Charismatic Leadership - House

7/31/2019 Charismatic Leadership - House

1/33

CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP: STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE

C. Marlene FiolUniversity of Colorado - Denver

Drew HarrisFairleigh Dickinson University

Robert HouseUniversity of Pennsylvania

Second revision February 1999Please address all correspondence to:

C. Marlene FiolUniversity of Colorado at DenverCollege of BusinessCB 165PO Box 173364Denver CO 80217-3364

[email protected]


2/33

CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP: STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE

ABSTRACT

Due to their unique relationship with followers, charismatic leaders can be

powerful agents of social change. Current theories of charismatic leadership have

emphasized primarily the personality and behavior of leaders and their effects on

followers, organizations, and society. This emphasis fails to uncover why and how the

charismatic leader-follower interaction can generate social change. Our study draws on

theories of social meaning to develop a process model of charismatic leadership.

Empirical exploration of our model suggests that charismatic leaders employ a set of

consistent communication strategies for effecting social change.

2


3/33

INTRODUCTION

We have substantial evidence that charismatic leaders behave differently than non-

charismatic leaders. Further, we know that charismatic leaders can generate radical social

changes, and that the performance of charismatic leaders and their followers tends to exceed

that of their non-charismatic counterparts. To date, however, we know very little about the

processes by which leaders and followers interact to effect social changes (Meindl, 1992). There

is a need to address the following unanswered questions: Why do charismatic leaders adopt

certain behaviors? Why do their followers respond in predictable ways to those behaviors? How

does the leader-follower interaction generate social change?

In this paper, we address these questions by drawing on theories of social change and

construction and destruction of social meaning. We present a model that begins to explain why

and how the charismatic leader-follower interaction can generate social change. The model

suggests theoretical propositions that we test empirically by content analyzing speeches of all

twentieth century U.S. presidents through Ronald Reagan. The empirical results show that

charismatic leaders employ consistent communication strategies for breaking down, moving, and

re-aligning the norms of their followers.

A REVIEW OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

Sociologists, political historians, and political scientists have widely accepted the theory

of charismatic leadership originally advanced by Weber (1947). To our knowledge, no one has

subjected Webers theory to quantitative empirical test. However, several scholars have

advanced additional theories that invoke the concept of charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985;

Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Trice & Beyer, 1986), visionary leadership (Bennis &

Nanus, 1985; Sashkin, 1988), or transformational leadership (Burns, 1978). These related

theories have been subjected to substantial empirical investigation.

We refer to this general class of theory as the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm.

3


4/33

While there are some differences among these theories, and while some may argue that there

are some substantive differences among these theories (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994) which indeed

there are, we argue that they all fit well within a more general paradigm. We take this position

and use the label neo-charismatic leadership paradigm for a number of reasons. First, this new

genre of theory has much in common with the Weberian conceptualization of charisma. As

Weber asserted, all of these theories also assert that exceptionally effective leaders articulate

visions that are based on normative ideological values, offer innovative solutions to major social

problems, stand for non-conservative if not radical change, and generally emerge and are more

effective under conditions of social stress and crisis. Second, charismatic behavior (visionary,

change oriented, non-conservative) is either implicitly or explicitly a central concept in all of the

theories of this paradigm.

Third, all of the theories of this paradigm emphasize independent variables that appeal

strongly to followers: symbolic leader behavior, visionary and inspirational ability, nonverbal

communication, appeal to ideological values, and leader expectations for follower self-sacrifice

and for performance beyond the call of duty. Fourth, while all leadership theories imply an

underlying theme of performance improvement, the theories of the neo-charismatic leadership

paradigm focus primarily on affective rather than cognitive dependent variables: follower

emotional attachment to the mission and values espoused by the leader, emotional and

motivational arousal, enhancement of valences with respect to the mission articulated by the

leader, heightened self esteem, trust and confidence in the leader, and heightened intrinsic

motivation. Fifth, all of these theories assert that leaders described as charismatic, visionary, or

transformational generally have positive effects on followers and organizations that exceed those

of leaders described in theories of non-charismatic leadership. Sixth, the term charisma has had

an enduring and honorable tradition in the sociological literature, and the above independent and

dependent variables of the neo-charismatic paradigm are consistent with the traditional

4


5/33

charismatic literature.

Seventh, the similarities among these theories are, in our opinion, far greater than their

differences. Eighth, by grouping these theories all within a common paradigm we call attention to

their common essential elements. Ninth, providing a common paradigm label for these theories

sets them apart from the earlier and more traditional task - person oriented and cognitively

oriented leadership theories. Tenth, and finally, we believe that grouping these theories within a

common paradigm with a label that is descriptive of their essential commonalties brings

coherence to this literature in a meaningful and theoretically parsimonious way.

The theories of the neo-charismatic paradigm have been subjected to more than one

hundred empirical tests. Collectively, the empirical findings demonstrate with surprising

consistency that leaders described as charismatic, transformational, or visionary cause followers

to become highly committed to the leaders mission, to make significant personal sacrifices in the

interest of the mission, and to perform above and beyond the call of duty. The findings also

demonstrate that such leaders have positive effects on their organizations and followers, with

effect sizes ranging from .35 to .50 for organizational performance effects, and from .40 to .80 for

effects on follower satisfaction and organizational identification and commitment.

A recent meta-analysis by Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam (1996) of 32 correlations

between leader charisma as measured by the Bass (1985) Multifaceted Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) and independent ratings of leader effectiveness demonstrated a mean

corrected correlation of .35. A second meta-analysis by these authors, based on 15 correlations

between charisma and subordinates' ratings of their superiors' effectiveness, demonstrated a

corrected correlation of .81. Corrected correlations between criterion variables and charisma

were higher than corrected correlations between criterion variables and measures of intellectual

stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, and management by exception. The

effect sizes are usually at the lower ends of these ranges in studies that did not control for

5


6/33

environmental effects (Lowe et al., 1996), and at the upper ends of these ranges under

conditions of environmental threat, crisis, or uncertainty (House et al., 1991; Waldman, Ramirez

& House, 1998).

