Month: September 2019

The differing definitions of charisma make it a fluid concept, but the ability of individuals to emotionally resonate with others is the key element of the term. A person’s ability to relate to others is the most important and powerful aspect of charisma because it inspires others, thus leading them into action. Riggio emphasizes this point when he mentions how, “…perhaps [the] most important to perceptions of charisma is emotional expressiveness—the ability to convey feelings and emotions accurately and effectively to others. Charismatic individuals use their emotional expressiveness to arouse and inspire others and to spur them to action” (Page 3, Sage). Riggio’s declaration that individuals who can connect to people will cause others to act on their behalf, shows the potential power of charisma.  The ability to get a following, is a common trait of many famous charismatic individuals. Ghandi is a prime example of a charismatic individual, who used his personality and expressiveness to inspire others to act on his behalf during India’s fight for independence. While emotional expressiveness is a potential agent of good, it can be used in much more sinister ways. Hitler comes to mind with the way he was able to agitate the German people over the current state of the country, and inspire them into action against the world and the Jewish population. While Ghandi and Hitler used their ability to connect to people in differing ways, it showed the power that charismatic individuals have over others.  Connecting to others is in fact the true power of emotional expressiveness, and charisma as a whole, because it allows an individual to extend their will out to their followers and have them act on their behalf.  This is why a person who resonates with others is more likely to have success, and in turn be thought of as a charismatic individual

5 Comments

“ … it is in the relationship between the leader’s qualities and the followers’ devotion to the leader and belief in the leader’s cause that charisma lies,” (Riggio)

I strongly agree with Ronald E. Riggio’s point about the important role context plays in determining the followers’ need for a charismatic leader. When leaders display confidence and offer a clear message with charisma it indicates a sense of security that can unify followers in troubled times. Charismatic leaders are easy to see and easy to understand; like moths cling to light in the dark, individuals and communities that have been through rough times are more likely to swarm to charismatic leaders than they would be if all was good.

One of the reasons the follower-leader relationship and the context it is formed under is so important is because while charismatic leaders strengths are their confident, charming manner, these strengths can also lead to their downfall. The easiest way to understand how charismatic leaders can be ineffective is to imagine an extraverted student bombarding individuals in THC, unempathetic of their need to get to class or lack of interest: for a shy first year a shout out could be exactly what they needed to have the confidence to approach the table, but for a well-informed junior who also approaches the table in out of politeness and annoyance it could feel as if the person tabling is preaching to the wrong choir. A leader’s charismatic way could also make them less relatable or even seem very one-sided and not open to change that some may want

In a public forum of while charismatic leaders can adapt to the mood of the crowd, if an individual in the crowd is also confident in their state and their own beliefs, a leader who proudly and assertive preaches their own views can come off as arrogant, insensitive, and unable to relate to the average person.

I was always taught that in relationships listening and understanding is much more important than talking. If one takes the time and puts in the effort to truly comprehend what the other is saying, there is a sense of trust formed. Charismatic leaders get this trust by being so outgoing and self-assured that followers figure they must know what they are doing to be so active about it!

Again Riggio talks a lot about contributing and adding to the conversation but he mentions little to nothing about charismatic leaders being openminded and listening to new ideas. This is dangerous in the way that this indicates that they are not treating the followers as equals.

“Charismatic individuals use their emotional expressiveness to arouse and inspire others and to spur them to action. It is also this spontaneous emotional expressiveness that causes people to describe charismatic individuals as animated, emotionally charged, and full of life.”

This was also an interesting section of the passage to me because it made it seem like charismatic individuals did not have to be knowledgeable or noble or even organized, they just had to be good actors, emotional actors. This brings my mind back to Trump’s inauguration with the speech that sounded a little too similar to Obama’s… it makes me think that many leaders are more like puppets than intelligent, informed individuals.

I also connected this trait of “expressiveness to arouse” and being “animated, emotionally charged and full of life” to influencers on social media. They capture snippets of their lives in a photo and combine them with eloquently worded captions that inturn inspire millions to eat healthily or buy certain brands.

4 Comments

Hero: Pope Francis

Leader: Angela Davis

[Negative] Role Model: Donald Trump Sr.

Leave a Comment

Before reading the article, I thought of charisma as an adjective to describe someone who is naturally outgoing and confident, causing people to gravitate towards them. After reading the article, my prior thoughts were supported in that the multiple theories and examples from history showed leaders who have possessed these qualities, allowing them to be more effective and powerful leaders. Although many people in the reading were great leaders, one can be charismatic solely by possessing Riggio’s six characteristics which are emotionally expressive, enthusiastic, driven, eloquent, visionary, self-confident, and responsive to others. However, if one does possess these qualities they will naturally draw people’s attention and influence people to think and act like them, making charismatic people naturally very good at leading others.

