GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 1
Goffman‟s Dual Influence on Charismatic Leadership Theories:
Dramaturgical Process and Frame Alignment Approaches
Jessica R. Dreistadt
LEAD 720 Leadership Theory and Practice
Eastern University
April 13, 2011
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 2
Goffman‟s Influence on Charismatic Leadership Theories
Introduction
Charismatic leadership tends to arouse an emotional response, even in scholarly
discussion. Charisma is associated with passion, enchantment, and social transformation. For
some, it teeters on danger. Charismatic leadership is wrought with implicit paradoxical
assumptions: it presupposes conflict yet offers hope of peaceful reconciliation; and the power of
an individual‟s compelling vision is dependent on an organizational apparatus in order to be
successful. Charismatic leaders have been responsible for great tragedies, as well as for
wonderful progress. For these reasons, charismatic leadership is a source of fascination for both
the general public and for academia.
Sociologists have shaped and advanced leadership scholars‟ understanding of societal,
organizational, interpersonal, and social psychological phenomena. Sociologist Erving Goffman
has been especially influential, particularly in the domains of social change organizations and
charismatic leadership. His theories of presentation of self (1959) and frame analysis (1974), in
conjunction with theories of impression management (Schlenker, 1980) and semiotics (Greimas
& Rastier, 1968) and many preceding conceptualizations of charismatic leadership, led to the two
approaches to charismatic leadership theory presented in this paper.
Fiol, Harris, and House (1999) use Goffman‟s theory of frame analysis (1974) as well as
Lewin‟s field theory (1954) and Greimas and Rastier‟s semiotic square (1968) to deconstruct
charismatic leaders‟ communication practices during three phases of the social transformation
process. Gardner and Avolio (1998) use Goffman‟s presentation of self (1959) to explain how
charismatic leaders intentionally interact with followers in dramatic ways to produce intended
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 3
organizational outcomes. Together, these theories broaden and deepen our understanding of
charismatic leadership‟s profound ability to inspire, mobilize, and transform.
A brief history of charismatic leadership theory, along with succinct descriptions of frame
analysis, presentation of self, impression management, field theory, and semiotics will be shared
to situate and provide a means to make sense of the two highly complex charismatic leadership
theories presented. The theories, though quite different in their scope and approach, are
complementary and when taken together offer a more comprehensive understanding of
charismatic leadership. A comparative analysis will illuminate the theories‟ similarities and
differences; suggested means of integrating the theories will be explored. The paper will
conclude with a proposed research agenda to further develop the field‟s understanding of a
Goffmanic approach to charismatic leadership.
The Evolution of Charismatic Leadership Theory
Charismatic leadership theory has been expressed in diverse iterations from biblical
through modern times. The theories vary in their academic discipline, assumptions, levels of
analysis, and definitions. A basic understanding of these theories will inform subsequent
discussion about the particular approaches to charismatic leadership under investigation.
Genesis
The concept of charismatic leadership was first recorded in the Bible. The Apostle Paul
used the word charisma, which derives from the Greek language, in two letters to describe the
gifts of, “prophecy, ruling, teaching, ministry, wisdom, and healing” (Conger and Kanungo, 1987,
p. 637). Examples of charismatic leadership are also found in the bible‟s stories. “Moses was one
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 4
of the first towering “charismatic” leaders (Burns, 1978, p. 241).
Weber
Sociologist and Political Scientist Max Weber shifted the analysis of charisma from
Judeo-Christian history to leadership and organizational studies (Bass, 2008, p. 575). According
to Weber (1964), charisma is one of three types of authority; the other two are traditional and
legal-rational. He identified charisma as an inherent trait that is “„awakened‟ or „tested,‟ it cannot
be „learned‟ or „taught‟” (p. 367). Components of Weber‟s conceptualization of charismatic
leadership include devotion to, and trust in, the leader; rejection of bureaucracy and economic
structure; and “a radical alteration of the central system of attitudes and directions of action
toward the different problems and structures of the „world‟” (p. 363). Followers are important in
Weber‟s theory; “the validity of charismatic authority rests entirely on recognition by those
subject to it” (p. 386). Weber believed that charismatic authority would eventually become
routinized in order to achieve individual or organizational stability, thus significantly changing
its nature. “Charismatic authority has a character specifically foreign to everyday routine
structures” (p. 363).
Post-Weberian Theories
There were many ambiguities in Weber‟s theory of charismatic leadership (Burns, 1978;
Conger and Kanungo, 1987). This opened the door for further theory development. Weber
influenced psychologists such as Freud and Fromm to study the inner life and behaviors of
charismatic leaders (Bass, 2008). Freud suggested that charismatic leaders influence followers in
two ways: “through his [sic] personality and through the idea for which he [sic] stands” (1955, p.
173). It was not until 1976, over 50 years after Weber first conceived of the charismatic leader,
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 5
that House developed a modern theory that would inspire a generation of progressively complex
thought in this area.
