Rethinking the Psychodynamics of Charismatic Leadership

Edward Brown, M.S.

Researchers have criticized the charismatic leadership model for not creating transformational leaders that thrive independently, but building self-absorbed charlatans.  Other pundits suggest that, although charismatic leaders inspire loyalty within employees and followers, charismatic leaders use people as pawns for their ambition. 

Using Daniel Halper’s book, Clinton, Inc., as a reference point, Edward Brown, M.S., of Core Edge Police Professional Development, provides questions and answers about the impact of charismatic leadership on interpersonal relationships and organizational development.

Q: What has your latest research uncovered about the psychodynamics of charismatic leadership?

Brown: Past research suggests that charismatic leaders are narcissists, but to what extent was not qualified. This current research goes deeper into the inner sanctum of the charismatic mindset. 

Q: So how narcissistic are charismatic leaders?

Brown: Extremely. My research shows that former President Bill Clinton is known as a very engaging and awe-inspiring speaker, but the dispensability he has for people is outlined in Halper’s, Clinton, Inc.  Halper asserted that Clinton can be extremely cold and dispassionate towards individuals that have outlived their usefulness to him.  This assessment is in line with many of the charismatic leaders in history. They have an unusual need to be adored and see themselves as self-proclaimed heroes.  This lineage extends from Alexander the Great to Bill Clinton.

Q: What impact does narcissism have on the charismatic leadership model?

Brown:  It sheds light on the thinking and behavior of many charismatic leaders despite their illusions. The love people have for charismatic leaders is mutually beneficial. Charismatic leaders need to be esteemed by others who have a great desire to worship a person or idea larger than themselves. Philosopher Thomas Carlyle said that humans were hard-wired for hero worship. For balance, it is important to realize the strengths and weaknesses of any leadership model.

Q: What’s the upside of charismatic leadership within law enforcement?

Brown: Charismatic leaders are effective at building morale and creating enthusiasm. Officers will go the extra mile for supervisors that inspire them. The challenge of charismatic leaders is to ensure that officers don’t see their “Dark Side” as well as their naked ambition.  The emotionality that charismatic leaders engender has more affect on followers than their less charismatic counterparts.

Q:  Is there a qualitative metric for determining whether someone falls into the charismatic leadership category?

Brown: The Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute defines Charismatic Leadership as "A leadership model where personality, relentless determination and creativity are the basis for persuading and influencing individuals toward productivity and/or profitability."

A complete qualitative measure for charismatic leadership would entail the following: 

• A transformation of standard thinking or operations within an industry or profession

• Little to no distinction between the individual’s personality and the service or product

• The creation of memorable experiences, which would ordinarily be viewed as mundane

• A seismic shift within the organization or the people around the leader

• The challenge to conventional wisdom

• A love/hate relationship with the leader

• Leadership emulation without compunction

Because charismatic leaders are performance driven, the upside to their personalities is the ability to leave indelible marks on organizational development. The late Steve Jobs’ impact on Apple comes to mind despite his purported volatile temper.

Edward Brown, M.S., is a researcher and lead instructor for Core Edge Police Professional Development.  Ed is a former Atlanta police officer and has trained command staff and supervisors throughout the U.S. on communication and leadership development skills.

He has advanced legal training from the University of Dayton School of Law and a master’s degree from Mercer University in Public Safety Leadership.

Ed is the author of nine books including: Police Leadership: The Morale Driven Police Department and The A-Team: How to Be a Top Police Department in Recruiting, Training and Retaining Employees available at Amazon Kindle. 

Do Racially Charged Incidents Divide the Law Enforcement Community?

“Stand Your Ground” laws in places like Florida have captured the attention of the country after the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis. Even as of late, a 71 year- old retired police captain, Curtis Reeves, has been charged with killing a fellow movie patron after reportedly being hit with popcorn during a verbal altercation.

Dahlia Lithwick in her article, ““Stand Your Ground” Nation,”reported that “stand your ground” defenses have been hugely successful. Since the law’s inception in 2005, the defense has been invoked a purported 200 times with a 70 percent success rate.

Although, the law does not favor any specific race, the most publicized cases have been between individuals with different ethnicities.  Does this perception of racial discrimination create rifts among the different ethnicities within the law enforcement community? 

Edward Brown, M.S., of Core Edge Police Professional Development provides answers to questions on the impact and remedies of racially charged incidents within law enforcement.

