In the coming years, music historians, psychologists and pundits will dissect the Michael Jackson phenomenon. Arguably, Michael Jackson was the greatest entertainment civilization has ever known. To break down the making of Michael Jackson, many of the fabled stories of the Jackson Family will be rehashed, torn apart, analyzed and finally synthesized into a theory. In the end, a part from his body of work spanning 40 years, his physical transformation over the years and his impact on the music industry, a comprehensive and concise understanding of the factors that created Michael Jackson will emerge. Was he a product of some miraculous alchemy? Was there a metamorphosis from childhood prodigy to adult Superstar? How did he evolve into a musical genius where others either devolved or never quite made the cut?
During the rise of the legendary group, The Jackson Five, two other groups emerged around the same time—The Sylvers and The Osmonds. The Sylvers were lead by Edmund Sylvers, but their youngest brother, Foster Sylvers, was their answer to Michael Jackson with Foster's hit song "Misdemeanor." Before the Sylvers, The Osmonds answer to Michael was little Donny Osmond who exploded on the scene with the song "One Bad Apple." In terms of commercial potential, it seemed that Donny and Foster might be able to give Michael a run for his money. Remember, this was nearly 40 years ago and The Jacksons had created an appetite for the cute, young, precocious child singing songs about experiences he hadn’t had yet. As time would reveal, the only one left standing among the three prodigies was Michael Jackson. Why?
Many commentators would suggest that Michael Jackson was far more talented than Foster Sylvers and Donny Osmond relegating his later success as proof positive of this claim. However, if the three started out having comparable talents, what made the difference between them? They all were cute, could sing and had stage presence. But, there was a mark difference between Michael Jackson and the rest.
One common denominator that permeates many charismatic personalities is some level of depravation early on in childhood development. The fabled stories of the Jackson patriarch, Joe Jackson, ruling the family with an iron fist creating insecurities and self-esteem issues within the family, in some cases creates extreme greatness or severe depravation--or one in the same. With limited information on the family backgrounds of the Sylvers and the Osmonds, a mental leap suggests that these families had pretty normal upbringings without any external compulsion to further their talents once experiencing initial success. Outside of Donny Osmond, a good trivia question would be “Where are they now?” Not the case with Michael Jackson and the Jackson brothers. Joe Jackson reportedly pushed them into greatness using draconian means. A once aspiring musician himself, Joe Jackson, introduced his progeny to music at an early age similar to Earl Woods putting a golf club in the hands of golf great Tiger Woods almost before he could walk. The same is the case with Leopold Mozart instructing a young Wolfgang Mozart. These beginnings instilled within Michael Jackson a certain level of discipline coupled with his interest in this art form would lead him to greatness. This is a great departure from time-honored child showing promise in local talent shows and “growing out” of music, as he gets older. Michael’s early introduction and socialization put him on the path to musical greatness.
To be sure, Michael Jackson was a compilation of passion for music, relentless ambition and deliberate practice. The steps to Michael's rise that lead to his awesome stage charisma were:
---Extreme curiosity for any information geared to professional excellence. Michael Jackson was consumed with being the very best entertainer and reportedly studied other legends to determine how they remained relevant and gained longevity. Motown Records Founder, Berry Gordy, remarked that Michael would ask at great length questions about the music industry and what went on behind the scenes. While his brothers were off doing things leisurely, Michael was querying the executives around him.
---Deliberate practice and an insatiable desire to "one up" himself. Geoff Colvin, in his book, "Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else," notes that deliberate practice has essentially 3 components: 1. An enthusiastic coach (someone with passion for the craft who cultivates and nurtures it) who mentors the phenom , 2. Minimum 10,000 hours or ten years of deliberate practice for the would-be phenom, and 3. The phenom would have started at a very early age. Michael was encouraged by his father, a guitarist, practiced hours a day and began singing at 5 years old and persisted for 40 years.
---Isolation and solitude to perfect his craft Michael Jackson spent a great deal of his time rehearsing and contemplating the music and moves he perfected. In fact, he had actual legal patents for some of his dance moves. The thought of Michael Jackson sharing his behind-the-scenes creativity would be naïve. He allowed the public to relish the manifestation of the process, but did not allow many into his creative inner sanctum nor expose his innovations to the world before they were complete. As an artist, Michael's creativity soared in the darkness of solitude.
