In this session, charisma expert and commentator Edward Brown provides insights on the privileges and objectives of the charismatic personality.
Q: What are the privileges of charismatic personalities?
A: The world stage is the charismatic personality’s playground and he enjoys playing the game of life for self-pleasure. People are mere conduits to his pleasure.
Q: So, does the charismatic personality use people to achieve his ends?
A: Yes, but not in a malicious sense. The typical charismatic personality is not trying to harm or annihilate anyone. He realizes that life is a mere game and people serve as conduits for pleasure or pain. The charismatic personality’s reality and choices are to receive more pleasure. Pain is not an option.
Q: Interesting. Given the fact that we can’t control everything in life as individuals, how does a charismatic personality wield so much power and control?
A: Well, he views himself as smarter than the average person. He views life as an introspective scientist using intellect over emotions. He is generally aware of everything that is going on around him and has developed a lifestyle where studying human nature is part of his work as well as his entertainment. Nothing is left to chance and the idea of a balanced life is laughable. People who see life as altruistic, exchanging pain for equal amounts of pleasure, is oppositional to a charismatic personality’s worldview. The thinking of the average person is viewed by the charismatic personality as a recipe for victimization. The charismatic personality pays less for pleasure than the average individual.
Q: Okay. Under these circumstances, why would an individual want to be associated with a charismatic personality?
A: Why wouldn’t anyone want to associate with a charismatic personality? In Western culture, power and control are desired aspirations. The charismatic personality is a representation of the often unstated, but understood objective of most people—the acquisition and maintenance of power. Again, people and things provide a level of pleasure. There is no place in the world where power is not an aspiration. The difference between the objectives of the charismatic personality and the average person is that the charismatic personality is keenly aware of calculated actions to affect a specific outcome. The average person has moments when he is calculating to achieve a desired outcome, but the average person is hindered by the psychological barriers he places upon himself. He really doesn’t like the idea of being calculating. It sounds manipulative.
Q: So, the fundamental difference between the charismatic personality and the average person, is courage?
A: Courage is a big part of the charismatic personality’s existence, but it is how the charismatic personality interprets, analyzes, and implements strategies for getting more pleasure in life. Gaining pleasure through strategic maneuvers is the life of a charismatic personality based on his experiences and worldview. The average person does not think in perpetually strategic terms. The calculating, bold, and audacious mind of the charismatic personality is different from the emotionally-driven and short-term thinking of the average individual. The mind and manifestations of the charismatic personality sets him apart from the average individual.
Related: Charisma
Monday, July 18, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Charisma for Geeks
In this session, charisma expert and commentator Edward Brown will provide information to those self-described “Geeks” on how to be more engaging in social settings.
Q: What is the biggest challenge Geeks face in acting more charismatic?
A: Actually, the challenge is not attempting to transform a socially inept individual into someone else’s ideal, but to make whatever the individual is, work for them.
Q: That’s very fine and well, but how do you make a Geek, say, become more successful with women?
A: Since, all women are different. The first challenge is to determine what common needs do most women share? Based on my experience, most women want to feel physically and emotionally safe, comfortable with their object of desire, mentally stimulated, and a desire to laugh. If a socially inept person can create his own distinctive style that is not outlandish, intellectually stimulate women, and make them laugh, most of the job is done.
Q: Interesting. Is it that simple to transform a geek to chic?
A: Yes, if we are trying to encourage the person to be authentically themselves in ways that they don’t have to be self-conscious. If you give individuals a philosophy for success rather than steps for success, they are allowed to be creative in the process. They won’t have to think about doing, they can just be. In some respects, I am a geek. But, I rolled my academic proclivities, urban upbringing, and law enforcement experiences into becoming a firm, funny, intellectual. I could not have become a force to be reckoned with by adhering merely to some steps.
Q: Okay. What advice would you give a geek in a business setting to attract more clients?
A: In a business setting, it is important to assess the reason for the occasion and what are the basic needs of the people attending. If many of the people in the room are businesspeople looking for contacts, it is important to determine whether this venue is the best place for what you offer in products and services. Actually, determining the correct venue for one’s products and services should have been established before attending the venue. Assuming the venue is correct for what one has to offer, the task is to casually create conversations concentrating efforts at connecting with attendees and making mental notes about what they want.