Such findings have been demonstrated at several levels of analysis, including dyads

(Howell & Frost, 1989), small informal groups (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Pillai & Meindl, 1991),

formal work units (Curphy, 1992; Hater & Bass, 1988), major sub-units of large complex

organizations (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Koene, Pennings & Schreuder, 1993), overall performance

of complex organizations (Koh, Terborg & Steers, 1991; Roberts, 1985; Trice & Beyer, 1986;

Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1998), and U.S. presidential administrations (House et al., 1991;

Simonton, 1987).

The evidence supporting this genre of theory is also derived from a wide variety of

samples, including informal leaders of task groups (Howell & Higgins, 1990), military officers

(Bass, 1985), educational administrators (Koh, Terborg & Steers, 1991), supervisors (Hater &

Bass, 1988), middle managers (Howell & Avolio, 1993), subjects in laboratory experiments

(Howell & Frost, 1989), U.S. presidents (House et al., 1991), chief executive officers of Fortune

500 firms (Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1998), high-level executives of large Canadian firms

(Javidan & Carl, 1997), Canadian government agencies (Javidan & Carl, 1997), and CEOs of

Egyptian firms (Messallam & House, 1997).

The evidence shows that the effects of charismatic leader behaviors are rather widely

generalizable in the United States and that they may well generalize across cultures. For

instance, studies based on the MLQ charisma scale (Bass & Avolio, 1989) have demonstrated

similar findings in India (Pereria, 1987), Singapore (Koh, Terborg & Steers, 1991), The

Netherlands (Koene et al., 1993), China, Japan (Bass, 1997), Germany (Geyer & Steyrer, 1994),

and Canada (Javidan & Carl, 1997). Finally, a recent cross-cultural study has shown that the

leader behaviors of the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm are universally included as

6


7/33

prototypical behaviors of highly effective organizational leaders, having ratings consistently

above six on a seven-point scale of attributed effectiveness for all 60 countries studied (House et

al., 1998).

The studies cited above have dealt with leader behaviors and their effects. To date, we

know very little about the processes by which leaders produce such results. We need to better

understand the underlying motivations and psychological forces that result in the extraordinary

effects of charismatic leaders.

In this paper, we address this gap by drawing on theories of change and construction and

destruction of social meaning. We begin by discussing the differing motivations of followers and

leaders, using Lewin's (1951) field theory to integrate them into a single theoretical framework.

We present a model that depicts charisma as a social process. We then introduce semiotics as a

means for operationalizing and testing the theory's predictions. The empirical results show that

charismatic leaders employ consistent communication strategies for effecting social change.

THE MOTIVATIONAL UNDERPINNINGS OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Follower Motives - Frame Alignment

Shamir et al. (1993) recently advanced a theoretical explanation of an interpretive

process, frame alignment (Snow et al., 1986), by which charismatic leaders motivate followers to

embrace social change. Frame alignment (Snow et al., 1986) refers to the linkage of individual

and leader interpretive orientations, such that some set of followers' interests, values, and beliefs

and the leader's activities, goals, and ideology become congruent and complementary. The term

"frame" denotes an interpretive scheme (Boal & Bryson, 1988; Goffman, 1974) that enables

individuals to locate, perceive, and label occurrences within their life and the world at large. By

rendering events or occurrences meaningful, frames function to organize experience and guide

action, whether individual or collective.

To achieve frame alignment, charismatic leaders engage the self-concepts of followers in

7


8/33

the mission articulated by the leader. Strong engagement of the self-concept of followers makes

it cognitively dissonant for them not to behave in ways that further mission accomplishment.

Charismatic leaders increase the intrinsic value of follower efforts in pursuit of mission

accomplishment by linking effort and goals to valued aspects of the follower's self-concept, thus

harnessing the motivational forces of self-expression, self-consistency, self-esteem, and

self-worth. Shamir et al. (1993) further argued that charismatic leaders change the salience

hierarchy of values and identities within the follower's self-concept, thus increasing the probability

that these values and identities will be implicated in action. Finally, they argued that charismatic

leaders increase self-efficacy and collective efficacy by positive evaluations, communicating

higher performance expectations of followers, showing confidence in followers' ability to meet

such expectations, and emphasizing followers' ties to the collective.

Shamir et al. (1993) specified communicative techniques that charismatic leaders employ

to effect frame alignment and mobilize followers to action. They link present behaviors to past

events by citing historical examples (Willner, 1984). They articulate an ideology clearly, often

using labels and slogans. They provide a vivid and positive image of the future. Further, they

amplify certain values and identities and suggest linkages between expected behaviors,

amplified values and identities, and their vision of the future. By articulating an ideological vision

and recruiting a number of followers who share the values of the vision, charismatic leaders

provide for followers a sense of identity with the collective and a sense of efficacy resulting from

membership in the collective. Articulation of high performance expectations, together with display

of confidence in followers, results in enhancing both follower self-esteem and self-worth. Since

such a shift in values and identities is socially based, followers resulting behavior should

represent a shift from the instrumental to the moral, and from a concern with individual gains to a

concern with contributions to a collective. We need a theory that explains how and why

charismatic leaders engage followers in such transitions, and how and why followers become

8


9/33

engaged.

Leader Motives - Frame Breaking

Sociologists (Eisenstadt, 1968), political scientists (Dow, 1969; Willner, 1984) and

organizational behavior theorists (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Nadler &

Tushman, 1990) have described or defined charismatic leaders as breaking with traditional

institutional authority and persuading followers to embrace innovative or revolutionary ideas.

These definitions imply a motivation to change the status quo. Charismatic leaders are thus

motivated to alter or break the "frame" or interpretive scheme by which individuals locate,

perceive, and label occurrences in their life consistent with the status quo.

In contrast to the lack of constraint implied by a frame breaking motive, McClelland and

his colleagues proposed a theory of leader constraint and activity inhibition. In a seminal work

on leader motivation, they (McClelland et al., 1972) argued that high power motivation, in

combination with low affiliative motivation and high activity inhibition, predisposes individuals to

be effective leaders through satisfying their need for power by making socially desirable

contributions to the larger collective rather than by pursuing self interests. McClelland and his

colleagues supported their theory with a series of studies (1972, 1975, 1985) linking men's

expression of power motive in the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) with a presumed measure

of activity inhibition - the number of times the word "not" appeared in the stories written by

subjects in response to TAT stimulus material. These studies presumed that the word "not"

expressed moral constraint as reflected in Christian-Judaic caveats such as "Thou shalt not..."

