Charismatic personalities are often celebrated for their ability to articulate and maintain a strong command of language. To the charismatic personality, language is a double-edge sword that can build or tear down with equal intensity. While the charismatic personality is consciously aware of the power of words, he uses words as a source of influence and control. As a thinker, he knows intellectually how to generate specific responses to stimuli, but as one who loses himself in the field of ideas, he may not always be cognizant of the power of his words or his actions. Sounds contradictory? How can one be in tune with his power over words and still allows this knowledge to become lost in the field of ideas? This can occur because charismatic personalities often view ideas with less sensitivity than the emotions of others. People are the conduit by which ideas are manifested and often may take a backseat to the ideas themselves. In the field of ideas, charismatic personalities can experiment with various thoughts and precepts. Ideas are not emotional and do not take off-handed or misperceived comments personally. On the contrary, people take every nuance and connotation of language to heart. Thus, charismatic personalities must be ever vigilant over their words, because the passion and assuredness by which they speak can cause extreme chaos. The best place for charismatic personalities to frolic in the field of ideas is alone, because once ideas are brought to the masses; they must be delivered gently when emotions run high and forcefully when emotions are low. In this respect, charismatic personalities who speak cavalierly about critical issues do so at their own peril. If Carlyle’s idea of people being hard-wired for hero worshipping is accepted, then the deification of the charismatic personality beckons for a high degree of circumspection.
For more information, visit: http://coreedgehrworkforcesolutions.core-edge.com/
Monday, December 20, 2010
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/
Monday, December 6, 2010
Charisma, Products and Passion
The difference between a star and a genuine charismatic personality hinges on the star’s willingness to merely be a product and the charismatic personality’s need and desire to lead a crusade. To go a step further, it is the difference between a movie star and an artist/actor. The movie star makes movies to be popular, while an artist builds a body of work demonstrating the range and variations of his talent. A movie star may have a body of work, but it is like a high school student who joins organizations to enhance his resume for college consideration compared to a student who campaigns for student government, because he is preparing for a future in politics. The two individuals may very well become successful, but the future politician engenders something much greater than the “resume builder.” The student government official, artist and charismatic personality all have one thing in common---passion. Each is driven by a goal that begins with incremental steps leading to a grand design. It is the difference between Matthew McConaughey and Johnny Depp; Jerry Springer and Ted Koppel and Cornell West and Stephen Hawking. One group panders to the low brow in the theater of the absurd, while the other passionately and carefully considers each step to a compelling goal. Depp, Koppel and Hawking can provide a cogent, consistent reason for their work that has not deviated from the first time they opted towards their medium of expression. The difference between the two schools of thought is largely philosophical based on a specific worldview. The product driven individual sees the world as a business where fame and popularity can be traded. The passionate creator believes the body of work done properly and carefully can be profitable without having to look outside the medium for expression. To be sure, both parties realize the economic realities of the world, but choose to go about it differently. A disparity in the human will for excellence emerges when the goal of the individual is not to master a craft, but leverage it “half developed” for pure profitability.
Too many individuals are opting to take the product driven route without a balance towards the creation of excellence through disciplined passion. To rest future ingenuity and innovation in an environment of mediocrity and apathy is the cessation of what has made civilization great and sparked imaginations beyond our wildest dreams.
Invariably, charisma is a rare trait within any individual no matter what vocation he might participate. But, there is one thing that any individual can embrace under the charisma marquee, the ability and willingness to consider and care for the long term affects of one’s body of work. Passion is only one component of the charismatic personality. However, this one trait can ascend to the highest heights of possibilities when excellence is the goal.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Too many individuals are opting to take the product driven route without a balance towards the creation of excellence through disciplined passion. To rest future ingenuity and innovation in an environment of mediocrity and apathy is the cessation of what has made civilization great and sparked imaginations beyond our wildest dreams.
