رهبری کاریزماتیک ریاست جمهوری : بررسی فصاحت و بلاغت تغییر اجتماعی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3343||2008||23 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 19, Issue 1, February 2008, Pages 54–76
Fiol, Harris and House [(1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 449–482] provide support for the theory that charismatic leaders introduce social change by employing communication targeted at changing followers' values in a temporal sequence: frame-breaking (phase 1), frame-moving (phase 2), and frame-realigning (phase 3). Using computerized content analysis, the current study extended these findings by testing additional communication tactics in temporal sequence on a larger sample of US presidential speeches with an expanded presidential charisma measure. Compared to non-charismatic leaders, charismatic leaders emphasized their similarity to followers in phase 1 and used negation in phase 2. Both leadership types used increasingly active and tangible language as they moved from phase 1 to 2 to 3. Across phases, charismatic leaders communicated with imagery and stressed inclusion, while referring less to conceptual thoughts and inspiration. A theoretical model of social identity framing is introduced to provide additional insight into how leaders communicate for social change.
Social change broadly relates to modifying the existing social order, convention, or status quo in some way. For example, social change may pertain to solving an existing social problem in an innovative way (Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999), changing group norms, or changing relations between groups (Tajfel, 1981). Charismatic leadership theory (Weber, 1946) postulates that charismatic leaders institute social change and alter the status quo in some fundamental way (see Fiol et al., 1999). Charismatic leaders achieve this end by presenting people with a powerful vision that inspires and motivates them towards social change. Specifically, these leaders articulate a vision that appeals to people's emotions and boosts self worth (Emrich et al., 2001 and House et al., 1991). As a consequence, followers form strong emotional attachments and have a high sense of trust and confidence in the charismatic leader (House et al., 1991). Additionally, these leaders seem to have an almost “magical ability” (Weber, 1946) to evoke in their followers an intrinsic motivation to make personal sacrifices in implementing the leader's vision (House et al., 1991; see also De Cremer, 2002 and McClelland, 1985). The performance and effectiveness of charismatic leaders is theorized to lay, at least in part, in their ability to inspire followers to work towards a vision rather than motivating followers with rewards and punishments. In particular, charismatic leaders tend to use specific communication strategies to inspire followers and implement social change (Bligh et al., 2004a, Emrich et al., 2001, Fiol et al., 1999 and Shamir et al., 1994). The current study replicates and extends previous research by examining additional rhetorical strategies used by charismatic leaders when persuading followers to adopt their vision of social change. Drawing on Lewin's (1951) field theory, Fiol et al. (1999) suggest that charismatic leaders affect social change by employing specific rhetorical strategies targeted at changing followers' personal and social values. These strategies are theorized to follow a temporal sequence whereby leaders manipulate different aspects of followers' personal motivations (desires and fears) and social values (convention and innovation) during separate and temporally distinct stages. In the first phase (phase 1), charismatic leaders employ frame-breaking strategies by attempting to reduce the value people place on the current social convention. Specifically, these leaders derogate social convention by either: (a) negating people's desire to maintain the status quo; or, (b) negating their fear of change or innovation. In the second phase (phase 2), charismatic leaders engage in frame-moving strategies by attempting to move people's neutral state of either non-support for convention or non-fear of change to support for change. They accomplish this by either: (a) encouraging people's desire for non-convention; or, (b) encouraging people to fear not changing the old convention. In the final phase (phase 3), charismatic leaders use frame-realigning to convince followers to support their new vision by either: (a) substituting a desire for non-convention to a desire for change or innovation; or, (b) substituting the fear of not changing the old convention to a desire for innovation. It is during this final phase that charismatic leaders mobilize their support from followers and encourage them towards action. To test this model, Fiol et al. (1999) coded 42 20th century presidential speeches for language that denoted negation (i.e., use of “not”), inclusion, and high levels of abstraction in order to include and engage followers in a change process that defies current social convention. Three speeches were selected for each president: one from the beginning of the presidency (frame-breaking), one from the middle (frame-moving), and one from the end (frame-realigning). Thus, these three speeches represented the three temporal phases of social change over the course of each president's first term in office. While the social phases may have been operationalized around specific issues (e.g., Cuban missile crisis) that leaders aimed to change, the researchers' rationale for this operationalization was centered on the argument that presidents have broad agendas of change that may take years to accomplish (Fiol et al., 1999, pp. 464–5). Overall, results from their study indicated that charismatic leaders were more likely to use negation, inclusion, and abstract rhetoric than were non-charismatic leaders. Additionally, results showed that charismatic leaders used these techniques most frequently during the frame-moving stage (phase 2). Although Fiol et al. (1999) provide support for their model of social change, several limitations to their study should be noted. First, the study of Fiol et al. (1999) was limited by sample size, as only one speech per phase was analyzed for each leader. To help ensure that the speeches are typical of the leader's communication (Shamir et al., 1994) during each phase, we utilize at least two speeches per phase to address this limitation, resulting in an average sample size of six speeches for each president. We also extend the sample to include more recent U.S. presidents. Second, the current study utilizes computerized content analysis rather than human coding. Computerized content analysis minimizes human coding biases and provides a reliable way of uncovering and counting features of language that may otherwise be undetectable (see Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004b for a review of content analysis in leadership; see also Bligh et al., 2004a, Insch et al., 1997 and Morris, 1994). Finally, the study of Fiol et al. tested three rhetorical devices (negation, abstraction, and inclusion) in temporal sequence that charismatic leaders may use to institute change, but additional communication strategies may also be important. Theory and research on charismatic leadership theory suggests that charismatic leaders use a multitude of rhetorical devices in crafting their visionary messages (e.g. ,Bligh et al., 2004a, Conger, 1991, Emrich et al., 2001, Holladay and Coombs, 1993, Holladay and Coombs, 1994, Shamir et al., 1994 and Shamir et al., 1993), which have not been tested in relation to the social change process of frame-breaking, frame-moving, and frame-realigning (Fiol et al., 1999). Therefore, additional rhetorical techniques derived from the study of Bligh et al. (2004a) (similarity to followers, inspiration, action-oriented language, and tangibility) are also included to explore a wider range of techniques that charismatic leaders may employ during social change. According to Fiol et al. (1999), each social change phase requires specific communication tactics to achieve the specified goals of that phase. Hence, each additional communication tactic explored in this study was specifically selected to correspond to how leaders may achieve the targeted goals of a particular social change phase. We now turn to detailing the theoretical rationale and hypotheses concerning each of these rhetorical strategies. 1.1. Negation During phases 1 and 2, social change processes involve negating and neutralizing conventional group values and moving followers towards the charismatic leader's proposed changes through double negation, which entails negating both social and personal values attached to convention. Fiol et al. (1999) operationalized this negating process through the leader's use of “nots” and found that “nots” were most frequently used by charismatic presidents during phase 2. However, given the controversial interpretation of “nots” (see Fiol et al., 1999, Grant et al., 2004 and Spangler and House, 1991) and the fact that negation may often involve more complex language than “nots” (Mayo, Schul, & Burnstein, 2004), additional operationalizations of negation rhetoric may also warrant investigation. Particularly, negation terms denoting negative contractions, negative function words, and null sets (e.g., aren't, shouldn't, don't, nor, nay, nothing), and semantic prefixes (“dis” or “un”) in addition to “nots” are used in the current study to denote derogation of the status quo. As phase 2 involves undermining the status quo through double negation to move followers to the leader's proposed vision (Fiol et al., 1999), we propose: Hypothesis 1. Charismatic leaders will use negation more frequently during phase 2 compared to non-charismatic leaders. 1.2. Inclusion and similarity language In phase 2, Fiol et al. (1999) emphasize the importance of moving followers' personal values from a neutral to an active state, and moving personal and social values to desiring innovation or fearing convention. According to Fiol et al., the charismatic leader accomplishes this challenging task through consensus building and creating trust, which is critical in reassuring followers that moving away from convention is both safe and desirable. To build consensus and trust, the researchers postulate that using inclusive language is particularly effective. Inclusive language may be especially important for affirming and making salient followers' social identity (Tajfel, 1974 and Turner, 1981; see also Haslam et al., 2001, Hogg et al., 1998 and Shamir et al., 1993), but we argue that stressing a sense of similarity to followers may also play an important role as well. The social influence literature shows that people are more likely to be persuaded (Cialdini & Trost, 1998) and to trust (Fiske, 1998) both ingroup members and similar others. Similarly, studies show that a rhetorical vehicle for influencing others involves the speaker construing him or herself as a member of the audience's ingroup (Reicher & Hopkins, 1996), which could partially be accomplished by using high levels of inclusive language (e.g., “we”, “us”; Fiol et al., 1999), and also portraying a sense of similarity with followers ( Bligh et al., 2004a, Fiol et al., 1999 and Shamir et al., 1994) in order to build a highly