House’s 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. House developed the 1976 theory of
charismatic leadership as a supplement to his path-goal theory after being influenced by
McClelland‟s three needs theory (House, 1996). According to McClelland‟s theory, people are
motivated by achievement, affiliation, and power; “these motives are perceived as nonconscious
motivators that can be aroused by a select set of stimuli relevant to each motive” (House, 1996, p.
333). House‟s 1976 charismatic leadership theory considered how leaders “empower followers
and arouse motives to enhance intrinsic valences” (House, 1996, p. 334).
The theory defines charismatic leaders as those who “by force of their personal abilities
are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers” (House, 1976, p. 1).
Charismatic leaders have four distinguishing characteristics: “dominance, self-confidence, need
for influence, and a strong conviction in the moral righteousness of his or her beliefs” (House,
1976, p. 25). There are also specific behaviors found in charismatic leaders: “goal articulation,
role modeling, personal image building, demonstration of confidence and high expectations for
followers, and motive arousal behaviors” (House, 1976, p. 25). Clearly, House articulated the
nature of charismatic leadership in more detail than Weber.
There is an acute imbalance of power in charismatic relationships, according to the 1976
theory. “The follower is inspired to enthusiastically give unquestioned obedience, loyalty,
commitment, and devotion to the leader and to the cause the leader represents” (House, 1976, p.
3). House‟s theory “shifted the focus of attention to a leader‟s symbolic and expressive behavior
and the emotional reactions of followers to the leader and the task” (Yukl, 1993, p. 368). Leaders
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 6
inspire change in followers and help them to be successful. They, “clarify followers‟ goals, cause
them to set or accept higher goals and have greater confidence in their ability to contribute to the
attainment of such goals” (House, 1976, p. 4). A strong connection to House‟s path-goal theory
can be seen here.
This groundbreaking paper made charismatic leadership accessible to leadership scholars
for further study (Bass, 2008). It “sought to explain charismatic leadership in terms of a set of
testable propositions involving observable processes” (Yukl, 1993, p. 367). In addition to
bringing this fascinating area to the attention of academia and operationalizing complex
phenomena, House also repositioned charismatic leadership as a dynamic theory rather than a
trait or “great man” approach. His theory was “an amalgam of trait, style, and situational theories
with a trace of the attribution approach” (Trice & Beyer, 1986, p. 132).
The theory did not adequately explain “the process by which these leaders are able to
influence followers profoundly and motivate them to transcend their own self-interest for the
sake of the organization” (Yukl, 1993, p. 368). This topic was explored in later studies of
charismatic leadership, including the two under analysis in this paper.
Subsequent theories and definitions. Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) offer the “most
extensive revision” of House‟s 1976 theory (Yukl, 1993, p. 369). Their theory consists of seven
propositions about the nature of charismatic leaders‟ ability to motivate followers outside of the
purview of economic or a “highly idiosyncratic need-satisfying model” of human relations
(Shamir et al., p. 579). They define charismatic leaders as those who “transform the needs,
values, preferences and aspirations of followers from self-interests to collective interests” and
“cause followers to become highly committed to the leader's mission, to make significant
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 7
personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform above and beyond the call of
duty” (Shamir, et al., p. 577). Leaders motivate followers through role modeling and frame
alignment (p. 584). The theory explains that by carefully controlling messaging and behaviors,
charismatic leaders can manipulate followers‟ level of commitment; followers‟ values and
identities are also salient (p. 588).
A few other theories of, and ideas about, charismatic leadership are germane to this
discussion. Trice & Beyer (1986) studied the routinization of charismatic leaders‟ messaging and
concluded that it should “find expression within the organization” through “the creation of a
viable culture around the charismatic message and mission” (p. 159). The charismatic‟s vision is
propagated through message dissemination with the content tightly controlled. Shamir (1991)
identified a host of charismatic leadership behaviors: “dynamism and energy; displays of self-
confidence; high commitment and motivation; setting and meeting high performance standards;
creative and innovative behavior; expressing goals and roles in ideological terms; showing
confidence in followers; and having high expectations of followers” (p. 82). In addition, he
identified a set of specific effects that charismatic leaders have on followers: “heightened
motivation; positive affect toward the leader and the task; self-assurance; job meaningfulness;
agreement and support for leader policies; trust in the leader; low role conflict and ambiguity;
and high performance quality” (p. 82). Bass (2008) defined charismatic leaders as those who
have, “extraordinary influence over their followers, who become imbued with moral inspiration
and purpose” (p. 576). Bass and Steidlmeier (1998) identify charisma as one of the components
of transformational leadership. Charisma can positively impact idealized influence, and this
materializes in leadership that is “envisioning, confident, and sets high standards for emulation”
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 8
(p. 187).