Subjects low in this presumed measure of activity inhibition expressed thoughts about the

exercise of power that were focused on personal dominance or winning at someone else's

expense. In contrast, subjects who scored high on activity inhibition expressed power imagery

more often in terms of doing good for others, for humanity, or for some worthy and presumably

moral cause. According to McClelland, individuals who have a high need for power and who also

9


10/33

have high activity inhibition should be more effective leaders because they manifest their need

for power in socially appropriate ways, while meeting the role demands of positions of influence

such as those found in large complex organizations.

House et al. (1991) integrated McClelland's leader motive theory with House's (1977)

theory of charismatic leadership in a model that includes the most important variables of both

theories. House et al. (1991) tested their model using archival data relevant to all elected U.S.

presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. They studied the presidents'

needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and activity inhibition. They measured these motives

by applying the TAT coding scheme to the inaugural addresses of all U.S. presidents. The

researchers assumed that inaugural addresses represented presidents' fantasies, hopes, and

desires for their terms in office and therefore projections of their non-conscious motives. Three

sets of dependent variables measured presidential success: 1) their effectiveness in

implementing international, economic, and social/domestic policies; 2) presidential greatness as

measured by opinion polls of present day political scientists; and 3) a measure of successful

direct actions such as victory in war, great decisions, and near war avoidances such as the

Cuban missile crisis. They interpreted their results as consistent with McClelland: Presidential

need for power as measured by the use of the word "not" in presidential writings significantly

predicted presidential charismatic behavior and effectiveness.

However, Spangler and House (1991) noted that presidents who used the word "not"

most frequently were highly unconstrained in their behavior. They found that the use of the word

"not" was associated with the manner in which presidents exercised power, rather than the ends

for which they exercised power. Specifically, presidents who used the word "not" most frequently

were more impatient, forceful, radical, demanding and active, and they frequently by-passed the

chain of command. Spangler and House (1991) concluded that with respect to presidential

speeches and writings, the count of the word "not" was not a measure of activity inhibition as

10


11/33

defined by McClelland. Charismatic leaders who frequently invoked the word "not" appeared less

disciplined and less psychologically constrained in the way they exercise power than other

leaders.

The consistently strong ability of "nots" to predict charismatic and effective leadership

suggests substantial practical importance in studying the meaning of "nots." However, Spangler

and House's (1991) observation that presidents who used the word "not" most frequently were

highly unconstrained in their behavior raises questions about McClellands (1975, 1985)

interpretation that the frequent use of the word "not" reflects expressions of respect for

institutionalized authority, self-discipline, and belief in a just world.

Since interest in charismatic leaders stems, in part, from their ability to bring about

radical change, how does this fit with McClellands notion of restraint on action and respect for

current institutions? Perhaps "not" does not represent unconscious motives. Perhaps, instead,

it is a conscious rhetorical device in the repertoire of communicative tools consistently employed

by charismatic leaders to bring about innovation and gain acceptance for revolutionary ideas.

The use of not may thus reflect charismatic leaders motivations to break current frames

through negation. Here again, we need a theory that better explains how and why charismatic

leaders engage followers in radical change.

Integrating Leader-Follower Motivations

Lewin's (1951) field theory provides a useful starting point for integrating theories of the

neo-charismatic leadership paradigm with follower motives in generating change. Lewin's theory

attempted to describe and explain stability and change in social norms and conduct. He began

by defining a social "field," consisting of the collective and its setting. The distribution of social

forces within the field determines what happens throughout the field. For example, conflicting

social forces act for greater and less discrimination against selected ethnic groups. If the forces

for each are equally strong (fgreater + fless = 0), the field maintains a quasi-stationary social

11


12/33

state. The equation says nothing about the absolute strength of either of the opposing forces;

only that they are equal.

Lewin argued that social change can be achieved most effectively if one first decreases

the tension between the opposing forces by reducing the strength of both. According to this

view, instead of attempting to bring about social change by defining and promoting the objective

of the desired change, more effective change efforts begin by reducing tensions. This tension

reduction "unfreezes" the average state of collective norms around which opposing forces have

stabilized. The next step "moves" the collective norms to a new state. The final step "re-freezes"

collective norms in the new state.

Lewin's theory suggests that both frame breaking (unfreezing) and frame alignment

(moving and re-freezing) are critical processes for bringing about social change. Beyond this,

Lewin did not address how unfreezing, moving, and re-freezing of social norms occurs - only that

it revolves around individual perceptions of the value of those norms. He suggested that the

major cause of resistance to social change lies in individuals' beliefs in the value of existing

social norms. To bring about social change, then, one cannot focus exclusively on the level of

the collective, nor at the individual level, but rather on the interface between the two: The value

that individuals place on the norms of the collective.

A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO STUDY CHARISMATIC EFFECTIVENESS

Though Lewin's theory provides a useful framework for integrating the motivational forces

underlying charismatic leadership, it offers little guidance about how one might operationalize

and test the theory's predictions. Since Lewin's theory addresses socially-constructed meaning,

an appropriate tool for empirical investigation is semiotics - the science of signs.

Semiotics explicitly deals with the interface between individual and social values, the

critical issue in effecting social change. As a formal mode of analysis, it identifies the rules that

govern the construction and destruction of meaning in a particular social system (Greimas &

12


13/33

Rastier, 1968; Eco, 1979). Like Lewin's (1951) field theory, it rests on the assumption that all

meaning is contextualized and resides in a system of underlying oppositions. Semiotic analysis

offers a systematic means of linking multiple surface-level expressions of opposition to the

system of meaning that underlies them.

The Structure of Meaning

The units of signification in any communicative act express meaning through their

differences (Eco, 1979). The social codes that regulate meaning arise from underlying

oppositional structures. Two kinds of opposition interact to give meaning to a sign, or a unit of

signification. For a given sign, the first opposition, called contradiction, expresses the total

absence of the sign. For example, non-love contradicts love; non-conventional contradicts

conventional. A sign can express either end of the contradiction, but not a combination (e.g.,

one cannot express love and non-love at the same time).

For a given sign, the second kind of opposition, called contrariety, includes another sign.

