Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
In Partial Fulfillment
Master of Arts
in
Communication
by
Sonja L. Hanson
Spring 2014
iii
Copyright © 2014
by
Sonja L. Hanson
All Rights Reserved
iv
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my dad, Dick Hanson, and also to all of the combat
wounded, ill, and injured service members as well as their families who gave so much for our
nation; you are such an inspiration and an example of resilience.
v
This case study contends communication is the key element that enables
transformational leadership. This research examines President Barack Obama’s rhetoric in
six of his speeches, which demonstrate his transformational leadership is manifested through
his communication, specifically that of the African American jeremiad. While
transformational leadership is explored thoroughly in the literature, few have focused on the
communication aspect. Obama’s transformational leadership is assessed through his
charismatic, visionary, unifying, motivating, hopeful, innovative, and guilt laden
communication framed within the African American jeremiad and his transformational
rhetoric. This thesis contributes to the field of communication by raising awareness about
the close relationship between transformational leadership and rhetoric.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER
1 WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?......................................................................................1
2 THE LANGUAGE OF A LEADER..............................................................................8
Method.....................................................................................................................8
Literature Review: Obama’s Redemption Rhetoric and Leadership Legacy........11
Leadership..............................................................................................................15
Transactional Leadership.......................................................................................17
Transformational Leadership.................................................................................18
Charisma................................................................................................................20
American and African American Jeremiad............................................................23
American Jeremiad................................................................................................23
African American Jeremiad...................................................................................26
3 CASE STUDY: BARACK OBAMA’S TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION...............................................................30
Follow Me..............................................................................................................31
Obama’s Transformational Rhetoric......................................................................32
Vision.....................................................................................................................35
Unification.............................................................................................................36
Motivation and Hope.............................................................................................41
Call to Action and Repetition in Rhetoric..............................................................43
Innovation and Intellectual Stimulation.................................................................46
Obama’s American Jeremiad.................................................................................48
Obama’s African American Jeremiad....................................................................50
Sins of the Past and Guilt.......................................................................................54
Racial Stalemate....................................................................................................56
viii
4 DISCUSSION..............................................................................................................60
Enactment, Communication, Leadership...............................................................60
Theoretical Implications........................................................................................61
Practical Implications............................................................................................63
Limitations.............................................................................................................64
Directions for Future Research..............................................................................67
Conclusion.............................................................................................................69
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................73
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to Dr. Goehring for stepping in at the eleventh hour to provide your expert
guidance and knowledge in the field of rhetoric. Thank you Dr. Geist-Martin for dusting off
the file, continuing to believe in me through many delays and motivating me to just finish!
Thank you to Dr. Minifee for your perspective and for hanging in there with me through
multiple rewrites. Thank you Dr. Snavely for supporting me throughout this research
journey and thank you Dr. Renegar for inspiring me to study the field of rhetoric and for
supporting my concept from the beginning. Special thanks to all my friends from Barabbas
Road Church who prayed for and encouraged me through this process. Thank you to my
colleagues at Naval Medical Center San Diego and Navy Medicine West who gently nudged
me.
1
CHAPTER 1
Barack Obama is the first African American to be elected as the President of the
United States and Commander in Chief. This change from a historically Caucasian president
to a Black president proves transformation, at the very least in terms of demographics. I
believe his transformational leadership coupled with transformational rhetoric was the
catalyst for this change.
Barack Hussein Obama II. His name alone challenged the American norm. His first
name, Barack, meaning “blessed” was reflective of his African descent, while his Middle
Eastern middle name, Hussein, conjured public suspicions of a Muslim heritage and terrorist
connections, likely due to lingering fears and stereotypes that followed the terrorist attacks
on Sept. 11, 2001. This candidate pushed the limits of America’s tolerance for
transformation (Walker & Smithers, 2009).
Beyond his name and race, Obama also had to overcome the hurdle of his limited
experience with only one term in the Senate. His political career officially began in 1996
when he was elected into the Illinois State Senate, where he served until 2004. On March 16,
2004, he ran for and won the Democratic primary with 52% of the vote for U.S. Senate. In
July 2004 he delivered the Democratic National Convention keynote address, which “thrust
Obama into the spotlight” (Harrell, 2010, p. 168), and on November 2, 2004 he won the U.S.
Senate Seat with 70% of the vote. On January 5, 2005, he was the “fifth African American
senator in U.S. history and the third to have been popularly elected” (Harrell, 2010, p. 181).
On February 10, 2007 Obama formerly announced his run for President. On January 3,
2008, Obama won in Iowa by a “record turnout of voters who embraced his promise of
change,” (Nagourney, 2008) and on January 26, 2008 he carried South Carolina, “drawing a
wide majority of black support and one-quarter of white voters” (Zeleny & Connelly, 2008).
Election results reported by The New York Times (2007), showed that by February 5,
2008 Obama had won thirteen states to democratic opponent Hillary Clinton’s nine, followed
by twelve consecutive straight wins leading up to March 4, 2008. Then on May 6, 2008,
2
Obama won North Carolina, becoming the first American black candidate on June 3. On
October 28, 2008 he accepted the Presidential nomination on the same platform where he
delivered his DNC speech four years earlier. On November 4, 2008, Obama won the
presidential election with 365 electoral votes.
His age was another obstacle as he was the youngest 2008 presidential candidate at
age 45 (Pickler, 2007). Historically, he was among America’s youngest presidents, only
slightly older than President John Kennedy who was 43 when he was elected into office and
Theodore Roosevelt, who was 42 when he succeeded William McKinley, following his
assassination (Pickler, 2007). Obama held one of the longest campaigns in history, running
21 months, and he raised more campaign funds than any other candidate (CNN, 2008). In
addition, the presidential elections of 2008 marked the largest voter turnout since 1972
(Huffington Post, 2008). Furthermore, state-to-state transformation was evident by Obama’s
victory in all of the swing states as well as wins in Virginia and Indiana, states that had not
been won by a democrat in a generation (Gans & Hussey, 2008; History Central, 2008).