There have been many entertainers before, during and since Michael Jackson who wanted to astound the world with their talents. Michael showed and proved that superstardom is much more than talent…it's much more, hard work.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Charisma Case Study: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina
The firing of Hewlett-Packard (HP) CEO Carly Fiorina shows that when it comes to charisma, women are just as affected by it as men. Fiorina's ousting suggests that the playing field has not leveled equally for men and women, but charisma is an equal opportunity provider between the sexes. The February 10, 2005 Wall Street Journal article, "How Traits That Helped Executive Climb Ladder Came to Be Fatal Flaws" described Fiorina as "unshakable, self-reliant, comfortable with the spotlight, fond of dramatic gesture, impervious to criticism…passionate about the big picture…embracing change as a way of life." Intuitively, these traits should have been the means for rocketing HP's stock into orbit after its $19 billion merger with Compaq Computer Corp. However, before Fiorina's ouster, HP's stock reportedly was down 50%.
A 2004 University of Florida study showed that Chief Executive Officers who exude intelligence, optimism, and leadership do not necessarily help their companies perform better than less charismatic counterparts do. However, the more charismatic CEO’s tend to draw higher salaries and better benefits. The study surveyed vice president-level managers of 59 Fortune 500 companies about their perceptions of the company CEO's charisma. Indicators included confidence in the CEO's management abilities and whether the CEO’s made the survey respondents feel optimistic about the company's future. The study compared the resulting "charisma" score to indicators of corporate performance and crosschecked the results against the CEOs' salaries. The conclusion... better firm performance is unrelated to the CEO’s charisma, but rather to higher salaries for the CEO5…except when the market volatility proved a benefit to the company.
Taking the necessary cues from the University of Florida's study shows that charismatic leaders are great for getting the ball rolling and creating optimism, but they need a more stabilizing style of management while enthusiasm remains high. In the current global economy, the "all or nothing" approach to leadership is not sufficient. Dissenters of the charismatic leadership model cannot rest on Fiorina's demise by saying "I told you so”, nor can the charismatic leadership model suggest that a conservative, risk- adverse approach is impractical during volatile economic times. Fiorina's ousting illuminates the need for hybrid approaches to business management that are streamlined enough to turn on a moment’s notice based on the needs of the immediate situation. A world of differences has finally come to mean all the difference in the world.
The celebrity-industrial complex has insured that business, politics, and entertainment require inanimate entities to have personalities. For Hewlett-Packard to shun any nuance of the value that charismatic leadership brings would act contrary to its best interest. There is a reason England still maintains a monarchy, while the Prime Minister and Parliament operate the government. The individual pragmatically seeks a stable government to insure ones perpetuity, and the need to maintain traditional emotions acts as a stimulus.
The lessons learned from charismatic leadership are:
· Realizing the "Built in" power and weakness---While we live in a "winner take all" society, every business, or management model has its down side. The idea is to measure the strengths versus the inefficiencies and make the necessary corrections as part of the process.
· Checking and balancing the factors that spark charisma---Egotism, self-glorification and a need for high achievement are factors in a charismatic personality. In the celebrity-industrial complex, these are not necessarily negative traits, but one should apply modifications through pragmatic conservatism when deemed necessary.
· "Don't become overwhelmed"--Charismatic leadership sweeps in like a Tsunami and mesmerizes everyone in its path through shared passion and energy. Emotions often override logic and all that is left are the shouting and finger pointing. Managers have to be on guard for the intoxicating nuances that such leadership brings.
· Asking more questions---Big picture thinkers see the world from a different perspective. Charismatic leaders may be big on plans, but short on details. By analyzing every aspect of the "Big Plan”, executives can help the charismatic leader view the challenges that such actions may create.