Pathology of Charismatic Leadership
Many charismatic leadership theorists are sensitive to the potential ethical malignancies
of charismatic leadership. Bass (2008) is particularly skeptical of charismatic leadership and the
possibility that it can cause harm. He offers an interesting alternative definition of charismatic
leaders that exemplifies this caution: “charismatic leaders often emerge in times of crises as
prospective saviors who by their magical endowments will fulfill the unmet emotional needs of
their completely trusting, overly dependent, and submissive followers” (p. 576). Not only does
Bass question the motives of charismatic leaders, he completely disempowers and disparages the
followers involved. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) also implicate charismatic leaders as unethical
actors. “In general, they feel that they honestly know the right answers to problems which need
to be sold through effective impression management. Sometimes, they even deceive themselves
about their competencies.” (p. 187). Yet, Bass (2008) does not categorize all charismatic leaders
as unethical. He distinguishes between personalized and socialized charismatics. “Personalized
charismatic leaders are dominant, self-interested, and authoritarian” while “socialized
charismatic leaders are socially constructive, are egalitarian, and serve collective interests” (p.
578). Bass and Steidlmeier also categorize leaders according to their ethical practices. The
“authentic leader calls for universal brotherhood; the pseudo-transformational leader highlights
fictitious “we-they” differences in values and argues that “we” have inherently good values and
“they” do not” (p. 187).
There is merit to these concerns. Charismatic leaders have been responsible for
misunderstandings and hurt feelings, deeply entrenched conflict, widespread pain and suffering,
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 9
and even mass murder. Yet, charismatic leadership has also resulted in many positive social
changes. Goffman (1959) and Burns (1978) offer tempered dichotomies that recognize the
promise of charismatic leadership. These approaches to categorization may also be more realistic
in everyday practice where charismatic leaders do not necessarily take on the evil, larger than life
characteristics alluded to by Bass.
In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Goffman also distinguished people
using two categories. A cynical performer, “may delude his [sic] audience for what he [sic]
considers to be their own good, or for the good of the community” whereas sincere performers
“believe in the impression fostered by their own performance” (p. 95). According to Goffman,
the human tendency to be cynical is moderated by the possibility of negative outcomes. “Many
performers have ample capacity and motive to misrepresent the facts; only shame, guilt, or fear
prevent them from doing so” (p. 103). People may be sincere in one role, but cynical in another;
they may move along the continuum throughout the course of a day. Individuals are not
generalized as “cynical” or “sincere” but rather take on these characteristics at any given time.
Burns (1978) distinguished social change leaders based on a tension between ideology and
personality; ethical considerations can come into play. In ideological leadership, the “relations of
leaders and led, and of one cause to a competing or threatening one, are ridden with conflict –
with actual or potential conflict inside the movement over specific strategies and goals, and with
constant conflict with opposing ideologies” (p. 248). In contrast, heroic leadership symbolizes a
“belief in leaders because of their personage alone” (p. 244). Unlike Bass, Burns did not
necessarily see these two types of leadership as being mutually exclusive. Rather, he felt that
they can and should coexist as complementary forces. “Most leaders combine both ideological
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 10
and charismatic qualities, and great leaders combine them creatively” (p. 251).
Additional Foundational Theories: A Brief Overview
The authors of the two charismatic leadership theories to be analyzed draw from a diverse
cadre of sociological, cognitive, and linguistic processes and theories. Closer examination of this
foundation will illuminate the unique nuances of each charismatic theory‟s meaning.
Frame Analysis
Frame analysis was introduced by Goffman (1974) to explain individuals‟ perception of
reality at any given period of time. Social life can be broken down into strips; each strip
represents “any arbitrary slice or cut from the stream of ongoing activity, including here
sequences of happenings, real or fictive, as seen from the perspective of those subjectively
involved in sustaining an interest in them” (Goffman, 1974, p. 155). A person‟s perspective of
what the strip represents and means relies upon a frame. The frame is influenced through the
processes of keying and fabrication, which attach meaning to occurrences through experience.
Thus, two people can have the same experience yet have very different perceptions of that
experience because of past history and meanings that have been attached to the various elements
contained in the strip. Frames “organize experience and guide action” (Snow, Rochford, Worden,
& Benford, 1986, p. 464).
Snow et al. (1986) expanded Goffman‟s theory and developed a four-step process for
changing frames in social movement organizations. In the first step, frame bridging, “two or
more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or
problem” are linked (p. 467). Frame amplification, which can relate to a belief or a value, is
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 11
“clarification and invigoration of an interpretive frame that bears on a particular issue, problem,
or set of events” (p. 469). Organizations expand their base of support in the next phase, frame
extension, through which they, “extend the boundaries of its primary framework so as to
encompass interests or point of view that are incidental to its primary objectives but of
considerable salience to potential adherents” (p. 472). In the final phase, frame transformation,
social movement actors see the world in a new way. This change can be either domain-specific or
global. In a domain-specific change, “a domain of life previously taken for granted is reframed
as problematic and in need of repair, or a domain seen as normative or acceptable is reframed as
an injustice that warrants change” (p. 474) whereas in a global change, “domain-specific
experiences…formerly bracketed and interpreted in one or more ways are now given new
meaning and rearranged, frequently in ways that previously were inconceivable, in accordance
with a new master frame” (p. 475).
