Charismatic Counsel
After spending the last few weeks as Devon’s right-hand intern, I have observed how she interacts with many other individuals in different capacities. In a previous reflection, I describe how the leadership dynamic shifts for a sole-practitioner lawyer depending on context. That being said, I have noticed the degree of charisma Devon exhibits in each context.
From the early stages of meeting with a client regarding an incident, I observed the charismatic leadership that begins to form. At this stage, I realize the empathy Devon has when understanding the background of the client’s issue. For instance, a woman named Rhonda came into our office after she was arrested after being set-up by an ex-boyfriend. This boyfriend was the father to Rhonda’s daughter, and asked her to meet so he could give her a gift to bring to their child. Upon arriving to their meeting at a restaurant, Rhonda’s ex-boyfriend asked her to hold his bag while he went to the restroom. Almost immediately, Rhonda was arrested as there was a large amount of cocaine inside the bag she was holding. After listening to Rhonda explain her case, Devon began discussing the logistics of her legal case. I noticed how moved Rhonda was for a lawyer to listen and understand her incident to take it on. Additionally, I noticed how similarly other clients react when Devon listens to their incidents; or the followership mechanisms that I observe to evolve.
Devon’s empathy for Rhonda enabled an emotional attachment to the case, which was reflective upon her hearing in front of the judge. Signals of charisma include attracting attention, arousing emotions, and articulating a vision; all of which are strengthened with an emotional attachment. I notice these signals with this specific case concerning Rhonda, as well as in other indirect processes in different contexts. Some cases are more abstract to form a solid argument and require the involvement of more people to gain support. Charismatic influence can be either an indirect or direct process. In the legal arena, I find charismatic leadership to be more of a direct process in the courtroom, when lawyers are fighting to persuade a judge and jury. However, I see indirect charismatic influence when building support of the angle on the argument of a case.
Charisma can be understood as the result of an interplay between evolved followership mechanisms, contextual factors, and physical and social cues from potential leaders. Ultimately, the function of charismatic leadership is to convince followers to believe the challenge they are confronting can be resolved. I see charismatic leadership as it can benefit practicing law, however, I see it more within the personality of the attorney. The attorney I intern with seems to have natural charismatic traits, which I understand contributes to the type of leader she is in all contexts.
She sounds like a very engaging individual who really connects with her clients. Is there any downside to charisma; any circumstances when it may be perceived as less than genuine? Having previously written about LMX and now writing about charisma, I encourage you to consider thinking about the ways in which these theories played out. For the paper this fall you’ll need to do a deep dive into one theory and talk about all of its elements, providing examples of behaviors that illustrate the various elements. In the end, you may choose something either than the two you’ve already reflected on, which is fine. But if you go with one of the two you’ve written about, you’ll need to dive in deeper and elaborate (and illustrate) more for the fall paper…so I would continue to reflect on your experience even when you are done.