Q: First, do you believe that cases like Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis create rifts within the law enforcement community?

Brown:  It can create rifts depending on the response by individual law enforcement personnel at the time of the event.  Anthropologists have noted that individuals do not view the world through their skin color, but through their cultural lenses. In other words, people learn through their socialization and experiences. So yes, a black police officer, who has a 17-year old son, might take offense if a fellow white police officer is dismissive about the death of a young black male.

Q: This sounds a bit peculiar. If a black police officer has worked daily around the same white officer,  whom they have continuously had each other’s back, why would a black police officer think differently about the white officer based on one incident?

Brown:  It depends on how honest and candid the relationship has been all along. Police officers are trained professionals. They can strongly dislike a fellow police officer, but shoot a perpetrator trying to kill that same disliked police officer.  Police training compartmentalizes logic and emotions.  As individuals, police officers are their race first. But, on the job, they are all blue.   At least in theory.  If two officers have had candid conversations that have cleared up misconceptions in the past, there is less likelihood for a rift during controversial times.

Q: So, as a former Atlanta police officer, what is the emotional fallout for you in cases like Trayvon Martin?

Brown: Anytime young people are killed before they are allowed to mature into adulthood, it is unfortunate. I try to see both sides of the story to determine what might have happened based on the personality composites that I can decipher. If anyone has policed for a reasonable amount of time, he can often determine the characters involved. Generally, people are not that complex.  In many instances, it boils down to effective communication. The youth want respect after being under the constant guise of authority figures. Older citizens want respect based on their wisdom and experiences in life. People who dream of being police officers want to experience power to gain respect.  In the end, everyone wants a degree of respect and significance.  If you can disarm people, by decoding their motivation, you can reduce the amount of conflict surrounding law enforcement.

Q: So, is that it? Law enforcement personnel need not get embroiled in the emotionalism of racially charged incidents, but instead behave like psychologists and social scientists?

Brown: In part. Law enforcement officials have a unique experience, education and insight about human nature that no one  has or ever will based on the nature of the job. Remember, psychologists and social scientists rarely see the raw, cold, reality of people in their truest form. These professionals study people under controlled environments that they can manipulate.  Conversely, law enforcement officials see it every day, unadulterated. If you combine these daily experiences, academic education, and a curiosity about power and people, law enforcement personnel know more about people than anyone else does. 

Q: A major rift within law enforcement, during racially charged incidents, is a result of their inability to always be above the fray by understanding the big picture?

Brown: Dick Morris, political strategist for former President Bill Clinton, coined the phrase “Triangulation.”  Morris advised that President Clinton should always rise above the political fray between Democrats and Republicans and choose the best partisan solution, regardless of their origination. During racially charged incidents, law enforcement officials must triangulate, by seeing both sides of the issue, and remaining objective social scientists.  Triangulation is the greatest leverage law enforcement can wield during controversies.  Based on this mastery and unique insight, law enforcement officials can influence the public when the time comes for cooler heads to prevail.

Click here: http://policerecruitmentandselection.core-edge.com for more information on improving the communication within your department. 

Using the Traits & Best Practices of Charismatic Leaders to Influence People & Rock the World!

Researching the Charismatic Mind

In this Q & A session, researcher on charisma and charismatic leadership, Edward Brown of Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute, provides insight into charisma and the charismatic mind.

Q: What makes you an expert on charisma?

A: Essentially, I’ve written several books, articles and provided numerous interviews on charisma as a result of a decade of research as well as my ongoing study in this area.

Q: Do you have to be charismatic to talk about charisma?

A: No, not necessarily. Interesting enough, people don’t mind putting me on the spot by asking me if I see myself as being charismatic. I think I was more charismatic before I started researching charisma and charismatic leadership. My intellectual pursuits have made me more analytical, which has taken away some of the magnetism I once possessed.

Q: Interesting, how did that happen?

A: By looking within the inner workings of charismatic personalities, I saw that they could be cold, calculating, focused, disciplined, but also great actors for generating support from followers. The more I engaged in the intellectual side of charisma, the less acting I opted to do.

Q: What has been the result of your not being a good actor?

A: I didn’t say I wasn’t a good actor. I merely opted to spend more time in the laboratory and less time manifesting charisma on the world stage.

Q: Is reclusiveness a part of the charismatic mindset?