Dramaturgical Process
Goffman (1959) suggested that individuals are performers who, like actors in a play,
assume various roles throughout their lives. Life is a series of performances. Performing
“concretizes ideas” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 43) and communicates messages. These
performances take place within fixed settings; therefore, “those who would use a particular
setting as part of their performance cannot begin their act until they have brought themselves to
the appropriate place and must terminate their performance when they leave it” (Goffman, 1959,
p. 97). Appearance, which Goffman terms personal front, can be fixed or transitory. The personal
front is attached to the performer and includes “insignia of office or rank; clothing; sex, age, and
racial characteristics; size and looks; posture; speech patterns; facial expressions; bodily gestures”
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 12
(p. 98). Roles and identities can be intentionally constructed (Benford & Hunt).
The performer uses signs and symbols to convey complex messages that would otherwise
not be obvious. Meaning is manipulated to fit the audience; the “performance is “socialized,”
molded, and modified to fit into the understanding and expectations of the society in which it is
presented” (Goffman, 1959, p. 101). Audiences feel threatened when performers are dishonest
(Goffman, 1959). Performances are often strategically staged to improve organizational
effectiveness. This involves, “appropriating, managing and directing materials, audiences and
performing regions” as well as “the maintenance and expansion of an organization‟s capacity to
communicate their ideas… developing and manipulating symbols…promotion and publicity
activity…[and] audience segregation and backstage control” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 43).
Scripts guide the content and timing of messaging. They serve as “interactionally
emergent guides for collective consciousness and action, guides that are circumspect enough to
provide behavioral cues when unanticipated events arise yet sufficiently flexible to allow for
improvisation” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 38). Scripts are reflective of “ideas, attributions,
norms, values, beliefs and a universe of discourse” (Benford & Hunt, p. 39).
Perhaps Goffman was inspired by Shakespeare‟s As You Like It, in which Jaques states,
“All the world‟s a stage, And all the men and women merely players.” Charismatic leaders are
not merely players; they are social architects who strategically direct the setting, script, casting,
staging, audience, and performance to move the world closer toward their fantastic vision.
Field Theory
Introduced by Sociologist Kurt Lewin, field theory is a method of sociological
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 13
investigation characterized by “the use of a constructive rather than classificatory method; an
interest in the dynamic aspects of events; a psychological rather than physical approach; an
analysis which starts with the situation as a whole; [and] a distinction between systematic and
historical problems” (Lewin, 2008, p. 212). It emphasizes analysis of “causal relations and of
building scientific constructs” (Lewin, p. 201).
Field theory is time dependent; “any behavior or any other change in a psychological
field depends only upon the psychological field at that time” (Lewin, 2008, p. 201). Likewise, a
change in the physical world is dependent upon the situation at that particular point in time
(Lewin, p. 202). However, the present moment is influenced by the past and by the future. An
individual‟s “mood is deeply affected by his [sic] hopes and wishes and by his [sic] views of his
[sic] own past. The morale and happiness of an individual seem to depend more on what he [sic]
expects of the future than on the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the present situation” (Lewin,
p. 222).
Three of the four types of learning in field theory are relevant to a discussion about
charismatic leadership: “(1) learning as a change in cognitive structure (knowledge), (2) learning
as a change in motivation…(3) learning as a change in group belongingness or ideology” (Lewin,
2008, p. 216). Field theory suggests that “the major cause of resistance to social change lies in
individuals‟ beliefs in the value of existing social norms” (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 455). Changing
ideology is particularly difficult because of “the way in which needs and cognitive structure are
interwoven” (Lewin, p. 226). Learning takes place in multiple domains; “a change in cognitive
structure may occur in any part of the individual‟s life space, including the psychological
future … present, or…past. It may occur on the reality-level or on the irreality-level (wish- and
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 14
fear-level) of each of these sections of the life space” (Lewin, p. 228). Learning is not purely
intellectual, according to field theory; “cognitive structure is deeply influenced by the needs of
the individual, his valences, values, and hopes” (Lewin, p. 228).
Impression Management
Schlenker (1975) offered a theory of impression management as an alternative to
dissonance reduction. According to this theory, there is a positive relationship between leader
attractiveness and followers‟ willingness to conform to leaders‟ opinions. In addition, Schlenker
advises that “impression management tactics and normative behaviors should increase in
frequency in close correspondence with the attractiveness and power of the individual's audience”
(p. 101). Impression management is sometimes referred to as “image building” (Gardner &
Avolio, 1998, p. 32). While impression management is construed by some to be a manipulative
practice (i.e. Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) it may be necessary for effective communication with
followers. Goffman (1959) recognized that as performers, people leave impressions and
awareness of the accuracy of those impressions determines the actor‟s sincerity. Charismatic
leaders are often on center stage; awareness and management of impressions heighten the
effectiveness of communications.
