CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP: STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTING
SOCIAL CHANGE
C. Marlene Fiol
University of Colorado - Denver
Drew Harris
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Robert House
University of Pennsylvania
Second revision February 1999
Please address all correspondence to:
C. Marlene Fiol
University of Colorado at Denver
College of Business
CB 165
PO Box 173364
Denver CO 80217-3364
303-556-5812
mfiol@castle.cudenver.edu
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.
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 Weber’s 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.
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 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 leader’s 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 McClelland’s (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 McClelland’s 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 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
& 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 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.
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.
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
Lewin’s (1951) three-phase process for changing social values with 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
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 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-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 & 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 leader’s values, while higher
levels of abstraction open the space for followers to align their personal
values with those of the leader. Since engagement and inclusion are necessary
for maintaining or changing social values (regardless of the content of the values) 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
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 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 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
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 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 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 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 communications and follower responses to such communications.
Lewin’s (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
theory’s 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 leader’s 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 year’s 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.
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 Gambetta’s (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 nation’s or a
corporation’s 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.
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 “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 leader’s 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.
[1]
Why only 20th century presidents?
Presidential researchers
contend that the 20th century presidency varied in three important ways from
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 and conditional 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 media changed the speed, means,
and reach of presidential communications, allowing them to reach national
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) and the Spangler and House
(1991) studies.
[2]
The
lower levels of abstraction (1 and 2) create an inverse pattern of the higher
levels.
Courtesy By: Charismatic Leadership
0 comments:
Post a Comment