By Edward Brown
This Q & A session explores the shortcomings of charisma and its drawbacks.
Q: What are some of the things charisma cannot do?
A: Contrary to popular beliefs, charisma is not the cure for all things. For example, charisma cannot create competence when there is ineptitude. It tends not to be able to replicate itself. And It cannot sustain long lasting success without an ultimate goal or a specific vision.
Q: What is meant by the inability of charisma to replicate or copy itself?
A: The imagination, tenacity and focus within charismatic leaders are aligned, but tend not to be completely transferrable to another person. Secondly, followers of charismatic leaders are fulfilling an internal need within themselves that make creating disciples difficult. Again, the specialness of a charismatic leader leaves a void when his leadership becomes vacant, which is not easily filled through individuals with less charismatic proclivities.
Q: Could a person at least replicate the traits of the charismatic leader although he may not have a charismatic personality?
A: External manifestations like great oratorical skills, enhanced interpersonal communications and phenomenal execution are learnable. However, an overriding desire to compete and take on a missionary zeal requires the synchronization of insecurity, narcissism, imagination and commitment at a heightened level. Children can replicate the actions of their sports heroes, but the level of skill, tenacity and world class performance requires a different level of internal fortitude that imitation merely cannot produce.
Q: Why can’t charisma be sustained indefinitely?
A: The charismatic personality will always be charismatic. Often the initial need for charismatic leadership may change. The change may require less charisma, less innovation and more stability. Also, charisma is situational. There are certain ideal situations where charismatic leadership thrives and other situations where it is stagnant.
Q: What historical cases speak to the stagnation of charisma?
A: Two current political examples come to mind. In Libya, Muammar Gadhafi led a bloodless coup in 1969 that lasted until recently. Gadhafi was like a rock star during the 1980’s. The same existed for Fidel Castro and Che Guevara during the Cuban Revolution. They captured the attention of the world, but diminished as time passed. Well, Castro has diminished, but because Guevara was killed before he became irrelevant, the mythology around him still swirls. The frailty of charismatic leaders is not leaving the scene before they are ruled insignificant. Martin Luther King, Jr. suffered the same plight. His charisma had been usurped by SNCC (Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee) and the Black Panthers. Had he not been assassinated, it is arguable whether his leadership would have taken on mythic proportions.
Q: So, only death can preserve the charismatic leader?
A: Death preserves the mythology at the height of his acclaim. However, a charismatic leader can groom disciples who represent his mission. A good example would be the founder of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad. By having the likes of Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan as his spokespersons, his charisma and mystery was preserved. In this instance, Muhammad used budding charismatic leaders to further a compelling concept. Rarely has charismatic leadership been used in this way.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Showing posts with label muammar quadafi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label muammar quadafi. Show all posts
Sunday, April 3, 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, February 28, 2011
Charisma, Decentralization & the Downfall of Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi
During the 1980’s, Libyan President Muammar Gadhafi was a rock star. Changing his sleeping locations nightly to thwart any attempts of assassination, Gadhafi’s charismatic personality as well as his flair for fashion made him the most popular renegade since Che’ Guevara. Reminiscent of Mao Tse Tung’s “Red Book,” Gadhafi’s “Green Book” was the quintessential tome on socialism. Gadhafi’s bloodless coup in 1969 set the course for a drive towards Arab unity. But, how did a man who’s bigger than life personality and early calls for unity become so fractionalized?
It would be logical to point to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt that sparked the unrest in a number of Middle Eastern and African countries. It would also be rational to suggest that global economic depressions, high unemployment rates and a desire for western style freedom became a more compelling idea than socialism or “managed” democracy. Like many charismatic leaders, Muammar Gadhafi would have been better served by adopting the power moves of Russia’s Vladimir Putin rather than that of the late Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin. After Putin became ineligible to run for a third term, Dmitry Medvedev was elected Russia’s president, while Putin became prime minister. It is believed that Medvedev is nothing more than a proxy for the machinations of Putin to maintain power. However, that is the point. To create the symbolic illusion that a democracy exists, Putin did not exercise an overt grab for power, which would have been reminiscent of the old Stalin days. Instead, he took another political position, decentralizing power and spreading his influence through other leaders. These maneuvers led to the expansion of his political base by increasing the number of powerful supporters.
By Gadhafi positioning his sons and daughter to succeed him, he sowed the seeds of discontentment among Libyans in a time where egalitarianism has been ushered in by the Internet. By not being prescient about current events and its impact on governmental operations, Gadhafi was weakened by his unwillingness to alter his modus operandi. With the onslaught of the Internet and multimedia, no one wants to feel that his country is precluding him from self-actualizing. It would be altogether different if the world was not digitally connected. But, as the Internet has become the ultimate democratizer of education, blind allegiance has become impractical.
In addition, if Gadhafi had supported non-familial ties for his political ambitions, he could have been a kingmaker without losing any direct power. An analogy would be a parent company that owns the leading brands under its banner, which allows these brands to compete against each other in the market place. The parent company does not care which brand wins, because all revenue go to the same source. Gadhafi should have promoted other leaders in a succession plan and operated in the background while influencing decision makers. American style politics has shown the power of political machines that last for decades without any backlash from the citizenry. As long as the voting public perceives it has a voice in the outcome of an election, it will support the process.