Semiotics
Semiotics is a three-step process for sense-making that builds upon Piaget‟s theory in
psychology and Klein‟s theory in mathematics (Gremais & Rastier, 1968); it is the “science of
signs” (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 456). The semiotic square starts with a concept in the upper left hand
corner and maps its contrary to the immediate right with the contradictions (non-concept) in the
diagonal quadrant below. The contradiction is “an absolute absence of meaning” while the
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 15
starting concept “describes the human world as a significant whole” (Gremais & Rastier, p. 86).
The semiotic square “can provide a theoretical starting point for identifying the components of
meaning of any set of values within a social system” (Fiol et al., p. 457).
Goffman’s Influence on Charismatic Leadership Theories: Two Approaches
The remainder of this paper will analyze two approaches to understanding charismatic
leadership through a Goffmanic lens. Fiol et al. (1999) expounded upon Goffman‟s study of
frame analysis by analyzing the communication strategies used during each phase of the social
transformation process while Gardner and Avolio (1998) used his dramaturgical process to
explain charismatic relationships and the context in which they occur.
Charismatic Leadership and Frame Alignment
Fiol et al. (1999) analyzed the speeches of the 14 United States presidents from the 20th
century to uncover the communication strategies they used to reframe the social agenda. This
study was based on frame analysis (Goffman, 1974), field theory (Lewin, 1954), and semiotics
(Gremais and Rastier, 1968). In accordance with field theory, which indicates that social
phenomena are dependent upon the situation at a particular time, three speeches from each
president were selected to correspond with the three phases of social change, from frame analysis:
frame breaking, frame moving, and frame re-alignment. The speeches selected were drawn from
the president‟s first year, middle of their term, and their final year in office to align with those
three phases of transformation. The content of the speeches was coded for inclusivity, domain
level, and use of the word „not.‟ Presidents were identified as charismatic or non-charismatic to
compare the practices of different types of leaders.
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 16
They found that, “charismatic leaders employ consistent communication strategies for
breaking down, moving, and re-aligning the norms of their followers” (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 450).
Charismatic leaders break down conventionally accepted social norms through the strategic use
of the word „not.‟ In the first phase, frame moving, the charismatic leader neutralizes desire and
fear and creates a “nondesire for convention” by “convincing society that conventional thinking
is not fruitful, but rather dysfunctional” (p. 459). Next, the leader moves the frame. In this phase,
leaders “move personal values from a neutral to a more active state, and social values from
opposing to conforming with the desired innovation” (p. 460). It is during this stage that the
word „not‟ is most often used, to “initiate the shift” by negating “the endorsed social norms that
are contrary to the innovation” (p. 460). Desire and fear are reactivated and repositioned toward
the social innovation. There is a double negation in this phase; “non-desire for convention must
be transformed into desire for convention, and non-fear of innovation into fear of non-innovation”
(p. 461). The final phase is frame re-aligning, or frame re-freezing. In this final phase, the desire
for innovation is realized by followers.
The authors identified two communications strategies used by charismatic leaders:
negation and inclusion/consensus building. Charismatic leaders use the word „not‟ as a
“rhetorical device for breaking, neutralizing and negating” (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 461). They
proposed that the word „not‟ would be used by charismatic leaders frequently during the first
phase of social transformation (frame breaking), most often during the middle phase (frame
moving), and less frequently during the final phase (frame re-alignment). Charismatic leaders
reinforce social transformation, particularly during the middle phase, through the use of inclusive
language and by expanding “the boundaries of their discourse by employing high levels of
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 17
abstraction” (p. 463). These techniques serve critical purposes; “inclusion explicitly invites
followers to engage and embrace the leader‟s values, while higher levels of abstraction open the
space for followers to align their personal values with those of the leader” (p. 463). These
rhetorical devices connect followers with the leader and the social transformation she or he
espouses.
Charismatic Leadership and Dramaturgical Process
Gardner and Avolio (1998) integrated Goffman‟s dramaturgical theory with Schlenker‟s
impression management theory (1975) to explore the dynamics of charismatic relationships and
the context in which those relationships occur. They assert that charismatic leaders are the
“epitome of drama” (Gardner and Avolio, p. 33); hence; the dramaturgical perspective seems a
serendipitous fit for an approach to analysis.
In the dramaturgical process, leaders and followers have a situated identity that is the
“operationalization of a person‟s identity at a given point in time” (Gardner and Avolio, 1998, p.
33). Identities are co-created through an interactive process. Followers, who in the dramaturgical
perspective are part of the audience, are “active players who work with the leader to construct his
or her charismatic identity” (p. 34). Followers are critical to the emergence and success of
charismatic leaders. Charismatic leaders consider the needs and values of followers, and these
“serve as core determinants of their idealized vision” that “subsumes a hierarchy of progressively
more specific goals that are applicable to various followers” (p. 39).