One charismatic leader that stands out to me is Adolf Hitler. Hitler’s magnetic personality and ability to captivate the public with his speeches allowed him to influence so many people to do such horrible things. The fact that he convinced almost all of German citizens to participate in his mass genocide proves his charismatic leverage on society at the time. If it wasn’t for his charismatic personality, he may have never risen to power and been able to do everything that he did during WWII.

Someone who I learned to be very charismatic that I would not have thought of otherwise is Martin Luther King. His extraordinarily calm demeanor caused me not to think of his as charismatic, but after reading Riggio’s article I learned that charisma does not have to be out-going. Similar to Hitler, MLK used his self-confidence, enthusiasm, and eloquence  in order to influence and lead people.

 

2 Comments

While reading about charisma, all I kept thinking about was whether or not I know someone who matches the numerous definitions. The common themes of “the charismatic individual’s ability to attract attention, to communicate effectively, and to affect followers at an emotional level” seem to create a picture that is some how very explicit, yet elusive (Riggio 3). Charisma, without a clear definition, has a connotation of unattainability for the average person in my mind. To have enthusiasm and to be self-confident and responsive to others, amongst the other characteristics common to charismatic individuals, alone as qualities is not rare. But, for one to possess each trait in a combination that results in someone being attractive, in more ways than one, to large groups of people seems to call for the stars to align perfectly. And beyond simply being charismatic, to be a charismatic leader calls for even more situational aspects to unfold perfectly to develop.

The ideas of elusiveness surrounding charismatic leadership echoed many of the ideas surrounding the Great Person Theory, specifically the nature versus nurture argument. Within the Great Man Theory, I highly agree that a leader is made in part due to their situation. For example, the text by David Cawthon points to Martin Luther King and what his career would have turned out to be without the Civil Rights Movement. Would he have “remained an obscure minister in the South” (Cawthon)? This similarly themed question could be asked on the topic of charismatic leaders as well. Without an interaction between the followers and the charismatic leader, would all charismatic characteristics emerge? Riggio suggests that the answer to this question would be “no”, as he references twin studies by Richard Arvey that suggest leadership in general is “2/3 ‘made’ and 1/3 ‘born’” and points to a project performed by the University of California that effectively taught people to increase their natural charisma. Certainly, people are born with at least a few of the seven main characteristics associated with charisma. However, it seems clear to me that it would be easy to fake other unnatural traits in the public eye when no one can truly know the full story behind another individual. As we said in class, Barack Obama appears to be an incredibly eloquent speaker, but he could be puking back stage before and after the speech for all we know. Charisma, by lack of definition, has left me to still wonder if I have ever personally met an individual with such a power “divine gift of grace” (Cawthon).

 

4 Comments

Charisma described in these articles helps with the understanding of the rise of some leaders and others not so much. A recent example is our President Donald Trump. Trump utilizes emotional expressiveness quite well due to the rhetoric he uses. He is very straight forward and simple which appeals to many people. Another example of Trumps charismatic leadership is his speeches at his rallies. His choice of words during those have been criticized by many, however the crowd was responding positively to his speeches so therefore Trump decided to use rhetoric that not many presidents have ever used.

Contrary, President Trump does not fit some of the characteristics of a charismatic leader. As tapes were released of Trump talking about women during the election, his first impression as a presidential candidate were not great. He was judged as credible or honest. Donald Trump is an iterating leader to look at in this aspect. There have been claims that he is similar to Hitler, and others comparing him to Ronald Regan.

Micah Breckenridge

3 Comments

Before doing this week’s readings, the term “charisma” is something I had heard many times, but I had never thought about how to define it. According to Riggio, charisma is “the special quality some people possess that allows them to relate to and inspire others at a deep emotional level.” Charismatic people tend to be emotionally expressive, enthusiastic, driven, eloquent, visionary, self-confident, and responsive to others. I thought it was interesting that the word was originally used in a religious context to describe figures such as Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed, who were widely considered to have divine characteristics that allowed them to influence and inspire their followers. This idea sounds almost identical to the Great Man Theory, which is that some people are born with certain characteristics that inherently make them better leaders. 

Something else that I found interesting in this reading was German sociologist Max Weber’s theory that the key to charismatic leadership is the relationship between the leader’s qualities and followers’ belief in both the leader and the leader’s cause. Weber also believed that leadership context was very important and charismatic leaders are more likely to emerge during chaotic times. This is something that we talked about in my Leadership 102 class last semester. Given the qualities that many charismatic leaders possess, Weber’s idea makes sense because people might be more likely to seek out a leader with these qualities in times of uncertainty.