A: Reclusion can be a part of the charismatic mindset. Particularly, when he is building momentum for a specific mission. As a visionary, the charismatic personality lives in the field of ideas and parlays these ideas into action once the time is right. He spends more time in isolation and thinking than people realize.

Q: Do you have examples when charismatic personalities have sparked their genius in isolation and later astounded the world with their brilliance.

A: Adolf Hitler wrote his autobiography” Mein Kampf” in prison, which is a great treatise on power. Many of Dr. Martin L. King, Jr.’s greatest speeches were written in jail. Malcolm X was resurrected during his stint in prison. Nelson Mandela’s evolution took place while in prison.

Q: So, does one have to be imprisoned to become a charismatic leader?

A: Not necessarily, but isolation forces the individual, who has the traits of a charismatic leadership, to focus inwardly to begin thinking about a far reaching mission. Such insightful thinking would have been difficult with other responsibilities taking priority.

Q: Pundits have panned charismatic leadership as being more show than substance. Is the charismatic personality more show or substance?

A: I would suggest that ostentation or “showiness” is the manifestation of the substance behind a compelling idea. The flair and finesse of charismatic personalities stem from the passion, energy, and imagination of the charismatic personality. Take away the flair and finesse and you merely have a compelling idea that may or may not be acted upon.

Q: If you had to choose between the charisma of President Barack Obama and that of former President Bill Clinton, who of the two men has the more compelling charisma?

A: Although the two men have extraordinary political skills, President Bill Clinton is a bonafide charismatic personality for a few reasons. One, Clinton had a far reaching vision and plan for politics long before running for office. Second, Clinton opponents after meeting with him marveled at his magnetism and political insights. Third, the Clinton Administration demonstrated the highs and lows indicative of charismatic leadership. Clinton brought out visceral emotions within people. Contrarily, President Obama is very likeable, but has been described by insiders as cold and detached. For many, it is difficult to separate Obama’s historical significance as the first black president of the U.S. as well as the most powerful black man in the history of civilization with that of authentic charisma.

For more information, visit: Charisma

Charisma: Men, Women, & the Will to Power

Dear Mr. Brown:

Recently, I read an article you wrote suggesting that charisma and charismatic leadership were concepts more male-oriented than female- centered. I was livid over your comments! However, after my husband read the article, he gave me a different perspective on charisma, men, and power. I can’t say that I am totally comfortable with this difference, but I can appreciate your candor. For some reason, I still feel a bit of sexism in the distinction of men being more prone to charisma than women. Is there a middle ground?

Wendy Henderson
San Francisco, CA


Dear Mrs. Henderson:

Thank you for your passionate comments. For some time I wrestled with my analysis on how charisma played out between men and women. Initially, I tried to be politically correct by making it equal to both genders, but felt that I was not being totally honest about the research surrounding charisma. Nietzsche spoke of the “Amoral Superman” replacing the concept of a God figure. My interpretation of Nietzsche’s concept suggested that unflinching, ambitious men would capture the imagination of the masses and become the idol that society worshipped. Ultimately, this has happened. In a sense, powerful and ambitious men have become deified replacing God as a figurehead. This will- to- power is evident in a patriarchal world where naked aggression is acceptable among men, but denounced among women. When I ask groups of men and women to name charismatic individuals, names such as: Former President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, Denzel Washington, and Oprah Winfrey top the list. As I delve deeper into what makes these individuals charismatic to the audience, terms like: Great communicator, empathy and magnetism are suggested. However, as I inquire further about Oprah’s purported charisma compared to the men on the list, viewpoints begin to change from charisma to engaging, empathetic and inspirational. Although Oprah’s success hinges on media power, her brand is inspirational, not power. She emphasizes strength and empowerment, but not power and control per se. At the core of charismatic men is the acquisition and maintenance of power using communication, engagement and inspiration as a means of achieving it. Rarely would charismatic men appear as accessible and vulnerable as Oprah Winfrey. As a matter of fact, appearing vulnerable to that degree is oppositional to the concept of power in a patriarchal society. Although it may be changing, studies suggest that even women envision men in charismatic leadership roles over other women.

Power, control, mission, aggression, tenacity, crusade, etc… are often terms relegated to the motives of men, which serve as the basis for charismatic men having a deeper interest and proclivity to these terms. Women exercise a different type of power that would not fit within the charismatic leadership model. However, pundits have not stopped placing women like Oprah in the charismatic leadership category. At this point, I respectfully disagree with the experts that opt to do so.

Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute

For more information, visit: Charisma

5 Ways to Enhance Your Charisma Using Historical Figures as Models

There are several ways to improve your ability to attract command and maintain success personally and professionally through the examples of historical figures.

Here are five ways to enhance your charisma through these models:

Develop a compelling plan and strategy. A major driving force for charismatic leaders is their ability to implement a plan stemming from an overarching mission. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a compelling plan to desegregate institutions within the United States and used marketing strategies through the media, celebrities and public outcry to draw attention to his mission.

Become a voracious reader. Charismatic leaders have a preternatural desire for acquiring more and more information and knowledge. Former President Bill Clinton reportedly reads up to five books at a time.

Cultivate your speaking skills. Charismatic leaders speak with a great deal of passion, clarity and action. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has the ability to speak to an audience and maintain rapt attention for hours. His use of current events, controversial topics and a clear understanding of the psychodynamics of his audience make his speeches riveting and mesmerizing.

Think and act differently. Charismatic leaders dance to the beat of their own drum. Whether basketball great Michael Jordan was wearing NBA banned multicolored sneakers, sporting a bald head or flying to the basket from the foul line, he consistently demonstrated the power of thinking and acting from one’s own perspective.

Take risks. Charismatic leaders are known for taking calculated risks. The late and legendary engineer and automotive executive John DeLorean created the sports car, the DeLorean. His larger-than-life personality was equal to his ambition. Without great risks, sometimes at great cost, the name DeLorean would be among the pantheon of car designers unknown to the world, but whose designs became iconic.

For more information, visit:  Charisma

Charismatic Leadership: Detached Connectivity

Quite often within political and social circles, you hear of charismatic leaders who have a preternatural love for people. These charismatic leaders appear selfless and altruistic, always willing to go the extra mile for the greater good. To these individuals, the glass is always half full. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are said to have customarily carried “sunny” dispositions. Of course in the political arena, where one has to appear to be all things to all people, the authenticity of whether a true love for people exits is debatable. However, suffice to say that if politicians in general and optimistic individuals, specifically, are more malleable to the foibles of human nature, does this create deeper connections with other people? If charisma, as defined by Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute is, ”The creating of perceptions that impact the mind and emotions of others through flair, finesse and glib language,” do these “lovers of people” emote differently than everyone else or merely better actors?

In viewing the issue from the position of charismatic leadership, emoting and acting becomes very real. If charismatic leaders are performance driven that takes on a messianic veneer, not only are they aware of the foibles of human nature, they have to be vigilant about the damage it can cause. Anyone versed in the basics of psychology and sociology has to give homage to the greatness of the human spirit during crisis situations, but also become suspicious of its potential for mayhem. In this regard, the charismatic leader, steeped in accomplishing a specific mission, has to view the glass as “half full and half empty.” Metaphorically, the glass represents what the charismatic leader knows about the vagaries of human nature, but often masks this dark side with feigned optimism. In a Machiavellian sense, the charismatic leader does whatever is necessary for the situation to affect a desired outcome.

Does this mean that charismatic leaders are frauds preying on the emotionalism of others? Not necessarily. They have keen insights into the motivational needs of others that are often utilized for achieving a certain objective. If the charismatic leader can be blamed for anything, it may be for his belief that he knows what is best for individuals irrespective of their input. The love that charismatic leaders have for others may not be out of magnanimity, but pity. This pity in its manifestations would naturally come out as patronizing, but through the keen awareness of human nature, it flows as optimism. The charismatic leader connects with others to achieve a long term goal, but is inherently detached, because of his prescience of the vagaries of human nature. His motto might be, “Love from afar, but make it feel up close and personal.” Often, people do not want the harsh realities of truth and support anyone who provides a semblance of hope. To this extent, charismatic leaders operate to provide optimism on the front end, while dealing with the muck and mire of diverging forces on the back end. Charismatic leaders know that they cannot have it both ways--pure optimism exclusive of the dark side of human nature-- but have to at least appear that the two sides are reconcilable. Followers of charismatic leaders will not have it any other way.

For more information, visit: Charisma

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.

Does Celebrity Impact Charisma?

World renowned speaker and author Dr. Tony Alessandra was recently on my online radio show, Charisma Live. In 1998, Dr. Alessandra wrote a book called “Charisma” and was one of the first persons I contacted when I decided to dedicate my life to the study of charisma and charismatic leadership. Many of the precepts in “Charisma” echoed my sentiments on the subject.