While some may focus on the fact that Obama broke through the racial barrier to
become the first black president of the United States, I contend his victory was more than
skin deep and warrants examination of his rhetoric. He has been described as “a window
into the American psyche” and “a mirror – what you see depends on who you are and where
you stand” (Drehle, 2008). Although Obama’s race plays a role in his effective rhetoric, I
argue his successful campaign is primarily attributed to his transformational rhetoric and
transformational leadership styles that unified ideologies and contributed to his presidential
election. Transformational leadership, simply put, is the ability to inspire a group of people
to follow a leader’s vision out of the hopes of a better outcome for both the individual and
the masses. Transformational leadership occurs when a leader stimulates, motivates, and
inspires a group to move toward the leader’s vision, with the idea that the vision will result in
a greater good for individuals, the community, and the country at large. If my theory proves
to be correct, this concept will be of utmost value to individuals striving to obtain a
leadership position, influence or change an organizational process or business model, execute
a movement, or other applications that require a large group of people changing behavior in
support of a unified goal.
3
Transformational leadership is distinct from other styles of leadership because “it
extends beyond traits, behaviors, and characteristics. Transformational leadership is about
inspiration, intellect, charisma, and individualized consideration” (Konorti & Eng, 2008, p.
11). I propose that such inspiration is conveyed through communication, people’s intellect is
validated through communication, people’s goals and vision are established through
communication, people’s values are extracted from communication, that communication is
the medium for charisma, and ultimately, that communication is the foundation for
transformational leadership.
Scholars and leaders can certainly read about the characteristics of transformational
leadership, which states: “To become a transformational leader, a person needs to develop
and possess skills that go beyond basic management and administrative capabilities such as
directing, planning, and delegating” (Konorti & Eng, 2008, p. 11). But is it possible to
convert oneself into a transformational leader? If so how? Literature defines the concept,
but falls short by not fully equipping researchers with the answer on how to become a
transformational leader. Contrary to the current body of literature, I assert the development
of communication should be elevated as the primary skill essential to transformational
leadership.
While some scholars have mentioned communication briefly or listed communication
among many other elements of transformational leadership such as Konorti and Eng (2008)
who state transformational leaders “can articulate well” (p. 16), they stop short of claiming
communication as a critical ingredient to successful transformational leadership.
This evidenced-based approach demonstrates transformational leadership through
communication and investigates the significance of transformational rhetoric. Obama’s
transformational leadership style is assessed through his rhetoric, which contributes to the
field of communication by raising awareness of this significant element essential for
successful transformational leadership. I advocate the inclusion of rhetorical techniques in
the analysis of transformational leadership style.
In this thesis I will critically analyze the use of communication in transformational
leadership through Obama’s rhetoric in order to provide evidence that his communication is
that of the transformational leadership model. I selected these speeches because at the time
(2007-2008), the United States Presidential campaigns were underway and the lead
4
candidates were covered daily by national news, which piqued my interest as a leader (a
former Naval Officer and currently the supervisor for more than 20 personnel), as a Political
Science scholar, and as a communicator, Director of Public Affairs for ten U.S. Naval
Hospitals in the Western Pacific. This research provides the amassed evidence to support my
argument and defend my interpretation. This case study asserts that communication is the
enabling element and the key contributor for effective transformational leadership. While
transformational leadership is explored thoroughly in the literature, few have examined it
through the perspective of communication.
By examining six of Obama’s speeches (from both his candidacy and presidency), I
demonstrate that transformational leadership can be achieved through transformational
rhetoric and establish that communication is the axle for successful transformational
leadership. Through a critical analysis of Obama’s rhetoric, I contend that the current
research on transformational leadership inadequately weighs the importance of
communication as one of its key elements. Furthermore, I argue that transformational
leadership necessitates communication in order for it to be an effective leadership model.
The purpose of this study is to expand upon current transformational leadership
theories by augmenting this method of leadership with the essential ingredient of
communication. Through a case study of Obama’s speeches, I demonstrate how he utilized
the rhetorical strategies of an inspirational, motivational, visionary, and charismatic leader,
who promoted shared values, goals, and responsibilities in order to improve the lives of
individuals through innovation and other such components agreed upon by researchers to be
formulaic of transformational leadership (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Bradford & Cohen,
1984; Bromley & Kirschner-Bromley, 2007; Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007;
Seltzer & Bass, 1990). I put forth that Obama’s rhetoric within his transformational
leadership style is what actualized change and transformation among voters.
Obama transformed the United States when he was the first African American elected
president; therefore, he is an ideal figure to evaluate transformational leadership through a
rhetorical perspective. I argue that utilization of transformational rhetoric was the backbone
of Obama’s unique ability to appeal to multiple races, generations, social, and economic
groups – tailoring or transforming his messages to meet the desires and needs of individuals
within a diverse population. Sometimes through general language, Obama left ideals and
5
goals open to interpretation, which fostered the opportunity to petition the masses. This idea
of generating a collective direction, motivating the masses to move and take action toward a
unified goal, are characteristics of transformational leadership, and I would assert are also
elements of transformational rhetoric.
Since Obama comes from a multicultural family and had academic success at an Ivy
League school through scholarships, he is living proof that the American Dream is possible
for all citizens. He lived the American Dream himself, so he was the perfect candidate to
foster the right environment for success for other Americans. If Obama could get to his
dream of being President, so could other American citizens achieve their own dreams if they
followed him, his lead, and his example, because “America is the place where there is the
opportunity for an ordinary person possessing grit and determination to make a better life”
(Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 430). Obama doesn’t just talk the talk, he “offers himself as the
embodiment of his own message, the one-man rainbow coalition” (Drehle, 2008). He often
communicates and promotes the hopeful idea that the American Dream is possible for
everyone, “We are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – a
promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight” (Obama, 2008, August 28). Since
Obama is not the typical mold of a presidential candidate, he acknowledges his uniqueness
and supports it through his rhetoric, saying “I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for
this office. I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of
Washington” (Obama, 2008, August 28). This self-reflection about his atypical journey to
the top advances his message that the American Dream is open to everyone regardless of
their background and furthers his vision of change as a means to enhance that opportunity.