The contrary sign, by social construction, also opposes the meaning of the original sign. For

example, hate is contrary to love; innovation is contrary to convention. A given sign may have

multiple contraries. Hate, loathing, and disgust each opposes love. Innovation, deviance, and

spontaneity oppose convention. In contrast to contradictions, a sign may include combinations of

contrary meaning or values. For example, one can express love and hate at the same time,

though this combination expresses a complex and unstable condition.

Based on our theoretical framework, a charismatic leader performs the task of translating

innovative ideas into socially conventional ideas, that is, translating a value into its contrary.

Semioticians typically employ a visual representation of a value's contradictions and contraries.

Figure 1 depicts such a representation for the values of convention and innovation. Convention is

contrary to innovation, and non-convention is contrary to non-innovation. Convention contradicts

non-convention, and innovation contradicts non-innovation. This framework sets the stage for our

13


14/33

subsequent discussion of leader-follower interactions.

Figure 1 about here

By practice, the dominant positive social value, in this case social convention, occupies

the upper left corner of the semiotic square. Conventions represent socialized, institutionalized,

and endorsed ideas or values, the frame through which most people experience their world. The

contrary, innovation, occupies the upper right corner. The contradictions occupy positions

diagonal to the values they oppose.

The values depicted in a semiotic square relate hierarchically; the assertion of the

dominant value presumes the negation of its contrary (convention presumes non-innovation).

However, negation of the contrary only allows the possibility of the dominant value (non-

innovation makes convention possible). Understanding the process by which one can effect

change in social norms depends on this hierarchy.

Replacing one dominant value with another directly (e.g., replacing convention with

innovation), or shifting the balance of one in favor of the other, will lead to increasing tension that

is likely to undermine change efforts (Lewin, 1951). According to Lewin, an effective change

strategy begins by "unfreezing" the dominant value. Here, this means advocating its

contradiction (e.g., replacing convention with non-convention before advocating innovation, as

indicated by the change trajectory of least resistance in Figure 1 (Greimas & Rastier, 1968)).

The terms and structural relations defined by a semiotic square can provide a theoretical

starting point for identifying the components of meaning of any set of values within a social

system. In this study, they depict values concerning leadership, values believed to both motivate

leaders and to serve as standards by which society judges leader effectiveness. The next

section examines current conceptions of leadership in relation to the semiotic structure outlined

above.

14


15/33

The Social Structure of Values

Leaders operate and are judged within a social system whose values define what is

"effective." Values associated with charismatic leadership imply rejection of the status quo and

reliance on non-conventional solutions to existing social problems. These values oppose the

socially-endorsed dominant cultural values represented by conventional leadership. Neither the

conventional nor the innovative values contain "objective" content. Conventional leadership may

mean one thing in the U.S. and something quite different in Cuba. Yet in a given social context,

innovation/ non-convention always opposes convention/non-innovation.

Within such a meaning system, charismatic leadership, by definition, attempts to

persuade society to embrace a contrary of a current social convention (S2 - the dominant

negative value in Figure 1), that is, innovation. The logical relations depicted in the semiotic

square imply that charismatic leadership is, at its essence, the contrary of conventions. As one

adopts more institutionalized conventions, one appears less charismatic. According to this

model, negation of existing beliefs is a fundamental characteristic of charismatic leadership.

The social structure of leaders' values identifies value components at a societal level.

However, it does not reflect the personal values that motivate or predispose charismatic leaders

to promote non-endorsed social values. Nor does it describe the personal value changes

required when members of society follow the charismatic leader. Therefore, we need to more

closely examine the personal value structure of leaders and of society's members.

The Personal Sub-Structure of Values

Following Greimas and Rastier (1968), two sets of motivators define individual human

behavior in relation to social values: desire and fear. Following their premise that desire is a

prime human motivator and fear its corollary inhibitor, Figure 2 shows the semiotic structure of

personal values. The relations among the values in this square reflect the same structure and

hierarchy as those of the social model in Figure 1.

15


16/33

Figure 2 about here

The terms of the personal value system interact with the social value system to generate

what one observes in human behavior. Different value combinations lead to either conflicting or

compatible relations (Greimas & Rastier, 1968). For example, desire - that is, aspirations,

intentions or a conscious impulse toward something positive - interacts with endorsed social

values to produce a compatible or balanced relation of personal and social values. Similarly, fear

- that is, the anticipation of danger or the impulse to avoid or overcome a negative - combined

with unendorsed social values (innovation), produces compatibility in personal-social values.

Both relationships are stable over time, are deemed "effective" and represent socialized

members of society.

On the other hand, people experiencing fear of society's conventions are unlikely to

remain stable over time or to be "effective." Similarly, desire combined with socially unendorsed

values (innovation) produces an unstable tension. Charismatic leaders represent this

combination of tension desire for innovation. Their leadership aims at replacing current social

convention with their personal values in order to achieve a state of balance for themselves.

Shamir et al. (1993) described charismatic leaders as having the power to modify the

beliefs and preferences of individuals in order to create a new compatibility between personal

and social values. Previous theory suggests that charismatic leaders effect such a change

through frame re-alignment (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Weber, 1947). Our analysis suggests

that before followers will align around a new interpretive frame, they must reverse their previous

relationship with the existing socially dominant values. As described below, this occurs through

introducing conflict in a compatible convention-based structure and compatibility in a conflictive

innovation-based structure.

FRAME BREAKING, MOVING, AND RE-ALIGNING

Operationalizing Lewins (1951) three-phase process for changing social values with

16


17/33

semiotic analysis leads to two distinct strategies for generating innovation (shown in figure 3).

Both scenarios assume a starting point of dominant and compatible personal-social values. In

the first case, individual members of society desire current conventions; in the second, they fear

innovation. Both cases are compatible within the bounds of current conventions. The phases of

unfreezing, moving and re-freezing represent the paths of least resistance in the semiotic

squares (e.g. convention to non-convention to innovation) and are described in detail below.

Figure 3 about here

Frame Breaking (Unfreezing)

To effect a change in social values, a charismatic leader must first attempt to reduce the

strength of the value individuals place on conventional norms (Lewin, 1951). This is labeled the

frame-breaking or unfreezing phase. If the current value is a desire for convention (first scenario

in Figure 3), the leader must negate this desire to create a more neutral state, non-desire for

convention. A leader can do this by convincing society that conventional thinking is not fruitful,

but rather dysfunctional. For example, before President Bush could successfully press for

intervention into the Persian Gulf in 1991, he had to convince the congress and the public at

large that conventional wisdom, which interfered with his vision, was wrong. He had to persuade

them that it would not be another Vietnam, that it would not be another military defeat, that it

would not be an embarrassment even in military victory, and that the U.S. was not intervening for

the sole reason of maintaining access to low price crude oil. This involved discrediting people's

ties to convention.