inclusive social identity (Bull, 2000). By stressing a sense of similarity, the charismatic leader gains followers' trust and increased influence, which may help the leader move followers' social values towards change during phase 2. To operationalize these constructs, we incorporated several additional rhetorical dictionaries utilized in previous research. While Fiol et al. (1999) operationalized inclusive language through the use of “we”, “our”, and “us,” or words invoking people's social identity, we also posit that inclusion in the political realm may also include references to collectives (e.g., social groupings, task groups, geographical entities) and people (e.g., citizenry, population, residents) to help build a broader social identity. Inclusive language may also comprise less self-reference (e.g., I, me, mine, myself; Fiol et al., 1999), in order to be consistent with language that emphasizes group consensus and solidarity. To create the impression of similarity with followers, charismatic leaders may use more rhetoric that denotes leveling (e.g., words used to ignore individual differences and build a sense of completeness and assurance) and familiarity (e.g., common prepositions, demonstrative pronouns) than non-charismatic leaders. Through these techniques, charismatic leaders communicate that they understand followers’ fears and needs and that they represent a leader that followers can relate to, trust, and identify with (Bligh et al., 2004a). Hypothesis 2. Charismatic leaders will use more inclusion during phase 2 than non-charismatic leaders. Hypothesis 3. Charismatic leaders will stress more similarity to followers during phase 2 than non-charismatic leaders. 1.3. Abstract versus concrete: Conceptual language and imagery Fiol et al. (1999) found that charismatic leaders may use high levels of abstraction (ambiguous words susceptible to multiple interpretations) as opposed to concreteness to increase a sense of consensus and trust, as well as encourage followers to calibrate their personal values with those espoused by the leader. However, other research contradicts the finding of Fiol et al. Specifically, Emrich et al. (2001) found evidence that charismatic presidents (beginning with Washington and ending with Reagan) use less abstract (conceptual) language and more concrete (imagery) language. It is important to note, however, that the two studies used similar but not identical measures. Fiol et al. studied four levels of domain-specific abstraction ranging from concrete to abstract terms (e.g., people, things or events, countries or nations, and the world and universal beliefs). Emrich et al. utilized a measure of abstract language called conceptual-based language, which is reality-oriented and emphasizes listeners’ logical interpretations and problem solving (e.g., know, thought, array, right, virtue, work, idea). In contrast, imagery-producing rhetoric is a form of concrete language that is associative and vivid; it elicits a sensory experience that is based in non-reality, fantasy, and dreams (e.g., work versus sweat; idea versus dream; Emrich et al., 2001). In the current study, we measured abstraction and concreteness by examining the frequency of conceptual and imagery-producing language using Martindale's Regressive Imagery Dictionary (see Emrich et al., 2001). This measure provided the opportunity to test the results of Fiol et al. with a similar but not identical measure of abstraction versus concreteness, which helps to explore the convergent and discriminant validity of the measures. Additionally, to our knowledge, the results of Emrich et al. have not been replicated or explored in a temporal sequence. Fiol et al. (1999) argued that charismatic leaders would use more imagery and less conceptual language in the frame-realigning phase (phase 3). During this phase, charismatic leaders seek to refreeze and ensure the permanency of their values (Lewin, 1951, p. 229) and to inspire followers towards goals and action related to their visions. Although other theories and research on charismatic leaders do not specify a temporal sequence as to when charismatic leaders encourage followers towards action, there seems to be both theoretical and empirical consensus that charismatic leaders engage in rhetoric to mobilize followers towards goals and action ( Bligh et al., 2004a, Bligh et al., 2004b and Shamir et al., 1993). Rather than emphasizing specific and proximal goals, Shamir and his colleagues (1993) contend that charismatic leaders stress vague and distal goals with utopian outcomes to encourage followers' faith in a better future. Towards this end, charismatic leaders may also use “symbolism, mysticism, imaging and fantasy” (Bass, 1985, cited in Shamir et al., 1993, p. 583). Other research corroborates this theory. Recently, Mio, Riggio, Levin, and Reese (2005) found that charismatic leaders use more metaphors in their speeches than non-charismatic leaders. As mentioned earlier, Emrich et al. (2001) showed that presidential leaders who used more image-producing language versus conceptual-based in their speeches received higher ratings of charisma, while leaders who used more conceptual language received lower ratings of charisma. Taken together, past research and theory imply that charismatic leaders may utilize more image-producing rhetoric when inspiring followers towards goals and action (phase 3) because it allows them to frame goals in a vague and distal manner to elicit a vivid and utopian future (Shamir et al., 1993). Additionally, image-producing language enlists sensory experiences, resulting in more memorable rhetoric that could ensure the permanency of social change. It also produces