Q: What happens next?
A: You’re not trying to make a sell, but merely gathering information and establishing connections. By the time you leave with collected business cards, follow up later with reference to the conversation you had with them. If you heard the potential client mention a problem he/she is having, begin the consultation process by demonstrating that you have the solution to their problem.
To be more engaging, lead with the personal attributes that are the most effective in influencing people.
Related: Charisma
Q: What is the biggest challenge Geeks face in acting more charismatic?
A: Actually, the challenge is not attempting to transform a socially inept individual into someone else’s ideal, but to make whatever the individual is, work for them.
Q: That’s very fine and well, but how do you make a Geek, say, become more successful with women?
A: Since, all women are different. The first challenge is to determine what common needs do most women share? Based on my experience, most women want to feel physically and emotionally safe, comfortable with their object of desire, mentally stimulated, and a desire to laugh. If a socially inept person can create his own distinctive style that is not outlandish, intellectually stimulate women, and make them laugh, most of the job is done.
Q: Interesting. Is it that simple to transform a geek to chic?
A: Yes, if we are trying to encourage the person to be authentically themselves in ways that they don’t have to be self-conscious. If you give individuals a philosophy for success rather than steps for success, they are allowed to be creative in the process. They won’t have to think about doing, they can just be. In some respects, I am a geek. But, I rolled my academic proclivities, urban upbringing, and law enforcement experiences into becoming a firm, funny, intellectual. I could not have become a force to be reckoned with by adhering merely to some steps.
Q: Okay. What advice would you give a geek in a business setting to attract more clients?
A: In a business setting, it is important to assess the reason for the occasion and what are the basic needs of the people attending. If many of the people in the room are businesspeople looking for contacts, it is important to determine whether this venue is the best place for what you offer in products and services. Actually, determining the correct venue for one’s products and services should have been established before attending the venue. Assuming the venue is correct for what one has to offer, the task is to casually create conversations concentrating efforts at connecting with attendees and making mental notes about what they want.
Q: What happens next?
A: You’re not trying to make a sell, but merely gathering information and establishing connections. By the time you leave with collected business cards, follow up later with reference to the conversation you had with them. If you heard the potential client mention a problem he/she is having, begin the consultation process by demonstrating that you have the solution to their problem.
To be more engaging, lead with the personal attributes that are the most effective in influencing people.
Related: Charisma
Monday, July 4, 2011
Charisma & The Single Man
Dear Mr. Brown:
I recently had a spirited discussion with my boyfriend about a man we know that can be best described as good-looking, educated and charismatic. Over the years, Chad (not his real name) has dated many women, but has repeatedly claimed to have not met the right woman to marry. How is it possible for a man to have so much going on, but can’t find the woman of his dreams?
Janice McArthur
New York, NY
Dear Ms. McArthur:
For a minute, I thought you were talking about me. (Just kidding). I am firm believer that if a man wants to be married, he will be married. It has been often said that women control who has sex, but men control who gets married. Women, who ask men why they are still single, view marriage through their own eyes, not the eyes of men. Earlier this year, I watched an episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show about a woman who married a man sentenced to life in prison without any chance of parole. I sat there wondering what could a convicted man, serving a life sentence, say to a woman that would make her say “I do” to that man in marriage. If a convicted man could find a wife given his limited choices, why couldn’t a single, free, handsome, educated, and charismatic man not find a wife if he was truly looking for one?
I suggest that men who are handsome, educated, and charismatic want the freedom that goes along with being single and free. Chad is not looking for marriage, because whatever a potential wife is willing to offer him, there are countless women willing to do the same without the necessity of marriage. Many contemporary men, while valuing the institution of marriage as a concept, do not see the long-terms value of marriage unless children are involved. If Chad is over 40 years of age, he has run the gamut of women. Some women were marriage material and others were mere opportunities to have fun. Do not ever believe a heterosexual man who says he cannot find a woman to marry. It is a ploy to throw you off his real intentions, which is to remain single and free until there is no more value in it. Once the bloom begins to diminish from his rose, he’ll seek and find a wife. On the upside, she will be getting a man who is more settled and wiser due to age. On the downside, he is giving her a diminished version of his past self, which he would never have shared when he was at his best.