The authors consider the psychological makeup of the charismatic leader, which they label
self-system. The three components of the leader‟s self-system salient to the model are leader
identity, self-esteem, and self-monitoring. They propose that charismatic leaders are likely to
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 18
have high self-esteem, high self-monitoring skills, and a central leader identity. For leaders,
“identity image…of leader is a central and important of their theory of self…being a leader
serves one‟s social, achievement, and extrinsic needs” (p. 37). They further propose that
charismatic leaders are driven by power, which motivates their impression management tactics.
This desire is moderated by a “high level of activity inhibition” which encourages charismatic
leaders to “use their power in exemplary, self-sacrificing, and socially beneficial ways” (p. 38).
Charismatic leaders, according to this theory, use several dramaturgical strategies to
manage impressions: framing, scripting, casting, dialogue, direction, staging, performing,
exemplification, promotion, and facework. When framing, charismatic leaders “choose their
words to amplify audience values, stress its importance and efficacy, and, if necessary, denigrate
those who oppose it” (Gardner and Avolio, 1998, p. 41). Scripts, which can be prepared or
improvised, “coordinate and integrate activities” by moving “a step closer toward enactment by
casting roles, composing dialogue, and directing action” (p. 41). Through staging, charismatic
leaders “orchestrate their presentations to target audiences through verbal, nonverbal, artifactual,
and mass media to frame, script, and stage the charismatic performance” (p. 44). Many will
“manipulate their appearance for symbolic purposes” (p. 43). When performing, charismatic
leaders control images through exemplification and promotion. Through exemplification, they
“act in unconventional and counternormative ways to model new behaviors and deviate from the
status quo” (p. 44). Charismatic leaders promote themselves, their vision, and their organization.
Facework is used as a defensive technique when needed to “protect and repair desired self, vision,
and organizational images” (p. 47).
In this model, the psychology, values, and needs of followers are given significant attention.
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 19
The theory suggests that the importance of the individual identity of followers decreases with
increased involvement in the charismatic relationship. Followers, “come to increasingly identify
with the leader until their identities become intertwined with that of the leader and the collective
he or she represents” (Gardner and Avolio, 1998, p. 48). Similarly, followers‟ motives and values
are “realigned until they are congruent with the leader‟s vision and values” (p. 49). Nonetheless,
the authors propose that charismatic leaders will have a positive psychological impact on
followers. “The extreme confidence that charismatic leaders express in their own and followers‟
abilities…serves to elevate followers‟ self-esteem and self-efficacy expectations” (p. 49). As
opposed to charismatic leadership theories that assume followers are passive, such as those
supported by Bass (2008), Gardner and Avolio purport that support for the charismatic leader and
her or his cause expands through a social contagion process; therefore, the charismatic leader
may have many followers who have had little or no direct interaction with her or him. They
propose that charismatic relationships lead to a collective identity, which results in “team
performances and an elevated effort to achieve challenging goals” (p. 53). Therefore,
organizational outcomes are enhanced through the charismatic relationship and its impact on a
“shared vision and collective identity, coupled with strong follower commitment to the leader
and elevated effort” (p. 53). House‟s 1976 theory connected charismatic leadership to the
achievement of worker or team goals; this theory‟s consensus theory base amplifies its impact to
the organizational and even movement-wide level.
The dramaturgical model also considers the environment, which “serves as the backdrop,
setting, or stage for leaders and followers to construct the charismatic relationship” (Gardner and
Avolio, 1998, p. 35). The authors identify three environmental factors that impact relationships:
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 20
environmental turbulence, organizational context, and third-party audiences.
Comparative Analysis
In addition to utilizing different elements of Goffman‟s sociological theory, the presented
theories of charismatic leadership diverge in other important ways. These include the scope of
charismatic leadership encompassed in the theoretical models, the role of followers, power
dynamics, ethical considerations, and the use of words.
Charismatic Leadership Definition
Neither article explicitly defines charisma but builds upon decades of research and
discussion in this area. Both theories are based upon a social constructivist lens. Charisma is not
viewed as a trait; rather, charisma is treated as an active social phenomena that is co-created with
followers within particular environmental and/or cultural contexts. Charisma is not something
that a leader has; it is something that a leader uses or does with others. It is an experience shared
by leaders and followers – and perhaps other audiences. It is a vibe diffused in radical social
change organizations.
The nature of the dramaturgical perspective lends itself to a more holistic definition of
charismatic leadership than does the frame analysis model. In the dramaturgical perspective,
leader and follower values and beliefs, interactions, impressions, and the environment are all
influential. The focus of the frame analysis model on communication strategies is much more
specific; what it lacks in breadth it makes up for in depth.
The Role of Followers
The dramaturgical process theory (Gardner & Avolio, 1998) is quite egalitarian; it
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 21
recognizes the agency and values of followers. In the pictorial representation of the model, the
leader and the followers/audience occupy an equal amount of space and are shown on the same
hierarchical level. The charismatic leader is not just dependent upon followers for her or his
position and power; the leaders and follower co-create a vision and agenda for social
transformation resulting in a collective identity and group solidarity. This reciprocal relationship,
according to the model, is key to the organization‟s ability to achieve its goals. This aspect of the
theory is very unique from most models of charismatic leadership, which clearly differentiate the
leader from followers in terms of power and control.