stronger emotional reactions, “increasing followers’ willingness to embrace [charismatic leaders’] vision and, ultimately, to act” (Emrich et al., 2001, p. 533). In line with these propositions, we formulated four hypotheses. Hypotheses 4a and 5a aimed to replicate Emrich et al. by testing differences between charismatic and non-charismatic leaders on imagery and conceptual language, regardless of temporal sequence or phases. Hypotheses 4b and 5b focus on whether charismatic leaders use imagery and conceptual language in a specific temporal sequence, particularly during phase 3. Hypothesis 4a. Charismatic leaders will use more imagery than non-charismatic leaders. Hypothesis 4b. Charismatic leaders will use more imagery than non-charismatic leaders in phase 3 when inspiring followers towards goals and action. Hypothesis 5a. Charismatic leaders will use less conceptual language than non-charismatic leaders. Hypothesis 5b. Charismatic leaders will be less likely to use conceptual language than non-charismatic leaders in phase 3 when inspiring followers towards goals and action. 1.4. Inspirational language To refreeze innovative values and norms in phase 3, charismatic leaders use affirmation and channel personal motivators developed in phase 2 into the direction of their goals and vision (Fiol et al., 1999). Shamir et al. (1993) also contend that charismatic leaders affirm and increase followers’ self-esteem and sense of worth. They do this by highlighting relationships between followers’ efforts and important values, thus empowering followers with strength and confidence to act from a “sense of moral correctness” (Shamir et al., 1993, p. 582). This sense of moral correctness may be cultivated by charismatic leaders' use of rhetoric lauding followers' universal abstract virtues and desirable moral qualities (e.g., self-sacrifice, mercy, courage, wisdom, patriotism). Persuasion has been shown to occur when leaders stress pre-existing values that define the self-identity (e.g., dedication, success, wisdom; see Watkins, 2001). In this way, innovative values and actions are still embedded within socially conventional ideas (Fiol et al., 1999) and satisfy consistency in the self-concept. In line with these propositions, we postulate that charismatic leaders may be more likely than non-charismatic leaders to positively affirm followers' worth, appeal to pre-existing values, and to empower their followers by using inspirational terms (e.g., abstract virtues such as courage, self-sacrifice, wisdom) when attempting to refreeze social values during phase 3. Hypothesis 6. Charismatic leaders will use more inspiration in phase 3 than non-charismatic leaders. 1.5. Action and tangibility In addition to using image-producing rhetoric and inspirational terms to refreeze innovative values and to continue to inspire followers towards goals and action (phase 3), charismatic leaders may also utilize more active and tangible language. In a series of three studies examining the rhetorical content of President George W. Bush's speeches pre-and post-9/11, Bligh et al. (2004a) found that after 9/11, Bush's rhetoric was not only perceived as more charismatic, but also revealed a significant increase of active language and a decrease in tangible rhetoric. For example, the following quote from President Bush uses action-related terms and less tangible language, “We're going to hunt them down one at a time…it doesn't matter where they hide, as we work with our friends we will find them and bring them to justice.” (George W. Bush, 11/22/02). The fact that Bush used more action-related language and less tangible rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and was also perceived as more charismatic, suggests that charismatic attributions may be related to the use of these rhetorical constructs. However, the use of less tangible language may be a unique artifact of a post-crisis environment. In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush may have been less inclined to use tangible language in order to draw attention away from the concrete details of the dismal current state of affairs and focus more on what needed to be done to propagate hope in a better future. In a broader context than a national crisis and particularly in a context (such as phase 3) where leaders aim to persuade their followers to continually strive towards their goals and vision, charismatic leaders may attempt to inspire their followers with increased action-related language, and also more tangible language to highlight and solidify past and present accomplishments and goals. Action-related language (which relates to aggression and accomplishment) may be used more frequently during phase 3 to highlight past and present activity and accomplishments and to link these accomplishments to the goals of the distal future. This could increase followers' faith and hopes in the leader's vision, thus encouraging followers to act (see Shamir et al., 1993). Tangibility (which entails both materiality and repetition of key terms) may also be utilized in phase 3 to continually highlight the leader's past and present accomplishments in concrete terms, creating an impression of small victories to motivate followers towards the vision. Use of repetition (e.g., slogans, repeating key points) during phase 3 may also serve the purpose of perpetually reinforcing the leader's vision to ensure the permanency of change. For example, Bill Clinton used active language and expressed his administration's past and present accomplishments on immigration in tangible and repetitive terms: “After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders. We are increasing border controls