If the current value is fear of innovation (second scenario in Figure 3), the leader must

negate this fear to create a more neutral state, non-fear of innovation. The second approach

involves convincing society that non-innovation is not viable. For example, President Bush tried

to portray the U.S. as committed by treaty, precedence, and moral obligation to not sit by and

watch an ally fall to an aggressor. That is, non-intervention equated with non-innovation, which

17


18/33

according to the President's arguments, was not a viable option.

Frame Moving

To build a new stable and compatible value structure, leaders must eventually move

personal values from a neutral to a more active state, and social values from opposing to

conforming with the desired innovation (Lewin's (1951) second phase). An effective way to

initiate the shift is to first negate the endorsed social norms that are contrary to the innovation

(e.g., convert convention to non-convention as in Figure 1 above). At the same time, followers'

values must move from a passive state (non-desire or non-fear) to an active state (desire or

fear). Thus frame moving will include a double negation: non-desire for convention must be

transformed into desire for non-convention, and non-fear of innovation into fear of non-innovation.

Following our previous example, having discredited conventional thinking about U.S. military

intervention, President Bush attempted to shift non-fear of innovation to fear of non-innovation by

portraying Saddam Hussein as a neo-Hitler who must be stopped before he reached full power.

Negating or inverting both personal and social values minimizes potential resistance since the

resulting values remain compatible with the prior ones. The resulting values, however, now

encompass the personal motivators (desire and fear) needed to move collective values to a new

level (Lewin, 1951).

Frame Re-aligning (Re-freezing)

Finally, the third phase of the change process involves re-freezing new and compatible

values (Lewin, 1951). If successful, the second phase results in personal motivators that a leader

can now channel in the desired direction. Through substituting a compatible positive image for

the negated social norm, leaders mobilize followers to action (Shamir et al., 1993). The first

scenario in Figure 3 entails substituting innovation for non-convention, leading to the final desire

for innovation. In the second scenario, it entails substituting positive values for both personal and

social negative values (from fear/non-innovation to desire/innovation). In the President Bush

18


19/33

example, the administration needed more than discrediting conventional views of U.S. military

intervention and creating fear of Saddam Hussein. A new vision (innovation), the "new world

order," had to replace the discredited convention. This final change phase will likely meet with

minimal resistance as it represents filling a void rather than opposing an entrenched position.

The success of this final phase of value transformation critically hinges on a leader's ability to

provide for followers a sense of positive identity with the change (Shamir et al., 1993).

COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE

The semiotic modeling of the social value transformation process suggests the need for

distinct communication strategies in each of the three phases. To summarize, effective change

agents bring about a new set of social and personal value combinations by first reducing the

strength of a current value through neutralizing follower ties to the value. They then move the

value through a process of negating both the social and personal values. Finally, they solidify the

links between their innovative vision and the values of their followers by substituting the negated

social value with a positive value. The following briefly describes several communication

strategies for effecting these changes and summarizes the discussion with a series of

propositions.

Negation

As described above, a change process requires breaking, neutralizing, negating and

substituting. The use of the word "not" is an essential rhetorical device for breaking, neutralizing

and negating. Since charismatic leaders, by definition, attempt more innovations and are seen as

more successful in those change efforts, they should use the word "not" more frequently than

non-charismatic leaders. We include this as our first proposition, though it has already received

significant empirical support (House et al., 1991). Here, the proposition reflects a process rather

than a personality trait, and is fundamental to our overall model of value transformation.

Proposition 1: Charismatic leaders will use the word "not" more often than non-

19


20/33

charismatic leaders.

During the initial phase of a change process, charismatic leaders must negate the

followers' personal values towards convention or innovation. During the second phase, they must

move the neutralized values toward a less neutral position by negating both the original

convention and the neutralized personal links to that convention. This phase thus calls for a

double negation.

During the final phase, charismatic leaders must substitute a new and positive social

norm for that which they have negated. During this phase, they no longer rely on negation as the

critical means of effecting change. Thus, they will use fewer "nots" during this final phase of

transformation.

From the above, it follows that the use of the word "not" through the change phases is

curvilinear. One would expect "nots" to be used frequently in the frame-breaking phase, more

frequently in the form of double negation in the frame-moving phase, and less frequently in the

final frame re-freezing phase. Because non-charismatic leaders are less likely to attempt

radical change, we would expect them to not follow this pattern.

Proposition 2A: During a transformation, charismatic leaders will use the word "not"

frequently during the initial phase, more frequently during the middle phase, and

infrequently during later phases.

Proposition 2B: The use of nots by non-charismatic leaders will not follow the curvilinear

pattern of charismatic leaders.

Inclusion and Consensus Building

While negation is a critical rhetorical device for the breaking down or unfreezing that

occurs in the early phases of social change, endorsement and affirmation are important in later

phases. Given the instability induced in earlier phases, change agents must generate relations of

trust with followers in which parties believe that "things will work out" (Gambetta, 1988; Gartner

20


21/33

& Low, 1990). Again, specific communication strategies help generate and sustain trusting

relationships.

Charismatic leaders will include non-believers within the innovative frame (Goffman,

1974) they wish to generate by managing the boundaries around the subjects of their discourse.

They can do this in two ways. First, they employ inclusive rather than exclusive referents (Fiol,

1989). One would expect a charismatic leader to use more associative referent terms such as

"we," "us," "our group," or "our organization" rather than terms that imply disassociation or non-

inclusion such as "I," "you," or "me."

Proposition 3: Charismatic leaders will use more inclusive language than non-charismatic

leaders.

Second, effective change agents enlarge the boundaries of their discourse by employing

high levels of abstraction. Eisenberg (1984) has argued that the ambiguity associated with

values at a high level of abstraction allows consensus building around those values without

necessarily achieving consensus around their meaning. To effectively engage their followers in a

movement toward innovation, charismatic leaders will likely employ high levels of abstraction in

their discourse during the frame-moving phase. Following the example of the Persian Gulf

intervention of 1991, President Bush attempted to rally society around innovation by calling for

the U.S. to create a "new world order." This phrase has many meanings. Its ambiguity aided

Bush in building a consensus around his views.