On this recent show, Dr. Alessandra described the experience he and others had when they met former President Bill Clinton. Dr. Alessandra and everyone who ever met President Clinton describe the experience similarly as being surreal. Although, there might be pandemonium around President Clinton, he gives you that moment where you feel you and he are the only people in the world. I never pondered much on this experiential concept until Dr. Alessandra brought it up in our recent interview.

Afterwards, the question for me became, “Did President Clinton have spellbinding charisma or did people get swept up into his celebrity as he provided a moment of specialness to them?” As a student of charisma as well as one who has experienced a great deal of charismatic personalities, I opted to believe President Clinton has great charisma, but that it is further amplified by his celebrity.

How many times have you experienced a charismatic personality and felt positive energy, but nothing surreal? Why wasn’t the experience more surreal? What could the individual have done to bump the experience to a President Clinton experience? Did the individual provide enough eye contact? Did he not make a concerted effort to get into your world?

I contend that celebrity provides a level of perceived charisma that is illusory. Eminent philosopher Thomas Carlyle said that people were “hard wired” for hero-worshipping. In other words, people seem to innately crave to believe in someone or something beyond themselves. A charismatic colleague, co-worker or associate may inspire visceral emotions inside you, but it falls short of a Clinton-esque experience, because you still see the person on the same psychic plain as yourself. People are awe-struck, not only by charismatic personalities, but the position or esteem held for them in a larger context. For President Clinton to acknowledge your existence on a seemingly personal level means more to you than a person operating charismatically on a similar level without the signature of celebrity. To say one has had a chat with President Clinton, even over a mundane subject matter, means more to some individuals than a thought provoking conversation with a professor at the local college. At this point, the surreal experience is not intellectual, but emotional. It doesn’t matter that a person may hold advanced degrees or even be a psychologist; individuals still can be swept into the maelstrom of a charismatic figure with celebrity. Even if you were to replicate every nuance of what makes President Clinton surreal, you still would fall short based on lacking celebrity status.

While celebrity status garners a higher degree of perceived charisma, you still can achieve similar results without celebrity. The emotionality of a person feeling positive about an interactive experience you created allows you to develop alliances others can’t without these special skills. Charisma is relative and to be able to see it from different angles allows for its strengths and weaknesses to be studied as well as utilized for maximum effectiveness.

For more information, visit: Charisma

Are Men & Women Equally Charismatic?

The Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute defines "charisma" as the creating of illusions to impact the emotions and psyche of others through the use of flair, finesse and glib language. The idea of the charming and engaging individual takes on different dimensions when applied to males and females. The difference is analogous to a fragrance smelling different on a man than on a woman. Such contrasts beg the question as to whether men and women can be equally charismatic. A man characterized as suave and debonair may be seen as charismatic. Where similar traits characterized by a woman might be deemed sexy, sultry or scintillating. But is this charisma? If not, charisma is either a term reserved strictly for men or the definition has to be expanded to encompass the differences in expression of both genders. In many instances, a key point to note is that a person may not be generally accepted as charismatic when he or she crosses the gender line for expression. For example, charisma is often viewed as imparting the gender traits within its definition and does not necessarily allow for men to take on traits deemed feminine and vice versa. Terms such as flamboyant, outlandish or ostentatious might apply, but charisma is arguable.

In viewing this hypothesis of charisma being gender specific, under the terms of Core Edge's definition, women can be charismatic, but it manifests itself differently than that that of men. In a patriarchal society, the traits deemed charismatic are often attributed to men, but the idea that women may take on similar traits and not tarnish their femininity should be accepted. The singer Madonna reportedly exhibited traits believed to be masculine in her ascension to stardom. She was focused, brusque, ruthless and committed based on biographical accounts. It was her unorthodox approach that aided her success, which defined her charisma. To say that a learned behavior cannot apply to a particular gender would create the slippery slope of discrimination. But we would be naive not to observe the differences in expression. If we are referring to the illusory aspects of interpersonal communication which charisma imparts, could we suggest that men are apt to create illusions that connect; whereas women are less inclined to demonstrate similar proclivities? The will to power by men alters the acceptance of charisma by both genders. Again, we would have to expand its definition merely for inclusionary purposes. While Denzel Washington, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Smits may be deemed charismatic, they exhibit it differently. The same would be true for Janet Jackson, Jennifer Lopez and Julia Roberts.

