Before reading these articles, I thought I knew what charisma meant to me. The thing about charisma is that there is no one definition, but you can almost always tell when someone is or is not charismatic. It’s strange that something as abstract as a feeling can be so integral to making a leader successful or not.
In Riggio’s article “Charisma”, he lists some of the world’s leaders who are most commonly referred to as charismatic: Ghandi, Meir, FDR, JFK, Reagan, Hitler, Rasputin, bin Laden. Before reading these articles and talking about charisma in class, I viewed charisma as a quality only positive leader have. But then again, leaders I may think of as positive and in-line with my views might be negative to others and vice versa. This contributes to the ambiguity of charisma as a concept. I found Riggio’s description of charisma as a sort of “constellation” of qualities that allow people to have influence on others whether by inspiration, emotions or actions especially enlightening (Riggio 2). The idea that charisma is not an independent trait, but a result of many dependent traits makes the charisma all the more confusing but all the more important to find and harness with purpose.
Riggio’s piece in Psychology Today, “Charisma and Charismatic Leadership”, reveals a shortened, more personal view of what he believes charisma really is. I wanted there to be a simple answer on whether people are born with charisma or if it is a learned trait, but again, after reading these articles I think the ambiguity of charisma is what makes it so unique and important. Obviously, people can be motivated, creative, positive, or moral individuals but charismatic people are all of the above; and usually over and above at each. I think the most important part of this piece is the closing argument made by Riggio. When asked whether leaders are born or made, Riggio references a twin study that concluded about 1/3 of leaders are born and 2/3 are made. Riggio describes that if all leaders were born, the money and time put into grooming political, social and religious leaders should be reallocated into finding and identifying leaders already among us.
As a whole, I agree with what Riggio is saying. I believe it takes a certain, special set of characteristics to be classified as charismatic. Perhaps an even greater concentration of these special characteristics is needed to be classified as a charismatic leader.
It’s interesting that you mentioned not only positive leaders have charisma. Based on this line of the interpretation of charisma, I believe that both positive and negative leaders can be charismatic. However, one’s interpretation of charisma within a leader may be skewed if they do not align with their own values. For instance, I believe unbiased commentators and supporters of Trump would characterize Trump as a charismatic leader, according to the definition of a charismatic leader being relatable and having the ability to inspire others at a deep emotional level.
I also found it interesting that something so colloquial as charisma is so hard to define! It seems like it is a blanket term for people who are extroverted and effective at personal and emotional communication.
I am curious about the 1/3, 2/3 study, because Riggio talks about the teachable/learnable methods of leadership. What is 1/3 that people need to be born with, and what are those traits?
I thought it was very interesting and agree with how you talked about charisma as being such an abstract characteristic but also being very easy to see in a person.
I found it extremely interesting when you talked about how before reading these articles, you associated charisma with positive or “good” leaders. This is something I also used to agree with. It is hard to take leaders (or people and general) we despise because of their evil acts and policies and then try and find positive characteristics to associate with that person.