Proposition 4: Charismatic leaders will communicate at higher levels of abstraction than

non-charismatic leaders.

Inclusive language and abstract representation are rhetorical techniques that serve a

similar purpose: to include and engage followers in a change process that defies conventions.

Inclusion explicitly invites followers to engage and embrace the leaders values, while higher

levels of abstraction open the space for followers to align their personal values with those of the

21


22/33

leader. Since engagement and inclusion are necessary for maintaining or changing social values

(regardless of the content of thevalues) one would expect both charismatic leaders and non-

charismatic leaders to combine the two techniques for maximum effectiveness.

Proposition 5: All effective leaders will use more inclusive language with higher levels of

abstraction.

However, like negation, inclusion and abstraction carry out more specific roles in each

phase of a transformation process. According to our model, the early unfreezing phase is a

period of breaking personal ties to convention. The focus is on individuals, rather than society.

One would thus expect relatively low levels of abstraction and less use of inclusion in the first

phase. In contrast, one would expect greater use of abstract and inclusive language during the

frame-moving phase, when charismatic leaders must actively engage their followers in a process

of visualizing a change at the level of the collective. In the final phase, one would again expect

inclusion and abstraction to be less critical since the move toward social-level change has

already taken place. As in Proposition 2, we would not expect to see this pattern for non-

charismatic leaders.

Proposition 6A: During a transformation, charismatic leaders will use higher levels of

inclusion and abstraction during the middle phase than in earlier or later phases.

Proposition 6B: The use of inclusion and abstraction by non-charismatic leaders will not

follow the curvilinear pattern of charismatic leaders.

In sum, our model suggests that charismatic leaders employ specific communication

strategies to move the change process through the three phases of frame breaking, moving, and

re-alignment. Table 1 summarizes the communication patterns that characterize each of the

three phases.

Table 1 about here

22


23/33

METHODOLOGY

Sample

We applied semiotic analysis to forty-two speeches from all 20th century United States

presidents through Ronald Reagan (a sample of fourteen presidents)1. A prior study of "nots"

(House et al., 1988) provided some of the speeches; others were drawn from various archives of

presidential speeches. We selected speeches that addressed a wide, national audience either in

topic matter or in physical audience. Most of the speeches were inaugural addresses or

addresses to congress. In some cases those were not available, and we chose substitutes from

a set that was available to reflect subject matter similar in scope and audience to inaugural or

congressional addresses. Appendix A lists the presidents and the speeches.

Though one might worry that professional speechwriters create most presidential

addresses (at least in more contemporary speeches), substantial evidence demonstrates that

presidents greatly influence the language and motive imagery in their speeches. Winter and

Stewart (1977) demonstrated the construct validity of inaugural motive imagery for 20th century

presidents. House et al. (1991) found that motive scores derived from the motive imagery in the

inaugural addresses of all elected presidents predicted both presidential leader style and

presidential effectiveness with respect to the implementation of their economic, international, and

social domestic policies.

For each president, we chose a speech from his first year in office, a middle year in

office, and his last year in office. The sequence of these speeches approximated three general

1 Why only 20th century presidents?Presidential researchers contend that the 20th century presidency varied in three important waysfrom the pre-20th century presidency. First, the style of language changed in the 20th century.

Pre-20th

century presidents used more flowery language, as well as more subordinated andconditional language (differences based on Flesch index significant at the .0001 level). Second,the U.S. ended a period of isolationism, joining in international affairs. Finally, mass mediachanged the speed, means, and reach of presidential communications, allowing them to reachnational audiences rapidly and simultaneously.

Why only through Ronald Reagan?We wished to replicate the 20th century sample of presidents used in the House et al. (1991) andthe Spangler and House (1991) studies.

23


24/33

phases of social transformation. While value transformations may involve a specific issue, e.g.,

income tax, one can argue that presidential leaders have broad agendas that take many years to

accomplish. We may especially view the charismatic presidents as attending to a general

change in national direction or general societal values (e.g., F.D. Roosevelt and The New Deal,

R.R. Reagan and The New Dawn in America).

Coding Communication Acts

The unit of analysis in each speech was a logical sentence. Logical sentences were

defined as complete grammatical phrases (i.e., "subject...verb...object") or sub-phrases which

were separated by a hyphen from the remainder of the sentence. Compound sentences were

treated as two (or more) logical sentences. Each speech provided 11 to 18 sentences according

to the following rules: (1) Code a minimum of 10 sentences, (2) complete coding to the end of the

paragraph containing the 10th sentence. This procedure yielded 645 coded sentences.

Samples of speeches and their coding are provided in Appendix B.

Each sentence provided coding for three independent variables relating to the

propositions above. First, as mentioned above, coders recorded the temporal sequence of a

speech (1,2,3) and treated these as phases of transformation (unfreezing, moving, and re-

freezing).

Second, coders identified sentences as inclusive/non-inclusive (I/NI) according to the use

of inclusive versus non-inclusive pronouns. Presidents set an agenda for the nation whether

they address the nation directly or through groups like congress. Examples of inclusive

language include uses of "we," "our," and "us," when applied to a large collective, usually the

nation, but occasionally the world if the nation was implied as part of it. If pronouns referred to a

small, specifically identified group (e.g., "Tom and I...We..."), then coders treated the pronoun as

non-inclusive. Coders treated all uses of proper nouns, non-inclusive pronouns, and passive

constructions as non-inclusive. If they found two different types of usage in a sentence (e.g., "us

24


25/33

against them"), they coded the sentence as inclusive if the "us" referred to the country.

Finally, the domain level of a discourse indicates its level of abstraction. Coders assigned

each sentence one of the following domain levels (from least to most abstract): (1) individuals

(e.g., I, F.D.R., George), (2) particular things or events (e.g., the income tax, this battle, the

meeting), (3) the country or nation, including the people of the nation, and (4) the world, foreign

countries, and universal beliefs (e.g., mankind, truth, justice). Thus, the greater abstractions at

the higher domain levels allow a larger collective to locate itself in the presidents message.