For more information, visit: Charisma
A 2004 University of Florida study showed that Chief Executive Officers who exude intelligence, optimism, and leadership do not necessarily help their companies perform better than less charismatic counterparts do. However, the more charismatic CEO’s tend to draw higher salaries and better benefits. The study surveyed vice president-level managers of 59 Fortune 500 companies about their perceptions of the company CEO's charisma. Indicators included confidence in the CEO's management abilities and whether the CEO’s made the survey respondents feel optimistic about the company's future. The study compared the resulting "charisma" score to indicators of corporate performance and crosschecked the results against the CEOs' salaries. The conclusion... better firm performance is unrelated to the CEO’s charisma, but rather to higher salaries for the CEO5…except when the market volatility proved a benefit to the company.
Taking the necessary cues from the University of Florida's study shows that charismatic leaders are great for getting the ball rolling and creating optimism, but they need a more stabilizing style of management while enthusiasm remains high. In the current global economy, the "all or nothing" approach to leadership is not sufficient. Dissenters of the charismatic leadership model cannot rest on Fiorina's demise by saying "I told you so”, nor can the charismatic leadership model suggest that a conservative, risk- adverse approach is impractical during volatile economic times. Fiorina's ousting illuminates the need for hybrid approaches to business management that are streamlined enough to turn on a moment’s notice based on the needs of the immediate situation. A world of differences has finally come to mean all the difference in the world.
The celebrity-industrial complex has insured that business, politics, and entertainment require inanimate entities to have personalities. For Hewlett-Packard to shun any nuance of the value that charismatic leadership brings would act contrary to its best interest. There is a reason England still maintains a monarchy, while the Prime Minister and Parliament operate the government. The individual pragmatically seeks a stable government to insure ones perpetuity, and the need to maintain traditional emotions acts as a stimulus.
The lessons learned from charismatic leadership are:
· Realizing the "Built in" power and weakness---While we live in a "winner take all" society, every business, or management model has its down side. The idea is to measure the strengths versus the inefficiencies and make the necessary corrections as part of the process.
· Checking and balancing the factors that spark charisma---Egotism, self-glorification and a need for high achievement are factors in a charismatic personality. In the celebrity-industrial complex, these are not necessarily negative traits, but one should apply modifications through pragmatic conservatism when deemed necessary.
· "Don't become overwhelmed"--Charismatic leadership sweeps in like a Tsunami and mesmerizes everyone in its path through shared passion and energy. Emotions often override logic and all that is left are the shouting and finger pointing. Managers have to be on guard for the intoxicating nuances that such leadership brings.
· Asking more questions---Big picture thinkers see the world from a different perspective. Charismatic leaders may be big on plans, but short on details. By analyzing every aspect of the "Big Plan”, executives can help the charismatic leader view the challenges that such actions may create.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Are Men & Women Equally Charismatic?
The Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute defines "charisma" as the creating of illusions to impact the emotions and psyche of others through the use of flair, finesse and glib language. The idea of the charming and engaging individual takes on different dimensions when applied to males and females. The difference is analogous to a fragrance smelling different on a man than on a woman. Such contrasts beg the question as to whether men and women can be equally charismatic. A man characterized as suave and debonair may be seen as charismatic. Where similar traits characterized by a woman might be deemed sexy, sultry or scintillating. But is this charisma? If not, charisma is either a term reserved strictly for men or the definition has to be expanded to encompass the differences in expression of both genders. In many instances, a key point to note is that a person may not be generally accepted as charismatic when he or she crosses the gender line for expression. For example, charisma is often viewed as imparting the gender traits within its definition and does not necessarily allow for men to take on traits deemed feminine and vice versa. Terms such as flamboyant, outlandish or ostentatious might apply, but charisma is arguable.
In viewing this hypothesis of charisma being gender specific, under the terms of Core Edge's definition, women can be charismatic, but it manifests itself differently than that that of men. In a patriarchal society, the traits deemed charismatic are often attributed to men, but the idea that women may take on similar traits and not tarnish their femininity should be accepted. The singer Madonna reportedly exhibited traits believed to be masculine in her ascension to stardom. She was focused, brusque, ruthless and committed based on biographical accounts. It was her unorthodox approach that aided her success, which defined her charisma. To say that a learned behavior cannot apply to a particular gender would create the slippery slope of discrimination. But we would be naive not to observe the differences in expression. If we are referring to the illusory aspects of interpersonal communication which charisma imparts, could we suggest that men are apt to create illusions that connect; whereas women are less inclined to demonstrate similar proclivities? The will to power by men alters the acceptance of charisma by both genders. Again, we would have to expand its definition merely for inclusionary purposes. While Denzel Washington, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Smits may be deemed charismatic, they exhibit it differently. The same would be true for Janet Jackson, Jennifer Lopez and Julia Roberts.