The power of Obama’s appeal to the masses may have been that he rhetorically
positioned himself as an individual who lived out the American Dream. The “American
Dream is the idea that Americans are on a progressive journey to a better society” (Rowland
& Jones, 2007, p. 430). Through Obama’s own American Dream story, he laid the
foundation of hope that if he could do it; other Americans could too. Therefore, he was able
to use his biography to influence the direction of the nation. This idea of using an
individual’s personal story to motivate the population is referred to as enactment. Obama is
the quintessential enactment of the American Dream. In The Rhetorical Act, Karlyn Kohrs
Campbell (1996) explains the concept of enactment as when “the speaker or writer is proof
6
of the claim he or she is making. Enactment is both proof and a way to present evidence
vividly” (pp. 309-310), because the audience witnesses the evidence firsthand, enhancing the
power of the message. Enactment may be an authoritative element of leadership by adding
credibility and validity because there is consistency between actions and oration, which, I
argue leads to increased trust by followers and therefore more effective leadership. Obama’s
experiences, multicultural heritage, his education, and other elements of his life story make
him the enactment of his message because he is a living example of the American Dream, an
ideal about “ordinary people who accomplish extraordinary things.........because they embody
values consistent with the progressive ideology of traditional liberalism” (Rowland & Jones,
2007, p. 430).
The American Dream can be enacted through different forms morally and
materialistically, “In this iconic way to reenchant, rescue, and reinvigorate each party’s sense
of purity, innocence, and goodness” (Elahi & Cos, 2005, p. 454). Obama uses his unique
heritage to appeal to a multiracial country. His enactment of the American Dream is
orchestrated through inclusiveness of the “immigrant American” identity via his own
immigrant heritage coupled with his immigrant narrative, which provides an American
perspective that satisfies the core of the American Dream. Rather than undermining
America’s identity, the immigrant American reaffirms American ideals that no matter what
your background- you can climb toward success in this country (Elahi & Cos, 2005; Honig,
1998). Obama “spoke as and for the immigrant as an agent of renewal” (Elahi & Cos, 2005,
p. 460), with his personal bi-racial heritage likely establishing his credibility as one who has
achieved the American Dream and therefore fostered trust among a diverse population.
Obama attempts to deconstruct the perspectives of racial demographics in the hope of
bridging the gap between them and to work out this black versus white tension. Since he is
bi-racial himself, “Obama is the unique and sole embodiment of the movement that has
coalesced around him” (Renshon, 2008, p. 412), so it is poetically fitting and appropriate that
he is the enactment of such a union. According to Rowland and Jones (2007),
The protagonist must be an ordinary person, who accomplishes great things
because his/her actions are motivated by values he/she shares with other
Americans. The ordinary person in a sense becomes extraordinary, not because
he/she is inherently heroic, but because he/she fully enacts the values at the heart
of the American Dream. (p. 431)
7
This is transformational leadership because it is transforming the idea of separate, segregated
races into one united front for the sake of the nation; Americans are stronger together than
apart. Obama, having both black and white heritage, has the ability to make his message
resonate with both races.
Obama’s career path and academic achievements also exemplified American ethos,
specifically if you work hard, maintain high moral and family values, then the combination
of dedication and opportunity will lead to prosperity regardless of your gender, race, religion
or family background. “Obama was able to create a strong sense of identification, not only
because of his own personal identity but also because he chose to emphasize the
interconnectedness of values shared by all Americans, including faith, freedom, family,
tolerance, and patriotism” (Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 437), therefore he utilized the
American Dream as the linchpin to his own personal story to connect with American people
also seeking to achieve success through the American Dream. Just as important, he uses his
own background as the bridge to unite races in an effort to connect Americans.
Though there are various theories and methods on leadership as referenced above,
this thesis will focus on transformational rhetoric as the primary communication component
of transformational leadership. I argue that Obama is a transformational leader, using
transformational rhetoric with a strong African American jeremiad influence.
The remainder of this thesis is outlined as follows: Chapter 2 provides an explanation
of the method utilized in this thesis, presents a review of literature in transformational
leadership as well as definitions for the American jeremiad and African American jeremiad.
Chapter 3 consists of a critical analysis of six of Obama’s speeches providing a case study
for transformational rhetoric and then a brief discussion on this study. Lastly, Chapter 4
summarizes, reviews assumptions, examines the limitations and implications of this study,
and then offers recommendations for future research.
8
CHAPTER 2
This chapter will explain the method utilized herein, provide a literature review, brief
overview of Obama’s rhetoric and leadership, definitions for transactional leadership,
transformational leadership, charisma, and explain the American jeremiad and African
American jeremiad.
METHOD
The method for this case study is a rhetorical criticism of six of Obama’s speeches. I
identify and read a variety of speeches by Obama multiple times, which revealed that he
utilized transformational rhetoric to influence and persuade voters. Once the speeches were
identified, my methodology began with reading the text and identifying trends found across
all six speeches, which exposed both the type of communication and the style of leadership
Obama used. Then I classified reoccurring themes, which illustrated how these elements
contribute to his transformational leadership and had the potential to further the field of
communication. Next I conducted a literature review to provide the background and context
as the foundation for extracting common themes, messages, and communication theories
used throughout these speeches. My research process included an historical overview of the
rhetor, the content in the speeches, and reexamination of the artifacts to analyze techniques,
patterns, and themes within his rhetoric.
The three primary theories I will employ to support this case study of Obama’s
rhetoric include: transformational leadership, transformational rhetoric, and the African
American jeremiad. As mentioned in Chapter 1, transformational leadership is a style of
leadership that fosters a mutually rewarding vision, where the leader inspires and motivates
the group toward a movement. Transformational rhetoric utilizes language that motivates,
inspires and changes behavior toward the mutually beneficial goal of the leader. The African
American jeremiad is communication that takes on the authority of a preacher or prophetic
figure, tapping into an individual’s moral and ethical psyche to motivate from a place of a
9
person’s conscience and guilt in an effort to right was is wrong and obtain redemption from
sin. This study furthers the idea of rhetorical leadership, or “leadership exerted through talk
or persuasion” (Dorsey, 2002, p. 3) as criteria for transformational leadership. Rhetorical
leadership has been defined as “the process of discovering, articulating, and sharing the
available means of influence in order to motivate human agents in a particular situation”
(Dorsey, 2002, p. 9) and that definition applies to Obama’s rhetoric and leadership; his style
transformed, prompted a movement, and resulted in changed behaviors. This research
examines transformational rhetoric more closely to define this type of communication within
a leadership model, providing a specific skill for individuals in leadership positions to utilize
when attempting to implement a new policy, transition, or change on a large scale within an
organization.