Related: Charisma
I recently had a spirited discussion with my boyfriend about a man we know that can be best described as good-looking, educated and charismatic. Over the years, Chad (not his real name) has dated many women, but has repeatedly claimed to have not met the right woman to marry. How is it possible for a man to have so much going on, but can’t find the woman of his dreams?
Janice McArthur
New York, NY
Dear Ms. McArthur:
For a minute, I thought you were talking about me. (Just kidding). I am firm believer that if a man wants to be married, he will be married. It has been often said that women control who has sex, but men control who gets married. Women, who ask men why they are still single, view marriage through their own eyes, not the eyes of men. Earlier this year, I watched an episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show about a woman who married a man sentenced to life in prison without any chance of parole. I sat there wondering what could a convicted man, serving a life sentence, say to a woman that would make her say “I do” to that man in marriage. If a convicted man could find a wife given his limited choices, why couldn’t a single, free, handsome, educated, and charismatic man not find a wife if he was truly looking for one?
I suggest that men who are handsome, educated, and charismatic want the freedom that goes along with being single and free. Chad is not looking for marriage, because whatever a potential wife is willing to offer him, there are countless women willing to do the same without the necessity of marriage. Many contemporary men, while valuing the institution of marriage as a concept, do not see the long-terms value of marriage unless children are involved. If Chad is over 40 years of age, he has run the gamut of women. Some women were marriage material and others were mere opportunities to have fun. Do not ever believe a heterosexual man who says he cannot find a woman to marry. It is a ploy to throw you off his real intentions, which is to remain single and free until there is no more value in it. Once the bloom begins to diminish from his rose, he’ll seek and find a wife. On the upside, she will be getting a man who is more settled and wiser due to age. On the downside, he is giving her a diminished version of his past self, which he would never have shared when he was at his best.
Related: Charisma
Monday, June 27, 2011
Charisma & the Virtue of Selfishness
Dear Mr. Brown:
I either read or saw a video where you promoted the importance of being selfish to acheive success. How do you reconcile people being selfish and charismatic at the same time? Is this an oxymoron?
Theresa Wildenmore
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Ms. Wildenmore:
Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, I have talked about being selfish to achieve personal and professional goals. Unfortunately, people connote selfishness as a negative term. Researching the lives of acclaimed individuals from Alexander the Great to Barack Obama has led me to believe that raw, unadulterated ambition by men labeled charismatic is steeped in selfishness. Reportedly, basketball great Michael Jordan said you had to be selfish to achieve greatness, but become less selfish as one achieved their goals. I am not sure how that is done authentically. Microsoft’s Bill Gates was ruthlessly selfish and ambition according to various reports. However, his philanthropic initiatives are unparalleled on the world stage. Does Gates give to worthy causes because he has achieved his aspirations and can afford to do so? Or is his giving a ploy to encourage people to buy and support Microsoft products? We can only speculate.
However, I believe that you can do good and well simultaneously. Being selfish only crystallizes what your intentions are. Once you are clear about your objectives, you can align everything in your life with your ultimate goals. Historically, this is how great feats have been accomplished.
The fundamental factor that makes charismatic people so successful is the keen insight into what they are after as well as a clear understanding of human nature to get there.
Everyone has to decide for themselves what is important and what they can tolerate. To date, if I had made different decisions in life, I could not enjoy the life that I have pursued. It came with setbacks, relentlessness, and yes selfishness. I knew of no other way to effectively perform and the selfishness of other people would have destroyed me.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
I either read or saw a video where you promoted the importance of being selfish to acheive success. How do you reconcile people being selfish and charismatic at the same time? Is this an oxymoron?