by 50 percent. We are increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. And tonight, I announce I will sign an executive order to deny federal contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants” (State of the Union, 1996). Therefore, we anticipate that charismatic leaders may be more likely than non-charismatic leaders to employ communication strategies denoting high levels of action (e.g., aggressive words such as human competition, goal directness, and accomplishment words expressing task-completion and organized human behavior), and may be less likely to use words denoting low levels of action (passivity, ambivalence) during phase 3. Although past research (Bligh et al., 2004a) suggests that after a national crisis leaders may use less tangible language, we suggest that charismatic leaders may be more likely to use tangible language (e.g., concreteness, insistence) in the context of phase 3, as they attempt to inspire their followers to support and act in accordance with their values, goals, and vision. Hypothesis 7. Charismatic leaders will use more action-related language in phase 3 than non-charismatic leaders. Hypothesis 8. Charismatic leaders will use more tangible language in phase 3 than non-charismatic leaders. 2. Method 2.1. Sample Following Fiol et al. (1999), the sample for the current study included American presidential speeches beginning in the 20th century. The sample of speeches (N = 112) was compiled from 17 presidents beginning with Theodore Roosevelt (1901) and ending with the current American President, George W. Bush (2000).1 Only 20th century presidents were used, as prior to the 20th century: (a) presidents used different language; (b) the United States was withdrawn from foreign affairs during the isolationism period; and finally, (c) the influence of the mass media was absent. Furthermore, similar to Fiol et al. (1999), only speeches from the presidents’ first terms were analyzed in the current study.2 Fiol et al. (1999) used speeches that “addressed a wide, national audience either in topic or in physical audience” (p. 464) from each president's first year in office (frame-breaking phase), middle year in office (frame-moving phase), and last year in office (frame-realigning phase) to reflect the three phases of social transformation. Most of these speeches were inaugural addresses or addresses to congress (States of the Union); otherwise, comparable speeches were used. Several early presidential speeches selected by Fiol et al. were written communications to Congress (e.g., Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Calvin Coolidge), probably due to the fact that early 20th century presidents gave few oral addresses. Also noteworthy, two presidential speeches (John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon) selected by Fiol et al. were from presidential news conferences.3 To increase the sample size, at least one additional speech was selected per phase from each president's first year, middle years, and last year in office. The selection criteria for these additional speeches were based on the temporal orientation of the speech and whether the speech addressed a national audience. Inaugurals and State of the Union speeches were selected as additional speeches if they were not already in the sample of Fiol et al. (1999). Otherwise, we used major presidential speeches (e.g., the Truman Doctrine, Eisenhower's Atoms of Peace, George W. Bush's 9/11 Address to the Nation).4 While Fiol et al. analyzed presidential speeches starting from Theodore Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, the current study also included George Bush Sr., William Clinton, and George W. Bush Jr. The speeches from these three presidents were chosen based on the same selection criteria delineated above. A complete list of presidential speeches used in the current study may be found in Appendix A.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Overall, the current study adds to the scientific understanding of the differences between charismatic leaders and non-charismatic leaders, and the rhetorical techniques utilized to motivate others towards social change. Our results corroborate the theory that charismatic leaders use specific rhetorical devices (negation, inclusion, stressing similarity to followers, imagery, using less inspiration, and conceptual language), sometimes in a temporal sequence (negation, similarity to followers, action, and tangibility), to achieve their ends. Although these results warrant replication in other leadership samples, they may benefit both the applied field and leadership theory. For the applied field, knowledge of these rhetorical strategies may be valuable for a wide array of leaders (e.g., corporate leaders, politicians, community leaders) aspiring to promote social change, or even informal leaders aiming to construct persuasive messages to change values. Our results may also inform psychologists interested in designing programs aimed at changing group norms, values, and habits. At a theoretical level, the current research and our propositions concerning social identity framing contribute to the sparse literature on how charismatic leaders affect social change, and numerous areas of further research are highlighted. Future research in this area is critical in gaining a complete understanding of charismatic leadership that includes the important knowledge of the process through which social change is brought about. With continued research efforts in this area, it may eventually be feasible to unravel the mystery surrounding the seemingly “magical ability” (Weber, 1946) of charismatic leaders to institute social change.