Of interest, Obama made significant efforts to communicate his story and point of
view on his road to the White House through two books: Dreams from My Father
(1995/2004) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). Although this thesis does not dissect the
rhetoric in either of these books, it is clear that various communication mediums were
significant contributors to Obama’s transformational leadership.
Not only did his political rhetoric contribute to his campaign, but also his rhetoric on
race and religious views played a significant role in his communication efforts. In 2005, he
argued “faith should have a greater role in public discourse” (History Central, 2008). His
race and religion often became points of high interest and controversy driving his candidacy,
forcing him to address these issues resulting in the now renowned A More Perfect Union,
also known as “The Race Speech,” which was delivered March 18, 2008 to assess race in
America.
This case study examines rhetoric primarily from the following six speeches: Out of
Many, One (Obama, 2004, July 27), A More Perfect Union, “The Race Speech” (Obama,
2008, March 18), The American Promise Acceptance Speech (Obama, 2008, August 28),
Election Night Victory speech (Obama, 2008, November 4), Inaugural Address (Obama,
2009, January 20), and Remarks of President Barack Obama—Address to the Joint Session
of Congress (Obama, 2009, February 24). I have chosen speeches mostly from the
campaign trail to best depict that his rhetoric indeed contributed to the historic election of the
first black president of the United States.
1
A brief summary of each of these speeches follows. In his Out of Many, One speech,
Obama discusses gratitude for his family heritage, promotes the greatness of America
because of its faith that it can achieve whatever it sets its mind to, addresses areas of concern
where America needs to improve, particularly in the area of unemployment, outlines John
Kerry’s biography, acknowledges that although America is a compilation of a variety of
races, it is in fact one nation, one people with the same hope and ends the speech by
endorsing Kerry as the Presidential candidate for the democratic party. Many of these
unification and hope messages are carried forward and utilized in Obama’s own campaign
slogans during his 2008 run for President.
A More Perfect Union, “The Race Speech” aims to unite Americans by embracing
their differences in race while addressing the controversy that arose regarding Obama’s
religion. Through a variety of anecdotal stories of discrimination, segregation, and historical
milestones, he addressed the spectrum of perspectives between blacks and whites in
America, while encouraging citizens to embrace the progress thus far and unify in order to
grow stronger as a nation in equality and opportunity for all.
The American Promise Acceptance speech introduces his case for change,
campaigning for America to divert from the last eight years, criticizes President George W.
Bush’s Administration, and promotes his vision that America could do better and be a better
nation. He chastises fiscal failures (predominately due to the cost of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and also due to unemployment rates, he condemns the lack of innovation and
progress, and reprimands energy waste during Bush’s term. Obama’s speech promises to
improve all these areas, depicting a better future through anecdotal narratives of war veterans
and family struggles that demonstrate the American spirit in spite of these challenges.
Obama’s Election Night Victory speech was one of hope, possibility, unification, and
promise that change for the better was coming. He sought to empower Americans while also
seeking their support in making his promises for new energy, new jobs, new schools, and less
war into a reality. He sought to instill hope, optimism, and confidence through his “yes we
can” slogan, stimulating support that together America could change and improve.
In his Inaugural Address speech, Obama discusses the collective failure of the nation
in recent years regarding health care, energy, and education, but promotes a revitalized hope
and unity of purpose that together with America’s virtue, they could transform the nation in
1
order to achieve the God-given promise of equality, freedom, and happiness. He explains
how the uniqueness and diversity of America is its greatest strength.
In President Obama’s Address to Joint Session of Congress, he encourages citizens to
come together to take responsibility for the challenges the country is encountering. He
expresses a belief that Americans can rebuild and recover by taking action to build a new
foundation through creation and innovation, but warns it will take sacrifice and hard work to
solve the problems they are facing. He inspires citizens to have a renewed spirit in order to
transform the nation into a greater place for the next generation.
I assert that transformational leadership was his method, while transformational
rhetoric was his style of communication. Although Obama utilized a variety of mediums for
communicating his vision of change, such as town hall meetings, debates, television
commercials, a website, marketing through posters, bumper stickers, other speeches not
included in this research, and one of his major rhetorical mediums was his robust use of
social media in his campaign; I have limited my analysis to the above mentioned speeches to
support my argument that his communication facilitated transformational leadership.
Obama’s speeches provide a dynamic and virtually unexplored resource through
which to better understand transformational leadership in practice. These speeches are rich
examples that reveal meaning behind the rhetoric and illustrate the shaping of
transformational leadership, while providing a case study to advance the notion of
transformational rhetoric.
The relevance of communication, specifically transformational rhetoric, is that it has
a direct correlation to leadership. Communication reveals a leader’s character, vision,
political views, and so forth, equipping listeners with information to decide if they want to
follow the leader or not. Therefore teaching effective communication may bridge the gap
between simply defining transformational leadership to actually arming people with the skills
necessary to become transformational leaders.
LEADERSHIP
Is leadership inherent or is it a learned skill? Leadership has been studied,
researched, defined, and redefined. Literature often lists specific characteristics evident in,
contributing to, displayed in, and ultimately required for leadership to be inherent. However,
other research supports leadership as a tool and skill that can be taught. In this case,
individuals must discern what components comprise leadership and the best approach to
learn leadership skills - such as through on the job experience, academic study, mentorship,
training courses, and other such teaching approaches to leadership. This research assumes
leadership can be taught and will focus on the communication component of leadership,
specifically communication used in transformational leadership.
There is both “assigned leadership,” where one is placed in a position of leadership,
and “emergent leadership” (Eby, Cader & Noble, 2003; Sorrentino & Field, 1986) where an
individual is perceived “as the most influential member of a group or organization, regardless
of the individual’s title” (Northouse, 2007, p. 5) and therefore ascends to or assumes the
leadership role. This is an important distinction because election into a position requires
action (voting) on the part of followers, so leaders must strive to change not only values,
attitudes, beliefs, and motives, but also must move followers to act (Krishnan, 2001). In
other words, followers were led or persuaded toward a particular direction. This research
strives to show successful leadership is not possible simply through transformational
leadership traits, but is more effective when accompanied by compelling rhetoric.