Coding Charisma

Charisma was treated as a binary variable, with charismatic presidents coded as 1 and

non-charismatic presidents coded as 0. We followed the classification procedures used by

House et al. (1988). In their study, eight reputable political historians identified American

presidents as charismatic, non-charismatic, neither charismatic nor non-charismatic, or

uncertain, using the following guidelines:

Charisma is the ability to exercise diffuse and intensive influence over the normative or

ideological orientations of others (Etzioni, 1961). As a result we can identify charismatic

leaders by their effects on their followers such that followers of charismatic leaders:

a) have a high degree of loyalty, commitment, and devotion to the leader;

b) identify with the leader and the mission of the leader;

c) emulate his values, goals, and behavior;

d) see the leader as a source of inspiration;

e) derive a sense of high self-esteem from their relationship with the leader and his

mission; and

f) have an exceptionally high degree of trust in the leader and the correctness of his

beliefs.

The historians classified the leaders according to their relationship with their cabinet

25


26/33

members rather than to the public since that study was interested in organizational leadership

rather than mass or political leadership. Their classification procedure resulted in two groups -

charismatic and non-charismatic. In the current study, four of the fourteen presidents qualified as

charismatic, and ten as non-charismatic. Appendix A lists the charismatic and non-charismatic

presidents in our sample.

Reliability

Inter-rater agreement among the political historians was .88. House et al. (1991)

confirmed the validity of the political historians' classification of presidents. They demonstrated

that presidents classified as charismatic had stronger and more positive affective ties with their

cabinet members than did non-charismatic presidents. House et al. also confirmed the

classifications by use of data collected from presidential biographical writings collected in an

independent study by Simonton (1987). Thus the ratings were triangulated with three

independent sources.

Doctoral candidates in management coded the speeches used in the current study.

Coder training involved a review of coding rules, detailed analyses of a pre-coded speech

selected for its potentially ambiguous phrasing, and trial coding against a key of three previously

coded speeches. Agreement with the key was 95-100 percent indicating adequate reliability.

Further, an inter-coder reliability test was conducted based on coding by three coders of one-

fourth of the total set of speeches. Inter-rater reliability was over 90 percent for all coded

dimensions in the sub-sample of texts.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The propositions fall into two groups - simple comparisons between groups and

comparisons over time. Propositions 3 and 4 suggest simple comparisons of means. Using a

least squares means test to adjust for the unbalanced sample sizes (Searle, Speed & Milliken,

1980), Table 2 shows support for Propositions 3 and 4. The charismatic leaders used more

26


27/33

inclusive language and higher levels of abstraction than did the non-charismatic leaders.

Table 2 about here

Proposition 5 also involves comparing group means. The Table 3 analysis of variance

shows that for all leaders the level of inclusion increased as the level of abstraction increased.

The means tests between levels in Table 3 shows that the two upper levels of abstraction varied

significantly in their amount of inclusion from the two lower levels, but within the two upper levels

and within the two lower levels the average amount of inclusion did not vary significantly. This

suggests that the distinction between individuals (level 1) and non-personal, specific topics (level

2) may not be important, at least in terms of the boundaries of discourse. Nor, apparently, did the

leaders create different boundaries around country, world, or universal values (levels 3 and 4).

However, they did, as proposed, create different boundaries around specific topics (levels 1 and

2) and broad, abstract topics (levels 3 and 4).

Table 3 about here

The remaining propositions address timing issues. Here, graphical views of the data clearly

show the trends suggested in Propositions 2 and 6; also, the graphs help illuminate the statistical

analyses. Figures 4 and 5 show that the charismatic leaders followed the pattern of moderate

use of "nots" in phase 1, higher use of "nots" in phase 2, and low use of "nots" in phase 3. These

figures also show that the pattern for the non-charismatic presidents was quite different, with the

first phase having higher use of "nots" than the subsequent phases. The statistics in Table 4

indicate that for all leaders, as a group, the third phase differed significantly from the first two

phases. Additionally, the leader-year means tests show that this third-year difference arises

because of the charismatic leaders. The difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 does not

achieve statistical significance; in this regard Proposition 2 is not fully supported. However, our

general argument holds: Charismatic leaders used "nots" during the unfreezing and moving

phases at a significantly higher level than during the re-freezing phase, and their pattern of

27


28/33

usage was different from that of non-charismatic leaders.

Figures 4 and 5 about here

------------------------

Table 4 about here

Figures 6 and 7 show the pattern of leaders' use of inclusive language in relation to

Proposition 6A and 6B. All leaders used inclusive language more during the middle, moving

phase, than the other two phases. The statistics in Table 5 support the impression given by the

figures. So the data strongly support Proposition 6A, that charismatic leaders used more

inclusive language in their middle phases than in other phases. The data do not support

Proposition 6B. However, charismatic leaders in the sample did exhibit a more pronounced

pattern in their use of inclusive language than their non-charismatic counterparts.

Figures 6 and 7 about here-----------------------

Table 5 about here

Figures 8 and 9 show patterns of usage for high levels of abstraction (combined levels 3

and 4)

2

. Here, the pattern for charismatic leaders is distinctly different than for non-charismatic

leaders as predicted in Proposition 6B. Table 6 shows statistical support for the level of

abstraction arguments in Propositions 6A and 6B. The analysis of variance shows significant

relationships between abstraction, phase, charisma and the interaction between phase and

charisma. The combined means tests show higher use of abstractions in the middle phase for all

leaders. The separated means tests show charismatic leaders followed the proposed pattern,

with significantly higher levels of abstraction than non-charismatic leaders.

Figures 8 and 9 about here-----------------------

Table 6 about here

Overall, the propositions receive consistent and strong support from the data. This

2 The lower levels of abstraction (1 and 2) create an inverse pattern of the higher levels.

28


29/33

sample suggests that leaders, in general, follow discernible, purposeful patterns of discourse.

While attempting social change, charismatic leaders appear to apply different and more

pronounced patterns of discourse than non-charismatic leaders. These differences in rhetorical

technique provide insights into how the charismatic process works, and support our arguments

about why followers attach themselves to charismatic leaders and their causes.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

To date, the qualities and motives that define charismatic leadership have been as

elusive as those defining entrepreneurship. For decades, researchers have tried to identify the

personality and characteristics that predispose individuals to be effective agents of social

change. The emphasis has been on leader motives and personality characteristics as well as

leader behaviors and their effects. The results have not disclosed the psychological processes

that explain why leaders of the neo-charismatic paradigm have such extraordinary effects on

followers and organizations. This study has attempted to redirect attention to such psychological

processes. The theoretical framework emphasizes frame breaking for leaders and frame

alignment for followers. It combines these into a process model of how the leader/follower

interactions can result in social change.