Theresa Wildenmore
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Ms. Wildenmore:
Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, I have talked about being selfish to achieve personal and professional goals. Unfortunately, people connote selfishness as a negative term. Researching the lives of acclaimed individuals from Alexander the Great to Barack Obama has led me to believe that raw, unadulterated ambition by men labeled charismatic is steeped in selfishness. Reportedly, basketball great Michael Jordan said you had to be selfish to achieve greatness, but become less selfish as one achieved their goals. I am not sure how that is done authentically. Microsoft’s Bill Gates was ruthlessly selfish and ambition according to various reports. However, his philanthropic initiatives are unparalleled on the world stage. Does Gates give to worthy causes because he has achieved his aspirations and can afford to do so? Or is his giving a ploy to encourage people to buy and support Microsoft products? We can only speculate.
However, I believe that you can do good and well simultaneously. Being selfish only crystallizes what your intentions are. Once you are clear about your objectives, you can align everything in your life with your ultimate goals. Historically, this is how great feats have been accomplished.
The fundamental factor that makes charismatic people so successful is the keen insight into what they are after as well as a clear understanding of human nature to get there.
Everyone has to decide for themselves what is important and what they can tolerate. To date, if I had made different decisions in life, I could not enjoy the life that I have pursued. It came with setbacks, relentlessness, and yes selfishness. I knew of no other way to effectively perform and the selfishness of other people would have destroyed me.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Does Transformational Leadership Create Charismatic Leaders?
In this Q & A session, researcher on charisma and charismatic leadership, Edward Brown of Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute, provides insight into the possible impact of transformational leadership on charismatic leaders.
Q: What is the difference between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership?
A: Actually, the charismatic leadership model predates the transformational leadership model by several decades. Eminent sociologist, Max Weber (1864-1920) is credited for secularizing the concept of charisma and the charismatic leadership model. James MacGregor Burns is credited with developing the transformational leadership model in 1978.
Essentially, the two leadership models share the same traits. Charismatic leaders and transformational leaders are described as visionaries, inspirational, and great orators. The major distinction researchers make between the models is that charismatic leaders are power driven to complete a mission; whereas transformational leaders empower individuals to become more independent and less dependent on the leader.
Q: Why do you think there is so much disagreement among researchers about transformational leadership versus charismatic leadership?
A: I believe some representatives of the charismatic leadership model have given it a negative connotation. Hitler, Mussolini, and Amin come to mind. Proponents of transformational leadership have taken the positive traits of charismatic leadership and made transformational leadership a morality driven model. Transformational leadership is reminiscent of charismatic leadership when charismatic leadership had a religious connotation attached to it under church historian Rudolph Sohm.
Q: What do you think is the connection between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership?
A: My thoughts are premature on this particular notion. However, I hypothesize that transformational leaders create charismatic leaders.
Q: Could you elaborate?
A: I was trying to decide if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was more of a transformational leader or a charismatic leader. If he was trying to transform the segregated conditions of his time and the people around him, then he was transformational. But, if he had a selfish motive for his cause, he may be closer to the charismatic leadership model. I surmised that he was transformational in that he transformed legislation, race relations and self-determination for black people. However, the people he transformed appear to operate more to the charismatic leadership model. Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, Ralph David Abernathy, Hosea Williams, John Lewis, and Joseph Lowery fall under the charismatic leadership model. Although they all shared a common experience, each man carved out a niche for himself in the market place. Although they are/were influential, arguably, not one of these men has created an institution bigger than themselves. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I was not attempting to judge the contributions of these men, but determine the difference between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership.
Q: Do any other examples come to mind?
A: Yes, Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of Islam was transformational, but Malcolm X and Minister Louis Farrakhan are under the charismatic leadership model. In this regard, charisma can support the work of the transformational leader (Dr. King and Elijah Muhammad) or create a body of work within itself, Steve Jobs and Apple technology products and Denzel Washington and his body of film work.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Q: What is the difference between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership?
A: Actually, the charismatic leadership model predates the transformational leadership model by several decades. Eminent sociologist, Max Weber (1864-1920) is credited for secularizing the concept of charisma and the charismatic leadership model. James MacGregor Burns is credited with developing the transformational leadership model in 1978.
Essentially, the two leadership models share the same traits. Charismatic leaders and transformational leaders are described as visionaries, inspirational, and great orators. The major distinction researchers make between the models is that charismatic leaders are power driven to complete a mission; whereas transformational leaders empower individuals to become more independent and less dependent on the leader.