Communication skills are a significant contributing factor to obtaining a sought after
leadership position- either emergent or assigned. One could argue that even on the most
basic level of communication, an individual is ultimately striving to influence the receiving
party by what and how they articulate the message.
There are a plethora of leadership theories and methods within academia. These
include: trait approach (Bass, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger,
1986; Mann, 1959; Northouse, 2007); situational approach (Blanchard, 2000; Lee-Kelley,
2002; Lee-Kelley & Loong, 2003; Norris &Vecchio, 1992; Northouse, 2007; Vecchio, 1987;
1
Vroom & Jago, 2007); skills approach, which includes technical, conceptual, and human skill
(Ackoff, 1999; Northouse, 2007); contingency theory (Fiedler, 1964, 1967; Fiedler &
Chemers, 1984; Fiedler & Garcia, 1987; Northouse, 2007) and many others. Although
occasionally these leadership theories have similarities or overlap in various areas, the focus
of this research is on transformational leadership, which “can be used to describe a wide
range of leadership, from very specific attempts to influence followers on a one-to-one level
to very broad attempts to influence whole organizations and even entire cultures”
(Northouse, 2007, p. 176). Transformational leadership is evident throughout Obama’s
speeches; thus, this analysis shows how communication contributed to his successful
campaign as well as how his persuasive rhetoric influenced policy changes once in office,
such as successfully repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military and enacting
the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as the national standard for health
insurance.
Transformational leadership is not new to the academic discussion of leadership
(Ackoff, 1999; Amernic, Craig, & Tourish, 2007; Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Bass & Avolio,
1990a, 1990b, 1994; Gillespie & Mann, 2004; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Humphreys &
Einstein, 2003; Kirkbride, 2006; Krishnan, 2001; Konorti & Eng, 2008; Seltzer & Bass,
1990; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Although an individual may possess the traits outlined in
the definition of transformational leadership such as charisma (a magnetic personality that
arouses enthusiasm and support for a public figure), innovation (a new idea or perspective),
intellectual influence (the ability to appeal to a group logically and cognitively), high moral
standards (engaging a person’s inner principles of right and wrong), a visionary (presenting a
clear idea of an imagined future), and other such descriptive qualifications; unless these traits
are properly coupled with communication that resonates with the intended audience then the
goal of transformation is unlikely to be achieved. The fact that such characteristics are
evident in an individual may not necessarily translate or equate to transformational
leadership. However, if one can properly apply these traits through effective
communication, then transformational leadership can be adopted, not just defined. The fields
of communication and leadership can then be viewed and utilized as practical and functional
skills, rather than ambiguous observed attributes. However, what has not been focused on
before is the inclusion of communication as one of the fundamental skills or traits that define
1
and compose transformational leadership. I assert that in addition to the traditional definition
of transformational leadership, communication is the crucial element that allows
transformational leadership to be enacted.
While I will not evaluate every type of leadership approach available in the literature,
it is imperative to differentiate between transformational leadership and transactional
leadership because many of the contributing factors to these styles overlap and are often
mistaken for each other (Bass, 1997; Bass & Avolio, 1990b; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater,
1996). Some scholars view transactional and transformational leadership as two ends of a
continuum (Bass, 1985), while others view them as independent and distinct leadership
processes (Burns, 1978; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). The following section will define and
distinguish between these two leadership styles in order to provide clarification.
TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Transactional leadership is a performance-based approach to leadership. Compliance
by the follower is reinforced by management, either by actively searching for or passively
waiting for deviations, then taking corrective actions (Hater & Bass, 1988). Leaders “focus
on mistakes, irregularities, and deviations from standards” (Gillespie & Mann, 2004, p. 601)
in order to reward or rebuke subordinates accordingly.
Leaders “who identify the needs of their followers and exchange rewards for
acceptable results are regarded as transactional” (Felfe, Tartler, & Lipmann, 2004, p.
5). Transactional leadership is a fair negotiation to mutual agreement through a discussion to
clarify tasks, responsibilities and expectations, while establishing a win-win where the leader
gets the task accomplished and the subordinate gets rewarded for the work.
Transactional leadership, also known as “contingent reward” (Gillespie & Mann,
2004, p. 591), does not require a high level of trust like transformational leadership since
rewards are based on the follower’s performance (transactional agreements) rather than
relational mutual trust. Transactional leadership entails a “quality of exchange between
superiors and followers” (Felfe et al., 2004, p. 266). It includes establishing tasks and
responsibilities, with the leader providing a reward or negative consequence depending on if
the requirements were achieved. In other words, transactional leadership is a performance-
based relationship.
1
This idea of gaining compliance through performance rewards or, conversely,
punishing poor performance are common managerial styles. However, according to
Kirkbride (2006), transactional leadership styles “are useful for stable state situations but are
less useful for organizations undergoing environmental turbulence or rapid change” (p. 23).
Transactional leadership is a negotiated business agreement where a defined quantity or
quality of work completed, results in compensation such as a financial reward, time off
reward, positional reward and so forth. Followers perform their duties in order to obtain the
reward, not necessarily because of trust or alignment with the leader’s vision. Conversely,
transformational leadership is primarily based on trust.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Unlike transactional leadership, transformational leadership is not a performance-
based model but rather is based on trust between the leader and follower. The leader
attempts to meet the individual desires (i.e., individualized consideration) to exhibit the
leader is invested in developing the follower and thus fosters a team mentality and builds
trust (Gillespie & Mann, 2004). In 1978, James Burns advanced the idea of transformational
leadership, which was further developed by Bernard Bass (1985). Utilizing business
executives, military officers, and political leaders, they showed a transformational leader
endeavors to fulfill the needs of the follower. When referring to transformational leadership,
the term “stems from the ability to inspire and develop people as resources and move them
to a higher state of existence, transforming them in the process” (Bromley & Kirschner-
Bromley, 2007, p. 54). Transformational leadership inspires followers (Seltzer & Bass,
1990), builds shared responsibility through common vision (Bradford & Cohen, 1984), and
fosters organizational values and goals which surpass self-interests (Bass, 1985; Gillespie &
Mann, 2004). Transformational leadership is the ideal approach in a Presidential campaign
as the candidate is striving to rally the masses through inspirational oratory in order to
accumulate votes.