The empirical results of the study suggest that charismatic leaders employ a predictable,

consistent set of linguistic techniques to break down, move, and re-align certain beliefs of their

followers. Specifically, the presidents of our sample employed techniques of negation, inclusion,

and abstraction more frequently during the middle phase of their tenure as leaders than in the

earlier and later phases. To explain why these techniques are effective and how they operate, it

is necessary to discuss them within the larger context of social interaction. It is not possible to

separate the role of language from its social context. The power of language resides in its

potential to both reflect and shape social norms and attitudes. To discuss the empirical results

of this study, then, we must locate them within the broader context of leaders strategic

29


30/33

communications and follower responses to such communications.

Lewins (1951) field theory provided a framework for describing the phases of social

change. Though the theory suggests the general need for strategies of negation for unfreezing,

and strategies of affirmation for re-freezing, it offers little guidance about how to operationalize

and test the theorys predictions. A semiotic framing of the interactions of personal and social

values allowed us to systematically trace the dynamics of such a change process.

By identifying both personal and social components of a change process, semiotics

provided a basis for describing and explaining the interactions among the negating and affirming

aspects of a charismatic leaders change strategy. Moreover, by highlighting the changing

interactions of personal positive and negative motivators and social values across the phases of

social transformation, a semiotic perspective suggested specific change strategies appropriate

for different phases of the process. For example, during the initial frame-breaking phase, a

semiotic perspective argues that the aim must be to neutralize individual ties of desire (fear) to a

(non-)convention, rather than to break down the convention itself. Following this perspective,

one would expect change strategies to include negation (frequent nots) that focuses on

particulars rather than universals (low levels of abstraction) and that does not emphasize the

inclusion of individuals in the collective (low levels of inclusion).

The relative infrequency of abstract and inclusive language, combined with a moderate

degree of negation in the first years speeches of our charismatic presidents (see Figures 4-9),

may thus reflect interrelated components of a more general strategy aimed at loosening

individual ties to a collective norm within the bounds of compatibility (see Table 1). Similarly, the

reduced level of negation, abstraction, and inclusion in the language of charismatic leaders in

their final year of presidency, again may reflect a coherent approach to the requirements of re-

freezing attitudes and norms: channeling personal motivators (already developed) in the desired

direction.

30


31/33

According to our model and empirical results, the middle phase - frame moving -

represents the most challenging and critical period of a social change process. Our empirical

results show that negation, inclusion, and abstraction all peaked during this period. The results

are consistent with semiotic theory, which calls for a negation or inversion of both personal (non-

desire to desire) and social (convention to non-convention) values. The theory and data suggest

that movement towards a new compatible link between personal motivators and social norms

requires the simultaneous construction and destruction of what people know and believe. It calls

for a high level of negation combined with equally high levels of affirming forms of identity and

consensus building. The interdependence of negative and positive aspects of change strategies

follows Gambettas (1988) theory of trust building: The greater the break from tradition, the

greater the need for trust-building activities.

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study opens the door to a research agenda that to date has remained largely

unexplored. If charismatic leadership is about social transformation, whether transformation of a

nations or a corporations agenda, then it is time that we concentrate on the processes

underlying the effects of leader behaviors. The word charisma derives from the Greek word for

gift. We have for too long focused on trying to identify and define the gifted, without

recognizing that the gift of change agents resides in their social interactions over time.

A redirection of research efforts toward a focus on the social processes underlying

charismatic leadership will require that we include characterizations of followers, as well as

leaders, into our models. The present study begins by testing a model of leader communication

strategies employed in effective change efforts. The communication model behaves consistently

with our semiotic modeling of leader communication strategies and follower frame realignment.

An important next step is to incorporate empirical data concerning if, how, and when follower

frames actually shift during a change process.

31


32/33

This points to limitations of our empirical testing that need to be addressed in future

research. Following the lead of prior studies of charisma using U.S. presidents (House et al.,

1988, House et al. 1991; Winter & Stewart, 1977), we have assumed presidents have general

agendas (innovation or stability) that they convey through their public speeches. Testing our

model in a wider variety of settings, in particular in settings that might allow for more specific

identification and tracking of values being addressed, will add to our understanding of the

charismatic process. Also, other settings would allow for larger sample sizes, greater variation in

charisma (one might argue that to some extent all U.S. presidents have been more charismatic

than the average leader) and a shift from dichotomous to continuous measures of charisma.

Focusing on charisma as a social process will also require that we develop additional

dimensions of leader/follower interactions. In this study, we focused on the role of three

communication techniques - negation, abstraction, and inclusion - because they correspond

closely to the change strategies of negation and consensus building suggested by our model.

Other communication techniques (e.g., feedback processes, active versus passive forms of

communication, use of communication media) may be critical as well. Moreover, the research

agenda needs to be broadened to include nonverbal forms of leader/follower interchange.

Our model offers an alternative explanation for the well-documented phenomenon of

charismatic leaders frequent use of the word not. In its primary grammatical role, not

negates a word or a group of words. The results of this study suggest that negation may serve

the rhetorical functions of unfreezing and moving attitudes and values, rather than indicating

personal restraint (McClelland, 1975, 1985). An important contribution of this study, however,

lies in its portrayal of nots as only one component of a systematic strategy for generating social

change. It suggests that a comprehensive view of the processes that define charisma is more

enlightening than is research based on single components of the process (such as the use of

nots) in isolation. It also suggests that future studies should expand beyond the much studied

32


33/33

not and look at other forms of negation (neither/nor, no, none, however, but,).

Finally, the theoretical framework and results of this study provide a forceful argument

that charismatic leadership is a dynamic process that is impossible to capture in a single

snapshot. The effectiveness of change strategies at one point in a leaders tenure depends

importantly on preceding leader/follower interactions. Further progress in our understanding of

this important phenomenon will be substantially enhanced if we recognize the interactive

elements of the charismatic process over time.

33

Charismatic Leadership - House

Documents

Transcript of Charismatic Leadership - House