Like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Gadhafi underestimated the impact of the changing times. To simplify the current tumultuousness within Libya would underestimate the power of progress. If power is at the base of geopolitics, the changes being demanded by Libyans and surrounding countries are not about totally reforming the political game as much as changing the players to compete more effectively. This is no different than trading a less productive player in professional sports for a more productive one. Gadhafi is paying the price of not possessing greater foresight. In a competitive world of power, such blindness is the beginning of the end of a dynasty.
For more information, visit: Charisma
It would be logical to point to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt that sparked the unrest in a number of Middle Eastern and African countries. It would also be rational to suggest that global economic depressions, high unemployment rates and a desire for western style freedom became a more compelling idea than socialism or “managed” democracy. Like many charismatic leaders, Muammar Gadhafi would have been better served by adopting the power moves of Russia’s Vladimir Putin rather than that of the late Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin. After Putin became ineligible to run for a third term, Dmitry Medvedev was elected Russia’s president, while Putin became prime minister. It is believed that Medvedev is nothing more than a proxy for the machinations of Putin to maintain power. However, that is the point. To create the symbolic illusion that a democracy exists, Putin did not exercise an overt grab for power, which would have been reminiscent of the old Stalin days. Instead, he took another political position, decentralizing power and spreading his influence through other leaders. These maneuvers led to the expansion of his political base by increasing the number of powerful supporters.
By Gadhafi positioning his sons and daughter to succeed him, he sowed the seeds of discontentment among Libyans in a time where egalitarianism has been ushered in by the Internet. By not being prescient about current events and its impact on governmental operations, Gadhafi was weakened by his unwillingness to alter his modus operandi. With the onslaught of the Internet and multimedia, no one wants to feel that his country is precluding him from self-actualizing. It would be altogether different if the world was not digitally connected. But, as the Internet has become the ultimate democratizer of education, blind allegiance has become impractical.
In addition, if Gadhafi had supported non-familial ties for his political ambitions, he could have been a kingmaker without losing any direct power. An analogy would be a parent company that owns the leading brands under its banner, which allows these brands to compete against each other in the market place. The parent company does not care which brand wins, because all revenue go to the same source. Gadhafi should have promoted other leaders in a succession plan and operated in the background while influencing decision makers. American style politics has shown the power of political machines that last for decades without any backlash from the citizenry. As long as the voting public perceives it has a voice in the outcome of an election, it will support the process.
Like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Gadhafi underestimated the impact of the changing times. To simplify the current tumultuousness within Libya would underestimate the power of progress. If power is at the base of geopolitics, the changes being demanded by Libyans and surrounding countries are not about totally reforming the political game as much as changing the players to compete more effectively. This is no different than trading a less productive player in professional sports for a more productive one. Gadhafi is paying the price of not possessing greater foresight. In a competitive world of power, such blindness is the beginning of the end of a dynasty.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Objectifying Charisma
Why is defining "charisma" so elusive? Why do researchers make the same mistake when researching "charisma" as a concept? Why isn't more research done on the genesis of charismatic personalities? In short, rarely is charisma approached scientifically, that is psychologically using empirical data. Typically, a researcher will compile questions to a focus group or random sample asking them their views on charismatic personalities. The common responses will be pared down until a few identified traits remain. These remaining traits will be the foundational attributes given to charismatic personalities. What's wrong with this model? Nothing on the surface! A similar method is used to determine the electability of political candidates. Surprisingly, it's been reported that 800 people surveyed randomly are an accurate reading of what 300 million people are thinking. Essentially, it's a start to characterizing the potential attributes for charisma, but not what makes it work. For example, how was Elvis Presley's charisma formulated? Muhammad Ali? Michael Jordan? Muammar Quadafi? What is the thinking behind charismatic figures who revolutionize an industry through sheer personality and self-expression? Moreover, is charisma required to revolutionize an industry? Is Tiger Woods charismatic? How about the Williams Sisters in tennis? One might surmise that charisma and revolutionaries are mutually exclusive.
If traits like insecurity, ego and visions of grandeur are parts of the charismatic personality, shouldn't they be closely researched to determine its viability? How does insecurity fit into the charismatic attribute if society extols the virtue of confidence? Could societal defined traits purported to being negative actually be an essential trait for charisma? Metaphorically speaking, instead of separating the chaff from the wheat, is the chaff and wheat necessary for charismatic personalities to develop? The overly idealistic or "Polly Anna" defining of charisma won't bring more clarity, only further ambiguity. A phenomenon with such potency on the world stage should not be fraught with so much ambiguity.
For more information, visit: Charisma
If traits like insecurity, ego and visions of grandeur are parts of the charismatic personality, shouldn't they be closely researched to determine its viability? How does insecurity fit into the charismatic attribute if society extols the virtue of confidence? Could societal defined traits purported to being negative actually be an essential trait for charisma? Metaphorically speaking, instead of separating the chaff from the wheat, is the chaff and wheat necessary for charismatic personalities to develop? The overly idealistic or "Polly Anna" defining of charisma won't bring more clarity, only further ambiguity. A phenomenon with such potency on the world stage should not be fraught with so much ambiguity.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