Invariably, charisma is a rare trait within any individual no matter what vocation he might participate. But, there is one thing that any individual can embrace under the charisma marquee, the ability and willingness to consider and care for the long term affects of one’s body of work. Passion is only one component of the charismatic personality. However, this one trait can ascend to the highest heights of possibilities when excellence is the goal.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Wanted: Charismatic Leaders and Ideas
Since the election of President Barack Obama, the conversation surrounding charismatic leadership has quieted. This is a dramatic shift from candidate Obama who regaled the world reminiscent of John F. Kennedy’s “Camelot.” Obama’s youthful vigor, enthusiasm and good looks were a breath of fresh air in an attempt to “reset” the agenda for geopolitics and commerce in a global economy. The world had waited for a change in business and politics and Obama seemed to answer the clarion call. What happened? How could a candidate who came out of virtually nowhere have a meteoric rise and then the connectivity and charisma ascribed to him become muted? The obvious question would be, “Was candidate Obama a bona fide charismatic or merely more interesting compared to the field of his non-charismatic competitors?” More importantly, is society so desirous of leadership with passion and a compelling vision that it will support anyone who comes close to this ideal? Suffice to say that when leaders, generally, and charismatic leaders, specifically, are not in abundance, any uptick towards a semblance of leadership is not only embraced, but revered. The fact is that charismatic leadership is scarce because there are too few people steeped in the field of ideas. Sexy marketing is in and the hard fought battle of reconciling disparate ideas and concepts is out. Contemporary society is witnessing the “dummying down” of intelligence in an information, digital age. Such a thought appears oxymoronic. How could the democratization of information produce so few great men and women of ideas? How could the great universities of the world not produce a sea of Einsteins or a phalanx of Alexander Hamiltons? Only in a time where one does not have to dig for information could ideas that produce compelling and magnetic leaders be quashed.
What is the connection between charismatic leaders and ideas?
When the mind is disciplined to read and absorb a great deal of information, it sees patterns and voids in ways the less intellectual cannot. If the mind is a computer within itself, it arranges ideas that seem disconnected into a tapestry of form. It fills empty spaces within the human experience with substance hoped for, but not realized until now. It is like someone having a taste for something sweet, but does not know what dessert would actually fulfill the desire. If one was posed options to select from, the person would decide the appropriate treat based on taste and satisfaction. Thought leaders who turn ideas into compelling visions do not create to lead, they create and the audience embraces the viability of the idea and follows. The thought leader revels in the field of ideas. Ideas revitalize, capture and spark new realities converse to mere existence. The individual devoid of ideas is a lifeless lump of clay. Better yet, a living, breathing, “Lifeless,” lump of clay.
Thought leaders with compelling ideas delivered with passion reflect charismatic leadership. They breathe life into individuals that either encourages similar initiatives or a renewed purpose on the part of individuals. The field of ideas creates these leaders, but one must be intellectually curious to wallow in the possibilities. Because the Information Age has not produced individuals with great intellectual curiosity, it has not produced an abundance of thought leaders who inspire hope and the manifestation of ideas. It has created people who regurgitate information as a means of satisfying limited needs (Term papers, answers to immediate questions, trivial pursuit, etc…), but not the next Alexander the Great, Emerson or Machiavelli.
Within any presidency or position of leadership, it is important to inspire hope and optimism, but at the end of the day, the continuous creation, processing and implementation of ideas are essential. The world can become saturated with entertainment, sports and even technology, but the field of compelling ideas with never be overrun. The charismatic leader chooses the road less travelled. To choose the road less travelled makes all the difference in the world.
For more information, visit: Charisma
What is the connection between charismatic leaders and ideas?
When the mind is disciplined to read and absorb a great deal of information, it sees patterns and voids in ways the less intellectual cannot. If the mind is a computer within itself, it arranges ideas that seem disconnected into a tapestry of form. It fills empty spaces within the human experience with substance hoped for, but not realized until now. It is like someone having a taste for something sweet, but does not know what dessert would actually fulfill the desire. If one was posed options to select from, the person would decide the appropriate treat based on taste and satisfaction. Thought leaders who turn ideas into compelling visions do not create to lead, they create and the audience embraces the viability of the idea and follows. The thought leader revels in the field of ideas. Ideas revitalize, capture and spark new realities converse to mere existence. The individual devoid of ideas is a lifeless lump of clay. Better yet, a living, breathing, “Lifeless,” lump of clay.
