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

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

5 Ways to Enhance Your Charisma Using Historical Figures as Models

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, visit:  Charisma

When Charisma Isn’t Enough

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

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/

Martin Luther King, Jr. Used Charisma Strategically

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., may not have used his charisma for diabolical purposes, but is arguable that it was used for strategic purposes in achieving specific objectives.

"…Emphasis on King's charisma conveys the misleading notion of a movement held together by spellbinding speeches and blind faith rather than by a complex blend of rational and emotional bonds. King's charisma did not place him above criticism. Indeed, he was never able to gain mass support for his notion of nonviolent struggle as a way of life, rather than simply a tactic. Instead of viewing himself as the embodiment of widely held Afro-American racial values, he willingly risked his popularity among blacks through his steadfast advocacy of nonviolent strategies to achieve radical social change.
Only those unfamiliar with the Afro-American clergy would assume that his oratorical skills were unique, but King set himself apart from other black preachers through his use of traditional black Christian idiom to advocate unconventional political ideas. Early in his life King became disillusioned with the unbridled emotionalism associated with his father's religious fundamentalism, and, as a thirteen-year-old, he questioned the bodily resurrection of Jesus in his Sunday school class. His subsequent search for an intellectually satisfying religious faith conflicted with the emphasis on emotional expressiveness that pervades evangelical religion. His preaching manner was rooted in the traditions of the black church, while his subject matter, which often reflected his wide-ranging philosophical interests, distinguished him from other preachers who relied on rhetorical devices that manipulated the emotions of listeners. King used charisma as a tool for mobilizing black communities, but he always used it in the context of other forms of intellectual and political leadership suited to a movement containing many strong leaders."1

1 Clayborne Carson, "Martin Luther King Jr.: Charismatic Leadership in a Mass Struggle." Journal of American History 74, (September 1987): 448-454.

For more information, visit: Charisma

Charisma & The Will to Power

At first glance, the notion of charisma as a self- serving tool might be off-putting. But a closer examination would go to the reason individuals become leaders in the first place. The idealistic model suggests that leaders traditionally assume the leadership baton, because he or she has the best intentions for the perpetuity of civilization in mind. There is no doubt that this may be the case. In both examples, Hitler and Dr. King had the interests of their respective countrymen in mind. They were both responding to the immediate needs and desires of their constituencies. However, both men knew their audiences and what would motivate them towards action. Individuals don't necessary assume leadership roles because they embrace a notion of popular consensus, but because they believe their ideas are better. In short, they will to power to exercise these ideas for self-gratification primarily and for the uplifting of the masses secondarily. Whether it is politicians, clerics or well-meaning individuals, most charismatic leadership as well as other forms of leadership, begin with a compelling idea of supremacy.

This would stand to reason. After all, what would be the need for alternatives, if the status quo was sufficient? The desire for betterment is at the core of human motivation and innovation. Witness the rise of mega churches, with charismatic leadership often the progenitor of its success. What more commentary could individuals provide from biblical scriptures that have been around for two thousand years? The cleric who says he has another point of view by which he builds a church is self- aggrandizing, which invariably leads to congregants accepting his point of view as a guide to a better way of life.

Let's be clear that charismatic leadership, while initiated from the self- interest of the leader, is progressive in that it cuts through the rhetoric of why individuals become leaders in the first place--to achieve a goal and a mission. The general rules for leadership modules have gone off course mainly because it proposes to be politically correct rather than effective. The reason there is a saturation of leadership models with very little leaders is because they largely attempt an overly idealistic reality about human nature. Man was never as good as pundits have asserted. And any criticism on the part of humanity is largely excused in favor of lofty ideas regarding man's inherent design to be "God-like", but consistently falling short of this grace. As man continues to fall off the horse, our hope is that eventually he will become an experienced rider.

Related: Charisma