Is charisma equally distributed among the sexes? Based on our analysis, charisma is subjective and intangible. It can be compared to being physically attractive. If enough people believe that you are attractive then you are deemed attractive. However, how charisma plays out is often deemed more masculine within a male dominated society. It is no accident that it may be easier to randomly recall men who are deemed charismatic than women. Often there may be a general consensus when naming men, but when it comes to women, we may have to ponder a little longer in our listing. The term has not been traditionally used to describe women. As the role of women has drastically changed, the dynamics that create charisma would naturally level the playing field to encompass personal expression in this arena also.
The onslaught of the philosophy of charisma has created excitement for both sexes. The discussion, up until recently, was null and void. It was not and could not be seen as a legitimate philosophy when there weren't any serious studies on the subject. Now that the discussion has begun, it becomes even more interesting for both genders to utilize this new information in the realm of marketing as a competitive tool. Those who use charisma to separate themselves from competitors as well as seek personal fulfillment will have the advantage and ultimately end up redefining it-whether male or female.
For more information, visit: Charisma
In viewing this hypothesis of charisma being gender specific, under the terms of Core Edge's definition, women can be charismatic, but it manifests itself differently than that that of men. In a patriarchal society, the traits deemed charismatic are often attributed to men, but the idea that women may take on similar traits and not tarnish their femininity should be accepted. The singer Madonna reportedly exhibited traits believed to be masculine in her ascension to stardom. She was focused, brusque, ruthless and committed based on biographical accounts. It was her unorthodox approach that aided her success, which defined her charisma. To say that a learned behavior cannot apply to a particular gender would create the slippery slope of discrimination. But we would be naive not to observe the differences in expression. If we are referring to the illusory aspects of interpersonal communication which charisma imparts, could we suggest that men are apt to create illusions that connect; whereas women are less inclined to demonstrate similar proclivities? The will to power by men alters the acceptance of charisma by both genders. Again, we would have to expand its definition merely for inclusionary purposes. While Denzel Washington, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Smits may be deemed charismatic, they exhibit it differently. The same would be true for Janet Jackson, Jennifer Lopez and Julia Roberts.
Is charisma equally distributed among the sexes? Based on our analysis, charisma is subjective and intangible. It can be compared to being physically attractive. If enough people believe that you are attractive then you are deemed attractive. However, how charisma plays out is often deemed more masculine within a male dominated society. It is no accident that it may be easier to randomly recall men who are deemed charismatic than women. Often there may be a general consensus when naming men, but when it comes to women, we may have to ponder a little longer in our listing. The term has not been traditionally used to describe women. As the role of women has drastically changed, the dynamics that create charisma would naturally level the playing field to encompass personal expression in this arena also.
The onslaught of the philosophy of charisma has created excitement for both sexes. The discussion, up until recently, was null and void. It was not and could not be seen as a legitimate philosophy when there weren't any serious studies on the subject. Now that the discussion has begun, it becomes even more interesting for both genders to utilize this new information in the realm of marketing as a competitive tool. Those who use charisma to separate themselves from competitors as well as seek personal fulfillment will have the advantage and ultimately end up redefining it-whether male or female.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Charismatic Communications
Charismatic leaders often express themselves well, but their greatest attribute is their ability to listen and feel for the person who is speaking. It is the ability to listen and empathize with others that make them so compelling. Communication is a life-long process in which you are not merely speaking to the person, but her childhood, worldview and past experiences. We are a product of all our experiences as well as genetic makeup. The age-old question has always been, "Are we influenced more by our genetics or our environment?" It is tantamount to asking the question, "Is the glass half-full or half-empty?" In each case the answer is both. It makes no difference how you view a half-full glass; it will always be half empty, also.