Thought leaders with compelling ideas delivered with passion reflect charismatic leadership. They breathe life into individuals that either encourages similar initiatives or a renewed purpose on the part of individuals. The field of ideas creates these leaders, but one must be intellectually curious to wallow in the possibilities. Because the Information Age has not produced individuals with great intellectual curiosity, it has not produced an abundance of thought leaders who inspire hope and the manifestation of ideas. It has created people who regurgitate information as a means of satisfying limited needs (Term papers, answers to immediate questions, trivial pursuit, etc…), but not the next Alexander the Great, Emerson or Machiavelli.
Within any presidency or position of leadership, it is important to inspire hope and optimism, but at the end of the day, the continuous creation, processing and implementation of ideas are essential. The world can become saturated with entertainment, sports and even technology, but the field of compelling ideas with never be overrun. The charismatic leader chooses the road less travelled. To choose the road less travelled makes all the difference in the world.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Saturday, November 20, 2010
"Prada" is a Charismatic
This review is from: The Devil Wears Prada (Full Screen Edition) (DVD)
"The Devil Wears Prada" is a staple in my personal movie library. Rarely has a lioness been more enticing or vicious in corporate America as Meryl Streep's "Miranda Priestley." Priestley is equal to task to Michael Douglas' "Gordon Gekko" in the movie "Wall Street." But, why do we love these characters that would do anything to achieve and maintain professional success? I believe "...Prada" is a microcosm of the world. Most people are afraid to wholeheartedly go after the "Brass Ring." When we see the likes of a Miranda Priestley (Streep) entering onto the world stage, we love and loathe her simultaneously for her viciousness as well as her victories. While she may exhibit somewhat psychopathic tendencies, she is not the shrinking violet many would have her be. In fact, her subordinates become victims of the "Stockholm Syndrome." While the fashion industry isn't a philanthropic endeavor, the characters become sucked into her vortex, enamored by the passion and sheer excellence Miranda puts into her vocation. Meryl Streep was edged out by Helen Mirren's "The Queen" for the Oscar, but it's Streep's riveting performance that keeps me repeating the experience.
Watch "The Devil Wears Prada" to be entertained and educated about the ways of the world. The most salient one liner in the movie was Streep's divulging a truism of contemporary society and its pursuit of acclaim, fame and fortune, "Everyone wants to be us."
Related: Charisma
"The Devil Wears Prada" is a staple in my personal movie library. Rarely has a lioness been more enticing or vicious in corporate America as Meryl Streep's "Miranda Priestley." Priestley is equal to task to Michael Douglas' "Gordon Gekko" in the movie "Wall Street." But, why do we love these characters that would do anything to achieve and maintain professional success? I believe "...Prada" is a microcosm of the world. Most people are afraid to wholeheartedly go after the "Brass Ring." When we see the likes of a Miranda Priestley (Streep) entering onto the world stage, we love and loathe her simultaneously for her viciousness as well as her victories. While she may exhibit somewhat psychopathic tendencies, she is not the shrinking violet many would have her be. In fact, her subordinates become victims of the "Stockholm Syndrome." While the fashion industry isn't a philanthropic endeavor, the characters become sucked into her vortex, enamored by the passion and sheer excellence Miranda puts into her vocation. Meryl Streep was edged out by Helen Mirren's "The Queen" for the Oscar, but it's Streep's riveting performance that keeps me repeating the experience.
Watch "The Devil Wears Prada" to be entertained and educated about the ways of the world. The most salient one liner in the movie was Streep's divulging a truism of contemporary society and its pursuit of acclaim, fame and fortune, "Everyone wants to be us."