Bass (1985) furthered the idea of transformational leadership, by defining the terms
and characteristics that have evolved over the years. According to Barbuto Jr. and Burbach
(2006), transformational leadership includes these traits: “charisma, intellectual stimulation,
and individualized consideration” (p. 52). Charisma relates to individuals’ special abilities,
1
vision, and sense of mission; intellectual stimulation is to arouse creativity, innovation and
new approaches as solutions to organizational problems; and individualized consideration
refers to the development of individuals, where the leader actively listens and mentors
followers to encourage their growth and advancement (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). The term
idealized influence was also added as a characteristic of transformational leaders, signifying
the leader is a role model based on competence and moral integrity, which results in follower
admiration, trust and respect; this term is often substituted for charisma (Antonakis, Avolio,
& Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Over the years, inspirational motivation was added (Bass &
Avolio, 1990a), which is to create an optimistic and attractive vision by providing a
challenge while fostering meaning in the work (Bass & Avolio, 1989; Bromley & Kirschner-
Bomley, 2007; Flefe et al., 2004). In summary, transformational leaders are commonly
described as possessing traits such as charisma, having a knack for developing subordinates,
exuding inspirational motivation, stimulating the masses intellectually, and are visionaries
(Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), but rarely do scholars list strong
communication skills as a trait found in or necessary for transformational leadership.
Although the terminology used to define transformational leadership has evolved over the
years, I contend a fundamental element has not-- communication.
During the 2008 presidential election, there were high expectations and high hopes
for America to become better than its current state. That “better” was defined differently for
individuals; some felt U.S. employment rates needed to be better, others felt healthcare
needed improvement, some wanted the government’s environmental efforts to improve, but
most wanted a regime change with a new perspective. Fatigued by the “stay the course”
mentality set by the Bush administration for eight years, citizens were hungry for intellectual
stimulation that challenged individual and organizational beliefs and values, in an attempt to
redirect thinking (Kezar & Eckel, 2008). Once minds had been changed, the next step was to
encourage followers to take action to implement that change. In other words, Obama
endeavored to activate behavioral change.
In summary, the differences between transformational and transactional leadership
are clear. Transformational leadership entails a rallying, unifying, motivating, team
approach to leadership with a collective approach to pursue a common vision. While
transactional leadership is a performance-based reward system with individuals seeking
2
compensation for their efforts. But the most significant difference between the two
leadership styles is transformational leadership has different goals than transactional
leadership, that being change. Transformational leadership attempts to change individual
perspectives and actions, the goal, the vision, the process, and ultimately the organization.
Such changes are explained through the leader’s transformational rhetoric, communication
rich with vision and purpose. Although often used interchangeably or misunderstood as the
same, the difference between transformational and transactional leadership, is that they are
really two distinct and different styles of leadership at the opposite ends of the continuum as
proposed by Bass (1985).
CHARISMA
Although Charismatic Leadership (Conger & Kanugo, 1998; Howell & Frost, 1989)
is a model in itself; in this thesis, I simply reference charisma as an attribute of
transformational leadership. Charisma is one of the characteristics and contributing factors
of transformational leadership, “the two terms of charismatic and transformational leadership
are often used interchangeably” (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007, p. 130). Charisma warrants
further evaluation as it is revealed through communication, but “Both transformational and
charismatic leaders are agents of change. In addition to the formulation of a vision, strong
emotional ties between the leader and the led are necessary in order to change followers’
belief systems and attitudes” (p. 122), which is applicable to this case study since much of
Obama’s rhetoric revolved around the idea of change.
Charismatic leaders are defined as possessing high self-esteem, an idealized vision
and an ability to motivate others. They are viewed as trustworthy, having high values and
morals, are credible, innovative, are perceived as or are actually powerful or esteemed, and
are high self-monitors which contributes to effective messaging and convincing
communications (Anderson, 1990; Conger, 1989; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Shamir, 1991;
Snyder, 1987).
Confirmation that Obama was a figure of transformational significance is evident by
the mass media coverage where he was widely revered as charismatic (Nye, 2008; Zernike,
2008). His charisma later evolved into Obama’s widespread celebrity status (Wolffe, 2009).
Some perceived “Obama’s enormous celebrity as a weakness – workhorse vs. show horse –
2
but celebrity has its benefits” (Drehle, 2008), especially in a presidential campaign in
America where pop culture often carries wide audience interest. Therefore his
transformational leadership attributes tie nicely into his overarching narrative promoting the
American Dream, which commonly is thought of as being rich and famous (Kellner, 2009;
Liu, 2008).
Charismatic leadership typically falls into two categories: prophetic or an activist.
Charismatic leaders are exceptional in communicating a “prophetic” vision or exhibit
excellent practical leadership skills as an “activist” (Tucker, 1968). Obama demonstrated
both of these characteristics. His prophetic vision was established early on with his
campaign slogans of “Hope” and “Change” which he elaborated on in his various speeches
referenced in this research. His charismatic, prophetic and activist communication aligns
with the African American jeremiad styles of communication which will be discussed later.
His activist trait was displayed in his remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Apr.
23, 2007 called “The American Moment,”
We must lead the world, by deed and example. We must lead by building a 21st
century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of
all people. We must lead by marshalling a global effort to stop the spread of the
world’s most dangerous weapons. We must lead by building and strengthening
the partnerships and alliances necessary to meet our common challenges and
defeat our common threats. And America must lead by reaching out to all those
living disconnected lives of despair in the world’s forgotten corners. (Obama,
2007)
Obama’s activism is clear in this sample, by repeating “we must lead” in each sentence he
promotes the idea of a movement and puts forth an agenda for national change to accomplish
the goal of making America better.