The frame analysis model (Fiol et al., 1999) implies a more passive role for followers. In
this theory, followers are receivers and decoders of messages. The charismatic leader defines
innovation and uses rhetoric to break down old ways of thinking and build up a sense of
belongingness to the group that supports the new idea. The authors note that, in the social
transformation process, followers shift from thinking individualistically to thinking collectively;
however, the values of the collective are externally directed by the charismatic leader. The
backstory, the process of defining innovation prior to sharing it with the public, is unfortunately
outside the scope of this theoretical model.
Power Dynamics
While charismatic leaders may be situated in organizations working toward egalitarian
goals, their relationships are not necessarily so. Many charismatic leaders are dominant in their
relationships with followers (Bass, 2008); this line of thought was reflected by Fiol et al. (1999).
However, as Gardner and Avolio (1998) point out, charismatic relationships can be co-creational,
collaborative, and communal with both the leader and followers actively engaged in setting the
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 22
direction of the relationship and the vision for the organization or movement.
Ethics
Fiol et al. (1999) propose that followers‟ behavior becomes increasingly moral as it
becomes more collective; however, this relationship is not thoroughly explained. In order to
move frames, ideas about morality and normality must also shift. The authors do not discuss the
process of deciding, or discovering, what the frames ought to be; this is determined by the
charismatic leader. Thus, the model is patriarchal and has a greater potential to reflect unethical
practices. Outside of the three stages of moving frames, there is not a process built into the
theory to vet the validity of the charismatic leader‟s claims of what ought to be. Without
moderation or supplementation, implementation of this theoretical model could cause harm.
While its intent may have been to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, it may have practical
application. The model could be used by leaders who are otherwise ethical to effectuate positive
social changes.
Gardner and Avolio‟s theory (1998) is more ethically sound. Because the vision and
values are co-created through an interactive process, the charismatic leader is not dominating or
exploiting the relationship. The model‟s projected organizational outcomes of high internal
cohesion, value congruence, and performance potential all have ethical underpinnings. In this
theory, charismatic leaders desire to appear trustworthy, credible, and morally worthy.
Words
Both theories imply that charismatic leaders must be intentional about the specific words
they choose. Scripting, use of the word „not,‟ inclusive language, and abstract language are all
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 23
strategies used by charismatic leaders. Timing is also crucial. When engaged in the process of
social transformation, charismatic leaders must align their communication – and other –
strategies to the particular phase of the frame movement process.
While Fiol et al. (1999) specifically reviewed spoken words and Gardner and Avolio
(1998) discussed leader-follower interactions, printed words are also important. Printed words
may be circulated into perpetuity and will reach secondary audiences not immediately accessible
to the charismatic leaders.
Theoretical Integration, Synthesis, and Application
While the two theories analyzed offer distinct approaches to understanding charismatic
leadership, they are not necessarily incompatible. Each article has particular strengths that can be
leveraged by developing enhanced theoretical models that incorporate aspects of both. Through
integration of the theories, the understanding and impact of charismatic leadership can be
amplified.
The dramaturgical process (Gardner and Avolio, 1998) is a more comprehensive model
than the frame alignment theory (Fiol et al., 1999). However, the frame alignment theory adds
depth that can explain certain areas of the dramaturgical theory. Framing fits within the
dramaturgy model. “While framing provides actable ideas, scripting moves these ideas one step
closer to enactment. It casts roles, composes dialogue and directs action” (Benford & Hunt, 1992,
p. 39). The specific communication strategies developed in the frame alignment model can also
be placed within the dramaturgical model as an addition. This can help to explain how leaders
and followers communicate and develop their respective situated identities. In particular, the use
of inclusive and abstract language may lead to several elements of the charismatic relationship
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 24
identified in the dramaturgical model: collective identity, shared vision and values, and elevated
effort.
The dramaturgical process can also be applied to the frame alignment model to enhance its
efficacy. The frame alignment model would benefit from additional consideration for the needs,
desires, values, and beliefs of followers and other audience members. Currently, followers do not
actively co-create the vision in the frame alignment model but rather receive it from the
charismatic leader. The theory could be applied to see how charismatic leaders negotiate their
vision with followers within the dramaturgical charismatic relationship using the communication
techniques of inclusive and abstract language and the word „not‟ throughout the social
transformation process. This provides a broader context for the theory and expands it
applicability.
Proposed Research Agenda
Sustaining Energized Social Change
How can charisma be routinized so that it does not lose its essence? Some theorists (i.e.
Weber, 1964; Trice & Beyer, 1986) have suggested that charisma loses its character when it
becomes routinized. Yet, routinization or institutionalization of the charismatic vision is
necessary in order for the charismatic vision of social transformation to be sustained over time.