We are inextricably attached to our genetic makeup and environmental influences such that we do not know where one ends and the other begins. The charismatic leader uses all that she has at her disposal. She has an arsenal of tools in her repertoire to pull out at will based on the necessity of the situation. The individual who is multi-faceted in her world-view will exhibit greater communication skills than someone who is one-dimensional. Relating and connecting to people requires a keen awareness to the nuances of human motivation and behavior. Charismatic people are outgoing and thrive on exploring new experiences where they are able to communicate pragmatically as well as theoretically. The key to the charismatic communicator is this endless desire to expand her horizons as she looks at the world from different perspectives.
Related: Charisma
We are inextricably attached to our genetic makeup and environmental influences such that we do not know where one ends and the other begins. The charismatic leader uses all that she has at her disposal. She has an arsenal of tools in her repertoire to pull out at will based on the necessity of the situation. The individual who is multi-faceted in her world-view will exhibit greater communication skills than someone who is one-dimensional. Relating and connecting to people requires a keen awareness to the nuances of human motivation and behavior. Charismatic people are outgoing and thrive on exploring new experiences where they are able to communicate pragmatically as well as theoretically. The key to the charismatic communicator is this endless desire to expand her horizons as she looks at the world from different perspectives.
Related: Charisma
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Charm vs. Charisma
Quite often, people confuse charm, magnetism and charisma. In fact, they use the terms interchangeably. It is understandable how this could be the case, but a bit of demarcation of the terms is necessary. The Core Edge Image & Charisma (Core Edge) define “Charisma” as “The creating of perceptions that impact the mind and emotions of others through flair, finesse and glib language.” In other words, charisma is the ability to capture the hearts and minds of people through the use of compelling self-expression. One of the tools used by charismatics is charm. Dictionary.com defines “Charm” as “The power or quality of pleasing or delighting; attractiveness…” Charismatics have a high prescience about human nature and people. As a result, they use charm to enchant the emotional aspect of individuals. This enchantment serves as a magnet for charismatics to attract others. Invariably, charismatics are comfortable and confident in their ability to persuade people by understanding what makes them “tick.” Charisma as such is a mindset, philosophy, paradigm and position on the world stage. Core Edge defines the comprehensiveness of charisma under the banner, ”Charismatolgy,” which is the study of charisma in all its dimensions.
For many theoreticians, charisma has been like “trying to catch air in a bottle.” The intangibility leads many to provide random opinions without the forethought of empirical data or case studies on popular charismatics. By understanding the charismatic personality and his manifestations, the layman can actually use some of the tools of charismatic’s for greater influence on the world stage.
For more information, visit: Charisma
For many theoreticians, charisma has been like “trying to catch air in a bottle.” The intangibility leads many to provide random opinions without the forethought of empirical data or case studies on popular charismatics. By understanding the charismatic personality and his manifestations, the layman can actually use some of the tools of charismatic’s for greater influence on the world stage.
For more information, visit: Charisma
Charisma Unchecked
The shortcoming of many leadership models is that they view human nature idealistically at its core. This overly optimistic view of people often leaves the aspiring leader insufficiently equipped to build upon. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a belief system is determined by what emanates from its core that affects the desired results. Most religious reformers like John Wesley, founder of the Methodist faith, based their religious zeal on the notion that man is decadent and through a higher power he can only be saved. Man left to his own devices would wreak havoc on the world much more than he has without the buffer of religion, laws and governance. While the temperament of man among other members of the animal kingdom, may not be the most destructive (scientists have said that the temperament of a baboon is such that it would nuke the whole world if it had the capacity), the consequences of his decadence is evident throughout the world. There is no true utopia where all are treated justly and fair. Every economic system throughout the world has its version of the "Haves" and the "Have-Nots".
To be totally responsible and accountable for one's lot in life comes with great toil. This is the kind of work that most people would rather pass on to someone else. Whether it's dictatorships or representative forms of governments, the citizenry ultimately opts for those who aspire to govern, so that they may pursue their leisurely lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Charismatic leadership fills the void because the leader is willing to do what the next man is unwilling to do. The idea of transformational leader calls for leaders to "get inside" the people they are trying to influence. The Ohio State Leadership Center online newsletter, Leadership Discoveries warns against the abuses of leaders having charismatic appeal: A leader's use of power reflects integrity.