Charisma can be somewhat subjective, so determining if a leader is charismatic is a
point of debate among scholars. Some feel a leader is considered charismatic only if
described as such by followers (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991), while others assert
certain attributes and qualities found within the leader are what validate him/her as
charismatic (Conger, 1989; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Shamir, 1991; Weierter,
1997). However, Gardner and Avolio (1998) explain “charisma may arise from the leader’s
behavior, follower attributes, or some combination of the two” (p. 34). Along these lines,
some contend that ethos, or an ethical appeal, dictate charisma because people tend to believe
people they trust (Ramage & Bean, 1998). Rather than defining traits, some scholars assess
2
charisma through mutual core values of a group, organization or society, which stimulates
follower identification with the leader (Shamir, 1995).
Unlike the research on transformational leadership, the skill and necessity of
communication is prominently acknowledged in the literature on charismatic leadership. As
a matter of fact, some scholars define or distinguish charismatic leaders by their ability to
articulate and create meaning that inspires others to pursue their vision (Conger & Kanungo,
1987; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Charismatic leaders are generally expressive, employing
rhetoric to persuade, influence, and mobilize others (Bass, 1985; Gardner & Avolio,
1998). Additionally, an ability to communicate emotions may be considered the key to
successfully inspiring others to follow (Freidman, Riggio, & Casella, 1988). So if charisma
includes communication and if charisma is an element of transformational leadership – logic
would presume that transformational leaders must possess communication skills as well.
Transformational leadership includes an element of charisma, which offers a “vision
and a sense of mission, instilling pride in and among the group, and gaining respect and
trust” (Humphreys & Einstein, 2003, p. 7). All of these, a vision, mission, a sense of pride,
respect, and trust, require some form of communication.
As mentioned earlier, transformational leadership empowers, develops trust,
motivates and attempts to transform the values of the culture, but the method for achieving
these things is through communication. As Dorsey (2002) suggests, “Presidents who can
gracefully adapt their performance to balance both their virtues of thought and character in
the moment will be seen as prudent leaders,” (p. 17); performance suggests impromptu
communication adapted for the audience.
Speculation that gifted children who endure early family traumas, such as the loss of
a father, often compensate for such losses by developing a sense of mission in life and self-
reliance, resulting in charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). Charismatic leaders were typically
expected to excel in various realms of life early on, often from families with difficult
circumstances, and partook in leadership roles at a young age (Avolio, 1994). Gardner and
Avolio (1998) assert that “high expectations, encouragement, success in meeting life
challenges and leadership roles that many charismatics experience early on foster a strong
identity as a leader” (p. 37); Obama’s background certainly is consistent with these
elements of a charismatic leader.
2
Obama’s life story parallels this theory of high achievement to compensate for trials
in life. He had divorced parents, is multiethnic, and was raised in a middleclass family – all
of which fit the challenging childhood piece often affiliated with charismatic leaders. In
addition, he became very accomplished, graduated from two Ivy League schools, Columbia
University in 1983 and later Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School in 1991. An
author, his first book Dreams From my Father was published in 1995. Obama was elected
into the Illinois State Senate in 1996, re-elected in 1998 and 2002. In 2005 Obama was
sworn in as the only African American in the U.S. Senate and only the fifth Black U.S.
Senator in the past 100 years (Harrell, 2010; Ripley, 2004). In 2006, his second book, the
Audacity of Hope was published. He formally announced his run for President in February
2007 and only a year later, on February 5, 2008, Obama won 13 states on Super
Tuesday. On December 15, 2008, Obama’s successes culminated with his winning the
presidency over Senator John McCain 365 to 173 electoral votes (Whitehouse.gov, 2008).
I hope to demonstrate that much of his leadership success was achieved not only due
to his charismatic personality and transformational leadership style, but was fundamentally
rooted in his communication. In addition to his transformational leadership style, a key
communication component that led to Obama’s successful election is found in his use of the
African American jeremiad.
AMERICAN JEREMIAD
The American jeremiad is rhetoric of indignation and demands the nation change in
order to improve. The term jeremiad, simply put is a complaint, derived “from the Old
Testament prophet, Jeremiah, who warned of Israel’s fall and the destruction of the
Jerusalem temple by Babylonia as punishment for the people’s failure to keep the Mosaic
2
covenant” (Howard-Pitney, 1990, p. 6). The American jeremiad seeks redemption not
through system change, but through the labor and will of the American people, (Murphy,
1990).
Leeman (2006) contends that the jeremiad is a “strategic rhetorical choice” (p. 240)
that “bridged the ethnic divide” (p. 224) and is an oratory form that plainly communicates
“moral condemnation” (p. 224). He explained that the Bible has been augmented by the
Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, so the jeremiad
framed within the ethnical compass of these documents provides the platform with which to
communicate as the surrogate voice of a Higher Power (replacing God’s judgment as their
own) to proclaim “the audience has sinned, and thus violated their covenant with God” (p.
225). In Leeman’s study, he notes that traditional elements of the jeremiad such as
classifying the audience as the chosen people and the lack of optimism for a better future
were omitted by the rhetorician.
Bercovitch (1978) describes it as a contradictory rhetorical strain between the hoped
for ideal and feared reality, which directly align with the communication themes used in
Obama’s campaign. Obama’s redemption themes are clearly stated in his campaign slogans
of “change,” “hope,” and “yes we can.” He clearly communicates that what has been
happening in America is not satisfactory and needs to change for the better, then he provides
America with the hope that the future of the country can improve if he is elected.
Obama, by speaking to all of America and conjuring up the country’s historical
failures, provides the opportunity to transition into a better future. “As a pattern of political
discourse, the most significant function of the jeremiad is that it helps to define (and
redefine) the meaning of the American past,” (Ritter, 1980, p. 164); Obama framed his
presidential rhetoric in America’s past sins – sins of political, economic, environmental,
international, and other government failures, frames American jeremiad rhetoric, which is a
common form of communication in the U.S.