Perhaps it is possible for charismatic leaders to continue to infuse organizations with new ideas
and energy as they continually shift, re-align, and transform the social framework. Qualitative
research within social change organizations could uncover such dynamics.
Acting Charismatically
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 25
If charismatic leaders are actors, can non-charsimatic leaders act in charismatic ways?
Gardner and Avolio (1998) suggest that their framework can be used to develop leader coaching
and training. This again implies that charisma is not a trait, but (at least in part) an acquired,
transferrable skill or process that can be learned. While the dramaturgical process clearly
describes the charismatic relationship, it may be applied to non-charismatic leaders who wish to
benefit from the same organizational outcomes. Thus, training that is developed based on this
model might benefit all leaders. However, there may need to be other personal, relational, or
organizational factors in place in order for the training to be effective. Additional research could
identify such variables.
Communication Strategies
How should charismatic communication strategies vary according to situational contexts?
The theories explored discussed how communication strategies change according to follower
characteristics and stage in the social transformation process. There may be other important
factors to consider when developing communication strategies for charismatic leaders including
(perceived) leader distance, type of organization or social issue, size of audience, cultural or
gender differences, and political climate. These further refinements to communication strategies
may enhance effectiveness.
How do charismatic leaders communicate in less obvious ways and what is the impact on
impressions and organizational outcomes? In addition to the rhetorical devices shared by Fiol et
al. (1999), there may be other ways of communicating specific to charismatic leaders. These
might include inflection and intonation, volume of voice, posture, gestures, dramatic pauses, eye
contact, or clothing. Developing a better understanding of these, and their impact on audience
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 26
perceptions, can help charismatic leaders manage impressions and improve organizational and
movement outcomes.
Sincere Charismatic Leadership
Can charismatic leaders truly be sincere? There is much discussion in the academic
literature about the ethics of charismatic leadership; in particular, charismatic leaders. Using
Goffman‟s conceptualization of sincere and cynical performers (1959), researchers could
investigate charismatic leaders‟ feelings about their impressions to determine the level of
synchronicity between their underlying intentions and actions. This information could be used as
feedback to help charismatic leaders better align impressions with their values and intentions to
improve relationships with followers and other audiences; thus enhancing organizational and
movement outcomes.
Conclusion
Charismatic leadership theories offer compelling insight into the process of social
transformation. With a strong foundation in sociology, theories that build upon Erving Goffman‟s
theories of the presentation of self and frame analysis expand the contextualization of charisma
from a static inherent trait to a dynamic socially constructed relationship.
Gardner and Avolio (1998) and Fiol et al. (1999) have offered different, yet complementary
approaches to applying Goffman‟s sociological theories (1959, 1974) to the study of charismatic
leadership. Both expand our understanding of charismatic leadership processes; most
significantly, verbal communication and impression management.
Charismatic leaders are change makers, for better or for worse. By understanding the
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 27
tactics, strategies, and processes they employ, we can be guarded against those personalized
charismatic leaders (Bass, 2008) who might take advantage of us for their own personal benefit
and be better prepared to engage and collaborate with those socialized charismatic leaders (Bass,
2008) who are genuinely interested in benefiting society. Charismatic leadership is truly a “gift”
and knowledge empowers us to be its stewards.
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 28
References
Bass, B. (2008). Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial implications.
(4th edition), New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
Benford, R. & Hunt, S. (1992). Dramaturgy and social movements: The social construction and
communication of power. Sociological Inquiry, 62(1): 36-55.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
organizational settings. Academy of Management Review. 12(4): 637-647.
Fiol, C. , Harris, D., & House, R. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social
change. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3) 449-482.
Freud, S. (1955). Moses and monotheism. New York: Vintage.
Gardner, W. & Avolio, B. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 22(1) 32-58.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. In Lemert, C. & Branaman, A.
(Eds.). The Goffman reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. In Lemert, C.
& Branaman, A. (Eds.). The Goffman reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Gremais, A. J. and Rastier, F. (1968). The Interaction of semiotic constraints. Yale French Studies,
41, 86-105.
House, R. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. Working paper presented at the
Southern Illinois University Fourth Biennial Leadership Symposium, Carbondale, IL.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.
The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352.
Lewin, K. (2008). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. 7th Ed. Cartwright,
D., Ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published
1951).
Schlenker, B. (1975). Liking for a group following an initiation: Impression management or
dissonance reduction? Sociometry, 38(1), 99-118.
GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 29
Shakespeare, W. (1623). As you like it. Retrieved from http://shakespeare.mit.edu/asyoulikeit.
Shamir, B. (1991) The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 81-104.
Shamir, B., House, R. & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A
self-concept based on theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.
Snow, D. A., E. B. Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment
processes, micromobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review,
51 (4), 464-481
Trice, H. & Beyer, J. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 113-164.
Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. (A.M. Henderson, T. Parsons
(Trans.), & T. Parsons (Ed.)), New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1922).
Yukl, G. (1993). A retrospective on House‟s 1976 theory of charismatic leadership and recent
revisions. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(3), 367-373.
Top Related