Q: Why do you think there is so much disagreement among researchers about transformational leadership versus charismatic leadership?
A: I believe some representatives of the charismatic leadership model have given it a negative connotation. Hitler, Mussolini, and Amin come to mind. Proponents of transformational leadership have taken the positive traits of charismatic leadership and made transformational leadership a morality driven model. Transformational leadership is reminiscent of charismatic leadership when charismatic leadership had a religious connotation attached to it under church historian Rudolph Sohm.
Q: What do you think is the connection between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership?
A: My thoughts are premature on this particular notion. However, I hypothesize that transformational leaders create charismatic leaders.
Q: Could you elaborate?
A: I was trying to decide if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was more of a transformational leader or a charismatic leader. If he was trying to transform the segregated conditions of his time and the people around him, then he was transformational. But, if he had a selfish motive for his cause, he may be closer to the charismatic leadership model. I surmised that he was transformational in that he transformed legislation, race relations and self-determination for black people. However, the people he transformed appear to operate more to the charismatic leadership model. Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, Ralph David Abernathy, Hosea Williams, John Lewis, and Joseph Lowery fall under the charismatic leadership model. Although they all shared a common experience, each man carved out a niche for himself in the market place. Although they are/were influential, arguably, not one of these men has created an institution bigger than themselves. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I was not attempting to judge the contributions of these men, but determine the difference between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership.
Q: Do any other examples come to mind?
A: Yes, Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of Islam was transformational, but Malcolm X and Minister Louis Farrakhan are under the charismatic leadership model. In this regard, charisma can support the work of the transformational leader (Dr. King and Elijah Muhammad) or create a body of work within itself, Steve Jobs and Apple technology products and Denzel Washington and his body of film work.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Sunday, June 12, 2011
A Charismatic Move that Almost Worked
In this Q & A session, researcher on charisma and charismatic leadership, Edward Brown of Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute, provides insight into Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh and their attempt to create a NBA championship team.
Q: What makes this experiment to put an NBA championship team together by Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh, a charismatic move?
A: It was the first time in recent history, if ever, the proletariat (players) got together to control the means of production (NBA team owners) by creating a brand that could have upset the balance of power. Charismatic leaders often create a vision contrary to the status quo in their quest for power.
Q: In this trio, who is the charismatic leader?
A: There are no real compelling personalities within this trio, but the idea was a charismatic move. The decision for three basketball stars to get together and basically create a basketball team within the NBA system is tantamount to the good old days in street basketball, where one individual (who had the next game) would try to create a powerhouse team by getting all the best available players to become undefeatable on the court. Generally within the NBA, the team coach, scout, and owner try to structure a franchise that has the best chances for a championship win within the salary caps that are available. The move by this trio upended the current system.
Q: What does it mean that the experiment by these players fell short in that they did not win the 2011 NBA Championship?
A: In a practical sense, there is always next year. Viewing the situation from another angle, the three players proved a point that individuals could make creative, charismatic moves inside a traditionally-oriented organization. To almost win the 2011 NBA Championship on an idea concocted by a group of individuals is a phenomenal feat in itself. The NBA owners have to at least consider what the choice for NBA players forming their own team means in terms of power. On one hand, it would appear that power rests with individual players coming together to create a new reality. On the other hand, allowing players (employees) to become creative within a company does not take away from the power of the organization, it enhances it. It was Art Fry at 3M Company that created the Post-It note pad as an entrepreneurial venture inside the 3M Company. From the success of Post-Its, 3M encouraged employees to become more creative as part of 3M’s operational philosophy. To truly upset the means of production, an employee has to have a compelling idea within his own company that competes against a strong established brand. NBA owners do not envision NBA players starting their own teams and restructuring how business is done. It can happen and maybe this trio planted the seed for other players to look past merely being basketball players, but owners within the NBA system.
Q: What do you think is the chance of NBA players becoming owners within a system they play in?