Related: Charisma
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Charisma Of A New Concept
This review is from: Fling (DVD)
"Fling" is one of those "sleeper" hits. The kind of movie that doesn't have blockbuster appeal, but creates its own cult following on the DVD scene. Why? Because it challenges conventional thinking in ways that frighten mainstream mores. To engage in romantic relationships, where each party isn't attempting to own the other person, is counterintuitive to our Judeo-Christian socialization. "Fling" makes an overt commentary that might be missed by the typical viewer--conform or be alone. Granted, it's difficult to be emotionally detached and compartmentalized when feelings emerge in relationships. But, does the emotional conflict derive because we legitimately feel expectations from love or have we been socialized to respond a certain way, because of the societal scripts we read from? If we respond emotionally from the framework of our socialization, I suspect it'll be the later--we feel emotional connection from our psychological scripts.
"Fling" attempts to dissect and explore the emotional possibilities of "Free Love." In keeping with conventional wisdom, Hollywood let's the explorer lose in the end. Not because the idea is preposterous, but because "Free Love" would disrupt life as we know it.
I highly recommend "Fling" to the intellectually enlightened.
"Fling" is one of those "sleeper" hits. The kind of movie that doesn't have blockbuster appeal, but creates its own cult following on the DVD scene. Why? Because it challenges conventional thinking in ways that frighten mainstream mores. To engage in romantic relationships, where each party isn't attempting to own the other person, is counterintuitive to our Judeo-Christian socialization. "Fling" makes an overt commentary that might be missed by the typical viewer--conform or be alone. Granted, it's difficult to be emotionally detached and compartmentalized when feelings emerge in relationships. But, does the emotional conflict derive because we legitimately feel expectations from love or have we been socialized to respond a certain way, because of the societal scripts we read from? If we respond emotionally from the framework of our socialization, I suspect it'll be the later--we feel emotional connection from our psychological scripts.
"Fling" attempts to dissect and explore the emotional possibilities of "Free Love." In keeping with conventional wisdom, Hollywood let's the explorer lose in the end. Not because the idea is preposterous, but because "Free Love" would disrupt life as we know it.
I highly recommend "Fling" to the intellectually enlightened.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
The Charisma of Simone
This review is from: Simone (DVD)
"Simone" is "A Thinking Person's" movie. It's one of those "would if" movies where the concept trumps the acting and cinematography. Would if you could digitally produce a musician, athlete or actor for the pure purpose of entertaining a population and didn't have to worry about prima donnas, excessive salaries and bloated budgets? What if, for the first time, a bona fide celebrity could be created from the dark recesses of a computer and appear more real than the latest phenom? From the election of the President to the latest fad, "Simone" shows how far society has come in creating illusions that people not only buy into, but relish as a way of life better than reality. There is philosophical subtext throughout "Simone" commenting on how far we've devolved as a society without being sermonic. However, what initially was a moral dilemma becomes an acceptance of the world "as is." In the end, the audience is left with the option of fighting an uphill battle over reality or surrendering by adapting to the environment of illusion. Darwin said that the person best able to adapt to an environment would thrive.
"Simone" is a comedy, but the concept is strikingly real.
Related: Charisma
"Simone" is "A Thinking Person's" movie. It's one of those "would if" movies where the concept trumps the acting and cinematography. Would if you could digitally produce a musician, athlete or actor for the pure purpose of entertaining a population and didn't have to worry about prima donnas, excessive salaries and bloated budgets? What if, for the first time, a bona fide celebrity could be created from the dark recesses of a computer and appear more real than the latest phenom? From the election of the President to the latest fad, "Simone" shows how far society has come in creating illusions that people not only buy into, but relish as a way of life better than reality. There is philosophical subtext throughout "Simone" commenting on how far we've devolved as a society without being sermonic. However, what initially was a moral dilemma becomes an acceptance of the world "as is." In the end, the audience is left with the option of fighting an uphill battle over reality or surrendering by adapting to the environment of illusion. Darwin said that the person best able to adapt to an environment would thrive.
"Simone" is a comedy, but the concept is strikingly real.
Related: Charisma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
