ریاست جمهوری رهبری کاریزماتیک : بررسی شعارهای تغییر اجتماعی

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)

Several researchers have noted that little is known about how and why charismatic leaders institute social change (e.g., Fiol et al., 1999), and few studies have explored the process through which leaders and followers develop a charismatic leadership relationship ( Meindl, 1992). This study aimed to contribute to our understanding of charismatic leadership in general, and add to the sparse literature on how charismatic leaders bring about social change. To this end, we replicated and extended the research of Fiol et al.; however, the current study only replicated the findings of Fiol et al. pertaining to the charismatic leaders' use of negation during phase 2, whereas the use of abstraction and inclusion did not significantly differ between phases. Moreover, the current study also revealed additional rhetorical devices used by leaders, but our findings were not always consistent with expectations. Although it is plausible that different operationalizations of the social process model of Fiol et al. may yield more consistent results and thus may warrant further study (see below), social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; see also Hogg, 2001) may provide additional insight into the charismatic leader's framing process for social change and provide a framework to explicate our results.