Leaders who lack integrity can rely upon deceit and manipulative methods to get people to follow their agendas for the leader's benefit alone. Power becomes a potential danger if leaders have their focus on themselves or on building resources alone rather than on building their followers (Bass & Steidlmeir, 1999). Two of the most obvious perils in leadership are pride and egoism (Sanders, 1994). The Leadership Discoveries newsletter goes on to suggest that leaders and organizations may institute safeguards to prevent against such abuses. While this is a great notion, the circular logic that continues asks the question of the role and responsibility of the individual to become astute enough to protect himself.
Remember, human nature consistently operates from its own self interest, it only is altruistic when it engages in "hard-core" altruism for a small cadre of close-knit individuals and the majority of people opt to let others make their decisions for them, because of life's choices have rendered them incapable of being as vigilant. With all these dynamics occurring simultaneously, we are still requiring leaders to check themselves, not for people to check the leaders. The patriarchal notion that people need to be "fathered" is part and parcel why again charismatic leadership gets a bad rap. Charisma leaders should be accountable and responsible, but undue trust and allegiance should never go unchecked.
Related: Charisma
To be totally responsible and accountable for one's lot in life comes with great toil. This is the kind of work that most people would rather pass on to someone else. Whether it's dictatorships or representative forms of governments, the citizenry ultimately opts for those who aspire to govern, so that they may pursue their leisurely lives in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Charismatic leadership fills the void because the leader is willing to do what the next man is unwilling to do. The idea of transformational leader calls for leaders to "get inside" the people they are trying to influence. The Ohio State Leadership Center online newsletter, Leadership Discoveries warns against the abuses of leaders having charismatic appeal: A leader's use of power reflects integrity.
Leaders who lack integrity can rely upon deceit and manipulative methods to get people to follow their agendas for the leader's benefit alone. Power becomes a potential danger if leaders have their focus on themselves or on building resources alone rather than on building their followers (Bass & Steidlmeir, 1999). Two of the most obvious perils in leadership are pride and egoism (Sanders, 1994). The Leadership Discoveries newsletter goes on to suggest that leaders and organizations may institute safeguards to prevent against such abuses. While this is a great notion, the circular logic that continues asks the question of the role and responsibility of the individual to become astute enough to protect himself.
Remember, human nature consistently operates from its own self interest, it only is altruistic when it engages in "hard-core" altruism for a small cadre of close-knit individuals and the majority of people opt to let others make their decisions for them, because of life's choices have rendered them incapable of being as vigilant. With all these dynamics occurring simultaneously, we are still requiring leaders to check themselves, not for people to check the leaders. The patriarchal notion that people need to be "fathered" is part and parcel why again charismatic leadership gets a bad rap. Charisma leaders should be accountable and responsible, but undue trust and allegiance should never go unchecked.
Related: Charisma
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Charisma in the Modern World
Niccolo Machiavelli, Alexander Hamilton and Napoleon Bonaparte are just a few of the progenitors of modern day charisma. Under “Charismatology,” (the study of charisma), charisma is not only a manifesting of self-expression, but a whole worldview. To determine a true charismatic, one must look at the total human being’s self -expression, biology, environmental conditioning and insecurities. The charismatic has a personal philosophy, ideology, theme and objective for shaping public opinion and making the world bend to his will. Power is a core motivating factor for charismatics, not only for narcissistic objectives, but because charismatics feel their ideas are better. The will to power separates the charismatic leader from all other leadership forms. Through sheer will and personality, the charismatic leader uses hybrid approaches best suited for the situation in achieving a goal. In this notion, the charismatic is “amoral”, closest to Nietzsche’s idea of the “Amoral Super Man.” To the charismatic, he has become a god. Before eminent sociologist Max Weber secularized “charisma,” it was a religious concept literally meaning in Greek, “Grace or gift in action”. The modern charismatic has self-deified the term to reconcile it with its spiritual roots. Only, today’s charismatic sees himself as the Alpha and Omega of its original higher-power form as a literal manifestation. Whether it is a charismatic politician or a charismatic cleric, he feigns praying to a Supreme Being when he is mentally praying to himself.
Related: Charisma
Related: Charisma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