One of the questions that Riggio is asked in the Psychology Today interview is whether he thinks leaders are born or made, and his answer is that “this isn’t something that requires my opinion, but this question has been well researched. Twin studies by Richard Arvey and his colleagues have estimated that leadership is about ⅔ made and ⅓ born.” This stuck out to me because in class on Thursday, we discussed the same question and there was a wide range of opinions, so it was interesting to learn that people have done studies and come up with a numerical formula to explain where leadership traits come from.

3 Comments

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.

 

 

3 Comments

Charismatic people are can be very powerful as they have great influences on the people that they attract. For example, Hitler is constantly described as a charismatic leader and the result of that was a massive genocide. On the other hand, there are many other charismatic leaders who have promoted peace such as Gandhi and played a positive role on the people who followed them. It is obvious that the great influence that charismatic leaders possess can be used to persuade massive amounts of people to act a certain way, whether good or bad.

In my experience, you can tell how charismatic someone is upon meeting them, there is something in the way the speak, act, and carry themselves. However, I am interested in the question of if it is learned or innate, and if it even matters. If someone dedicates themselves to practicing the six traits of becoming charismatic, how much would it differ from someone who seems to be naturally charismatic? How many “naturally charismatic” people are genuinely that way, or do they too work on it from day to day? I would think that even if someone is not naturally charismatic, working towards those six characteristics can be a great help and can play a huge role in becoming an effective leader.

 

2 Comments

Hero:

Leader:

Role Model:

Leave a Comment

Charisma is a word that is almost impossible to define but can be noticeable in someone within seconds. Dating back to its roots of being used in a religious context, the top leaders of societies such as Jesus and Moses had an outstanding ability to fascinate and inspire others. German sociologist Max Weber built off of this by stating that the relationship between the leader’s qualities and the follower’s devotion to the leader and the cause is more important than anything. Riggio’s six characteristics associated with charisma are enthusiastic, driven, eloquent, visionary, self-confident, and responsive to others. It is important to know that even if someone has five of these characteristics they are not going to be a great leader without the sixth. However, charismatic leader can be stopped very easily, according to Riggio. He asserts that this happens when the leader is too arrogant and has a lack of concern or responsiveness. It is interesting to hear this because someone who may have been a great leader will never be one. 

More recent theories focus on the personal qualities of charismatic individuals, instead of leaders. They state that charismatic individuals have very developed communication skills, emotional expressivity, a lot of energy, eloquence, and self-confidence. Due to these attributes,  they make very good first impressions. Also, the combination of their plethora of energy and emotional expressiveness leads to them being seen as more physically attractive. The most interesting part about personal charisma to me is that it does not necessarily lead to charismatic leadership. I agree with Riggio that for a charismatic person to turn into a charismatic leader, a situation must arise for them to be needed, such as a crisis or a call for change. 

The most fascinating and important part of the reading was about the study done by Richard Avery and his colleagues and the project done at the University of California, Riverside. At UC Riverside, they enhanced the verbal and nonverbal skills of partakers through training in an attempt to increase personal charisma. The result of Avery’s study showed that “leadership is about ⅔ made and ⅓ born.” Equally as important, the ratings of participants before and after their training at UC Riverside showed that they were “more animated, more influential and persuasive, more effective communicators.” On top of that, the trained individuals said they felt more social self-confidence and got wonderful feedback from family and friends. These results lead to an extremely important question: why are there not more leadership development programs? I see an extreme increase in the amount of these programs around the world, which will result in more charismatic leaders.

Leave a Comment

This weeks readings were about Charisma. What I found interesting in these readings were that there are multiple different ways in defining charisma but, in the end they all have something that connects them to one another. In the one reading, it was talking about all the theories of charisma. While it talks about all the different theories, in the end it says how they all have the common themes of attracting attention, to communicate, and to effect followers at an emotional level. To me, I feel as though communication is a key part to being a charismatic leader. If you cannot communicate well with others, you do not have a chance to be a good effective leader, in my opinion.

What I also found interesting was the controversy over if charisma is something one learns or is born with. I feel as though they make a good compelling case for each of these. To me, I find it hard to choose one because I see both sides. I feel as though you can be born with the ability to be able to communicate well, can connect on an emotional level and have good vision of that too. But, that can also be taught. They mentioned a number of different leaders and one was MLK. Now, from what people see is that yes, he is a very charismatic person and carries all of those traits and it seems to be natural. But, just as we discussed in class we do not know for sure if he grew up like that or he had to be taught it. That for me messes with my mind because I see it both ways and they have good evidence to back each case up.

