion and steel determination as well as conceptualize the larger vision. To the point, either President Obama fits squarely into the Charismatic leadership model albeit less of a connector than Clinton, Bush and Reagan, has some traits of charismatic leaders, but is not a full- fledged charismatic or charismatic ideas stand on their own devoid of the charismatic personality. If research suggests that the prototypical charismatic leader has a compelling vision as well as passionate oratory, than the message is only part of the total picture. In reading Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” there is no evidence that Obama has a mesmerizing personality nor had a far reaching vision such as that demonstrated by Adolph Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”. In fact, there is no evidence provided in “Dreams from My Father” that Obama had political ambitions, let alone aspirations for the presidency. This is in stark contrast to Bill Clinton’s political aspirations in David Marinnass’ book, “First in His Class.”
The compelling passion of an overarching vision is so intertwined that one would be hard pressed to determine where the idea begins and where the passion articulated by the charismatic leader ends. All told, President Obama would probably best fit into the category of possessing some charismatic traits of charismatic leaders, but not a full-fledge charismatic. As articulated in the movie, “V for Vendetta,” ideas are perspectives. Without the will, passion and fortitude of the charismatic leader, ideas mean nothing in the long run. Action is the active ingredient for moving a mere idea to its ultimate manifestation.
Can ideas be charismatic? Only when the will of a leader is committed to an overarching vision tailored to the need of the people who believe the time has come and waiting would engender a missed opportunity.
Related: Charisma
References
Weisberg, J. (2010 Feb. 1). Alone in a crowd. Newsweek, Vol. 155, Issue 5, p. 14-14, 1p.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
