Before doing this week’s reading I had never given much thought to how I would define charisma. It was definitely a word I used, but not one that I had a definition for. It is something easily identifiable in a person, but much more difficult for me to define in general terms. Social scientists have multiple ways of defining charisma, that ultimately all overlap in one way or another. The traits commonly found in charismatic people did not come as a shock to me. Charismatic people are typically emotionally expressive, enthusiastic, drive, eloquent, visionary, responsive and self-confident. Most of these characteristics have to do with a person’s ability to communicate well with others. Being well spoken around others is just as important Charismatic people draw others to them easily because they know how to communicate well.
I found it very interesting that charismatic leadership involves more than just a charismatic leader. The followers’ relationship to the leader as well as situational characteristics are also important. When all three of these aspects interact correctly, charismatic leadership can take place. It is not just about the charismatic leader or the devoted followers, but also the situation this relationship takes place in is what is most conducive to a charismatic leadership situation.
Throughout the reading I was wondering if the traits that make somebody charismatic could be trained and this was touched on a little bit towards the end of the article. There has been little research done on the possibility of increasing charisma, but theoretically it appears to be possible because many of the components of charisma could be trained. For example, in a project conducted at the University of California Riverside that focused on improving both verbal and nonverbal communication skills, the participants that went through some training were said to be improved in several traits that help make up charisma. Thinking back to our conversation on Wednesday, this leads me to believe that leaders are often made not born.
After reading both articles from Riggio, I would agree with you that leaders are made rather than born. It is a confusing concept to grapple with because, after our discussion in class on Thursday, I realized how many famous myths and religious stories are centered around a natural-born leader. However, with my new knowledge on the definition of charisma, I would completely agree with you that verbal and nonverbal characteristics representing charisma can essentially be trained. When a leader comes to power or some sort of authority, s/he can adjust their interactions with followers to be a more charismatic leader.
After doing todays readings I also did not realize how much went into the definition of charisma and how important it is as a trait for a leader. I think that you bring up a very good point in that a leader may be charismatic and the followers may be devoted but it really does depend on the situation in order for a leader to truly emerge and be effective. I also agree with your point about how if a person can be taught charisma then leaders can be made.
It is interesting to think about the studies done revolving around how to become a leader. like the one you mentioned above I tend to agree that leaders can be forged through trials, tribulation, and patience, but I would argue that there is still many people who are not born to be leaders. I think people can tell when something is genuine, especially when it relates to a human, and I can definitely tell when someone has that natural confidence compared to one who has steadily built up their self-esteem through training. One to me just seems more comforting and assuring than the other.