Is charisma equally distributed among the sexes? Based on our analysis, charisma is subjective and intangible. It can be compared to being physically attractive. If enough people believe that you are attractive then you are deemed attractive. However, how charisma plays out is often deemed more masculine within a male dominated society. It is no accident that it may be easier to randomly recall men who are deemed charismatic than women. Often there may be a general consensus when naming men, but when it comes to women, we may have to ponder a little longer in our listing. The term has not been traditionally used to describe women. As the role of women has drastically changed, the dynamics that create charisma would naturally level the playing field to encompass personal expression in this arena also.

The onslaught of the philosophy of charisma has created excitement for both sexes. The discussion, up until recently, was null and void. It was not and could not be seen as a legitimate philosophy when there weren't any serious studies on the subject. Now that the discussion has begun, it becomes even more interesting for both genders to utilize this new information in the realm of marketing as a competitive tool. Those who use charisma to separate themselves from competitors as well as seek personal fulfillment will have the advantage and ultimately end up redefining it-whether male or female.

For more information, visit: Charisma

Charisma & Fortitude

Basketball great Michael Jordan was not the Adonis of his neighborhood and as history has related, was largely underestimated and counted out as a basketball player. But, his personal charisma and thus his stature transcended the game of basketball.

President Bill Clinton came from an abusive and alcoholic family and wasn't seen as having a compelling nor awe-inspiring personality. In fact, he was marginalized during his college days at Georgetown University as being a "glad hander" willing to extend to the good graces of others without compunction.

While charismatics are often credited for demonstrating great confidence, what seems to be a part of their makeup is that many had earlier experiences of pain and degradation. By pulling themselves from the labyrinth of despair, they were able to reinvent themselves and thus develop an abundance of internal fortitude.

While great pain and despair may not be the sine qua non of becoming charismatic, it appears to be a catalyst for great charisma in many individuals. Such notion relate to the charismatic as a reformer or innovator. As a result of the painful experiences, he seeks to transform the world according to his personal vision as the proving ground for what should be the status quo. He relentlessly pursues a course to bringing this idea to realization, not necessarily out of the joy of being self-possessed, but by the pain of being disconnected. It is the connecting with his ideals that bare the fruits of the charismatic personality. The charismatic uses sheer will and determination with the objective always in the forefront of his mind to complete the mission with people serving as a residual source.

For more information, visit: http://coreedgehrworkforcesolutions.core-edge.com/

Has President-Elect Obama Dismantled the Clinton Political Machine?

The fact that the new Obama Administration is attempting to dismantle the Clinton Political Machine, shows how formidable the Clinton Political Machine has become. For the last 30-plus years, the Clintons have successfully created their own political dynasty from the ground up with nothing, but pure idealism and persistency. Collectively, they ruled the Democratic Party in ways that caused rancor inside and outside of the Party. President Clinton's willingness to become more transparent is part of the second act of continuing the Clinton Dynasty. Even if Senator Clinton couldn't become president, her role as Secretary of State, keeps the global relationships President Clinton created over the years alive and well. In a global economy, the perpetuity of dynasties aren't any longer limited to domestic influence, but have international implications. Does decentralizing the Clinton Political Machine make the Clintons stronger or weaker? Like any force to be reckoned with, you can't stop it, you can only contain it. President-elect Obama realizes he can't stop the Clinton Machine, but only contain it long enough to achieve his own goals and aspirations. Will we see an Obama Political Machine emerge? That's exactly what he's doing by layering his Administration with past and present powerful people. Obama is not a visionary in a sense. He is more Machiavellian. Like a crafty fox, he uses cunning to control the ferociousness of lions. His is a story of truncated power, where you use powerful people to shorten the necessary years it generally takes to build empires. Obama is a Pop Culture President where you don't create new ideas, but "remix" and "sample" the originals. After all, if there isn't anything new under the sun, why innovate? Theorists have postulated that whatever has worked in the past will work in the future with a little tweaking.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, not only continues the Clinton Dynasty, but also ties Obama's success or failure to her own. Down the line, she can't say, "I was only following orders." With so much riding on any future political aspirations she might have, it behooves her to promote the Obama Administration. For those who are taking careful notes, you are witnessing a new brand of politics and the acquisition of power.

Related: Charisma