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

Charisma, Power & Control

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

Charisma & The Importance of Fame

One of the core needs of human beings is to be recognized and seen as significant. No one really wants to live in obscurity feeling that she has not contributed to society in some way. It would be a misnomer to say that the need for recognition is new, but the level and scope is a recent phenomenon. The social dynamics in a rapidly changing world made it acceptable for individuals to become self-promoters, although in some sense the stigma still remains. In the past, society frowned on the person who talked insatiably about himself and what he could do. However, the person who commands the spotlight and captures the imagination of people usually finds a place in their hearts. One person in recent history is given credit for spawning the likes of the many figures we adore today. The professional wrestler, Gorgeous George, who flourished from the late 1940's to the early 1960s, was the original sports figure who is credited for the likes of Muhammad Ali, Little Richard, Liberace and the popularity of today's wrestling. Gorgeous George competed for years as George Wagner with very little success. He was seen as plain and a less than average wrestler. George almost gave up wrestling until he came up with a marketing plan that would change his career and the face of sports forever. George grew his hair long, dying it blond and wearing gold-plated bobby pins with elaborate robes. He entered the ring escorted by a valet who sprayed his corner and his opponent's with disinfectant and perfume. He is given credit as the originator of using entrance music preferring "Pomp and Circumstance," which has become popular in many arenas including public speaking and professional wrestling . Through Gorgeous George's antics, he created a frenzy that brought people out in droves to witness his theatrics. What made him successful? He was a self-created character in the "theater of the absurd," which struck a chord with people because it captured their imagination through shear audacity. The world has rewritten the parable, "the meek shall inherit the earth" to "the bold and courageous shall inherit the earth."

Related: Charisma

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