A: Again, it is a novel idea. Two points come to mind: 1.Rapper LL Cool J said it best when he said that just because you can make a cake, does not mean you can operate a bakery. Playing basketball and operating a basketball franchise are totally different, 2. If a rule within the NBA suggested that players cannot own teams, the idea would die an immediate death. An organization is not going to create rules that will lead to its own demise. It will close its doors first.
Q: Although the trio is not necessarily charismatic, their idea was charismatic. How can ideas be charismatic?
A: The Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute defines charisma as “The creating of perceptions that impact the mind and emotions of others through flair, finesse, and glib language.” Lebron James’ self initiated recruitment tour that prompted NBA teams to audition for his services captured the imagination of the sports industry. The surprising revelation that James, Wade, and Bosh had collaborated behind the scene for all of them to play basketball in Miami was even more surprising. There was a great deal of flair and finesse as well as chicanery for the sake of entertainment. Invariably, this was a great win for the NBA as a whole. When the biggest myth makers and cheerleaders are the employees, you truly have an organization where all the stakeholders are dedicated to the brand. After all, we are still talking about basketball—child’s play.
Related: Charisma
Q: What makes this experiment to put an NBA championship team together by Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh, a charismatic move?
A: It was the first time in recent history, if ever, the proletariat (players) got together to control the means of production (NBA team owners) by creating a brand that could have upset the balance of power. Charismatic leaders often create a vision contrary to the status quo in their quest for power.
Q: In this trio, who is the charismatic leader?
A: There are no real compelling personalities within this trio, but the idea was a charismatic move. The decision for three basketball stars to get together and basically create a basketball team within the NBA system is tantamount to the good old days in street basketball, where one individual (who had the next game) would try to create a powerhouse team by getting all the best available players to become undefeatable on the court. Generally within the NBA, the team coach, scout, and owner try to structure a franchise that has the best chances for a championship win within the salary caps that are available. The move by this trio upended the current system.
Q: What does it mean that the experiment by these players fell short in that they did not win the 2011 NBA Championship?
A: In a practical sense, there is always next year. Viewing the situation from another angle, the three players proved a point that individuals could make creative, charismatic moves inside a traditionally-oriented organization. To almost win the 2011 NBA Championship on an idea concocted by a group of individuals is a phenomenal feat in itself. The NBA owners have to at least consider what the choice for NBA players forming their own team means in terms of power. On one hand, it would appear that power rests with individual players coming together to create a new reality. On the other hand, allowing players (employees) to become creative within a company does not take away from the power of the organization, it enhances it. It was Art Fry at 3M Company that created the Post-It note pad as an entrepreneurial venture inside the 3M Company. From the success of Post-Its, 3M encouraged employees to become more creative as part of 3M’s operational philosophy. To truly upset the means of production, an employee has to have a compelling idea within his own company that competes against a strong established brand. NBA owners do not envision NBA players starting their own teams and restructuring how business is done. It can happen and maybe this trio planted the seed for other players to look past merely being basketball players, but owners within the NBA system.
Q: What do you think is the chance of NBA players becoming owners within a system they play in?
A: Again, it is a novel idea. Two points come to mind: 1.Rapper LL Cool J said it best when he said that just because you can make a cake, does not mean you can operate a bakery. Playing basketball and operating a basketball franchise are totally different, 2. If a rule within the NBA suggested that players cannot own teams, the idea would die an immediate death. An organization is not going to create rules that will lead to its own demise. It will close its doors first.
Q: Although the trio is not necessarily charismatic, their idea was charismatic. How can ideas be charismatic?
A: The Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute defines charisma as “The creating of perceptions that impact the mind and emotions of others through flair, finesse, and glib language.” Lebron James’ self initiated recruitment tour that prompted NBA teams to audition for his services captured the imagination of the sports industry. The surprising revelation that James, Wade, and Bosh had collaborated behind the scene for all of them to play basketball in Miami was even more surprising. There was a great deal of flair and finesse as well as chicanery for the sake of entertainment. Invariably, this was a great win for the NBA as a whole. When the biggest myth makers and cheerleaders are the employees, you truly have an organization where all the stakeholders are dedicated to the brand. After all, we are still talking about basketball—child’s play.
Related: Charisma
Sunday, June 5, 2011
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