1 Comment

What stuck out the most to me in this weekend’s reading was the connection between charisma and magic/mysticism that Riggio highlighted. While I would have never thought to do so, he described Buddha and Jesus as charismatic figures in religion. That really got me thinking about what I thought charisma was. I realized that I previously used the word charisma as a synonym with tons of words like persuasive, convincing, engaging, outgoing, encouraging, etc. And, like Riggio with the 7 characteristics of charisma, I understood that charisma is a combination of many things and a big part of that combination how a charismatic person is recieved.

Riggio then includes an excerpt tsav and how the tsav on/in someone’s heart is the physical (?) (I’m still confused on that part) manifestation of their ability to overcome/sway situations, or to be good at something. Despite being innate, tsav is still something that must be trained to be of use. I found that to be a really interesting fact to include. And it fits perfectly with what Riggio was saying about one of charisma’s 7 characteristics. It isn’t enough to only be visionary, you have to have the means to achieve that vision by controlling how you and your vision are received. This makes charisma more of a skill or talent than a stand-alone personality trait. And in that light, it does seem like something that can be learned… However, not everyone can read people well, and I don’t think that is something you can teach. It’s like how Zalezink stated that transformational leaders are closer to artists than managers. Sure, you can teach someone to draw, but you can’t teach them how to know what to draw, or how to look at the world around them. I guess I’m trying to say that reading people is an art, too. Riggio mentioned that politicians get charisma training and I’m honestly really curious what those sessions are like. Either way, that furthers the idea that charisma is a skill, but just like tsav, it has to be developed.

2 Comments

Charisma is an attribute that relies on many different aspects, making it difficult to simply give the word one definition. In reading Riggio’s theory of charisma, it stuck out to me that charisma heavily relies on the relationship between a leader and their followers. He says, “it is in the relationship between the leader’s qualities and the followers’ devotion to the leader and the belief in the leader’s cause that charisma lies”(2). By saying this, Riggio asserts that it is not solely having good charisma which creates a good leader, it is also neccessary to have a strong follower base who is dedicated to their cause. Not having the “follower base” component, it shows that the leader lacks the emotional intelligence and persuasion required to be a good leader.

This definition that Riggio adopted from Weber also follows the psychoanalytic theory of charisma, which similarly states that strong identification to the leader strengthens the loyalty that followers have for their leader. This further confirms that charisma is mainly demonstrated by how well groups of people attach themselves to the leader and identify with their cause.

Another point of interest in Riggio’s paper was Richard Arvey’s research that leadership is about 2/3 “made” and 1/3 “born”. Prior to the research, it has been a common argument as to whether leaders are born or made. Reading this article affirmed my beliefs that leaders are taught and groomed to developed their skills. Although some individuals may have certain traits in their genes, it is only manifested through acknowledging that skill and practicing it. Without practice, a person can possess certain skills yet not have the ability to be a good leader. I would even go further to deny that an individual can be born with leadership skills. The most common skills of good leaders are communication, charisma, and intelligence. There are a few others which also play a role, but most of these skills are simply not inherent. In order to be successful with any of these skills they must be taught, whether that is by parents or schooling.

 

 

 

2 Comments

While I had never tried to define charisma myself and even after the readings the definition still remains elusive, I had always thought of it as a trait you are born with. However, Riggio challenged this perspective by saying that it is theoretically very possible that charisma could be learned. Riggio breaks charisma down into many components, such as communication skills, self-confidence, and enthusiasm, all of which can be developed. Riggio also makes sure to create boundaries with charisma, saying that just because one possesses charisma, that does not mean that one will be a successful charismatic leader. This brings me to another point I hadn’t considered before. I previously thought of charisma as a one-sided quality possessed by a person, but Riggio emphasizes the importance of the relationship between a leader and their followers in charismatic and transformational leadership.

In highlighting this relationship, Riggio came across surprisingly cynically to me. One of the biggest assets to a charismatic leader is their highly developed communication skills. Riggio described their ability to read the room and then alter their message dependent on it “in order to manipulate the crowd’s reaction”. The use of the word manipulate in conjunction with describing an inspirational leader unsettled me. Typically, we like to view leaders, especially charismatic leaders, as people we can idolize and trust. To think of them using their skillset to manipulate their followers who trust them completely is quite frankly scary. I guess that’s why people such as Hitler and Osama bin Laden are characterized as charismatic leaders in addition to typical positive role models.

1 Comment