The jeremiad declares Americans “have failed to live up to our founding principles,
betrayed our sacred covenant as history’s (or God’s) chosen nation, and must rededicate
ourselves to our ideals, reclaim our founding promise” (Stephenson, 2010). So regardless of
the present day status in America’s culture, the historic fact –the sin of slavery- continues to
exist and provide a platform of guilt and justification for pursuing betterment. In an
2
American jeremiad, “the fact that America has drifted away from its ideals is not presented
as a fatal error, but as a test of the national character,” (Ritter, 1980, p. 160). Obama offered
his vision as the means to reclaim American ideals and improve the overall character of the
nation.
Howard-Pitney (1990) explains “The complete rhetorical structure of the American
jeremiad has three elements: citing the promise; criticism of the present declension; or
retrogression from the promise; and a resolving prophesy that society will shortly complete
its mission and redeem the promise” (p. 8). Obama displays all three of these American
jeremiad elements within his rhetoric. In order for the American jeremiad to be effective,
one must first convince society that the current situation is flawed and far from its potential
(or the present declension). The rhetorical power in the jeremiad is its capacity to induce
strain between affliction and hope, while combining a “national promise and yearning for
national renewal,” (Murphy, 2008, p. 12) into influential communication. In this sense,
Obama applied the American jeremiad to his transformational rhetoric of change, providing
the voting population his vision of hope that if elected, he would “transform what might have
been a search for moral or social alternatives into a call for cultural revitalization”
(Bercovitch, 1978, p. 87). Obama’s messages of hope (for a better future) and change (in
policies) to achieve a better America align with American jeremiads “simultaneously
lamenting a declension and celebrating a national dream” (Bercovitch, 1978, p. 87). So
Obama uses the tone of the American jeremiad to stimulate a yearning for transformation
among the masses.
According to Murphy (2008), “to focus exclusively on America’s declining trajectory
is to miss the hope so crucial to the jeremiad.......This tension between despair and hope is
the critical feature separating jeremiads from other types of political narratives” (p. 13). The
power in Obama’s transformational rhetoric was due in large part to his use of the American
jeremiad, which instills dissatisfaction with the present in order to provide a platform of hope
to persuade voters to follow him based on his promise for a better America.
However, in order to transform through the use of American jeremiad, one must have
a vision beyond the status quo. Or as Bercovitch (1978) explains it,
A prophetic vision that unveils the promises, announces the good things to come,
and explains away the gap between fact and ideal. But the rhetoric itself
suggests something different. It posits a movement from promise to experience . .
2
. with prophetic assurance, toward a resolution that incorporates (as it transforms)
both the promise and the condemnation. (p. 81)
I will demonstrate in later chapters that Obama did just that. Through his campaign rhetoric
again and again he pointed out current flaws with the nation and transitioned into how
citizens working in unity could improve it.
The jeremiad strives to “repair the breach” (Stephenson, 2010), between the broken
present and the ideal future. Similarly, Obama yearns to repair the breach between Bush’s
administration and what he envisions the future America could be under his command.
Obama strives to revitalize the American Dream through his transformational rhetoric, “Of
all symbols of identity, only America has united nationality and universality, civic and
spiritual selfhood, secular and redemptive history, the country's past and paradise to be, in a
single synthetic ideal” (Bercovitch, 1978, p. 86). Obama capitalizes on this collective, but
diverse, American identity in his rhetoric, which I will discuss later in the unification section.
CHAPTER 3
FOLLOW ME
During the presidential campaign, Obama emerged as a front runner and eventually
was assigned, through election, to the leadership position as President of the United
States. Logic concludes that a person is a leader if someone is following. But what is it that
convinces people to follow? Is it the individual, a gesture, an ideal, aesthetics,
commonalties, a belief in the leader’s potential to succeed, effective persuasion, an incentive
or another driving influence? All of those motivations are generated through communication
– either verbally or nonverbally, through words (often books, speeches, debates, or media
interviews), videos (Public Service Announcements or TV commercials), signs, slogans,
tweets, photos, websites and so forth, which all communicate why one should follow,
3
providing vital insight into what (vision) and whom (character, qualifications, etc.) they will
follow. I believe leadership is kinetic, requiring energy and effort to get others to move in
the same direction. Obama was able to get the majority of America moving in his direction
as evidenced by his victorious presidential election, but how? Was it his policies, his
inspiring personal story, his personality, his experience, his vision, ideals, charisma, and
other such transformational leadership traits? Yes, but each of these had to be communicated
to the public and needed to resonate with a variety of perspectives across the nation. True to
Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos, Obama communicated with authority and credibility
(ethos), which earned him respect, he also utilized emotional appeals (pathos) and persuaded
through deductive and inductive reasoning (logos or logic) presenting evidence, often
through anecdotal stories of citizens, to support his claims (Ramage & Bean, 1998).
This chapter will present several modes of communication utilized by Obama, that of
transformational rhetoric, to include: transformational leadership and its affiliated
characteristics such as charisma, intellectual stimulation, innovation, motivation, and
unification. Then I will demonstrate his use of the American jeremiad, the African American
jeremiad, and transformational rhetoric as they contribute to his transformational leadership.
I contend that all of these (American jeremiad, African American jeremiad, and
transformational leadership) were developed through transformational rhetoric as the
predominant model of communication. Utilizing excerpts of rhetoric from six of Obama’s
speeches, I will show that his communication made his transformational leadership a reality.
There are many ways a rhetor can accomplish transformation within an audience,
Obama achieves this through Kenneth Burke’s guilt purification (Bobbitt, 2004) utilizing the
rhetorical genres of American jeremiad and the African American jeremiad, but ultimately
through his own genre of communication, that of transformational rhetoric. His rhetoric
stimulated the momentum for Americans to follow his vision.
VISION
According to Bass and Avolio (1994), transformational leaders communicate their
vision over all other subjects to their followers. Obama’s vision is evident in his rhetoric, “I
see it as a vision for America – as a blueprint for our future” and later stating, “We do what
is necessary to move this country forward” (Obama, 2009, February 24). He continually
advanced his vision for the future in his rhetoric.
Institutional change and a new vision require effective communication in order to
outline the vision in such a way that followers understand and also desire to join the
movement to contribute to the vision, ultimately garnering enough support that followers
don’t just conceptually concur with the leader’s vision, but they actually take action
individually and collectively to convert the vision into reality, “Change happens because the
American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new
leadership, a new politics for a new time” (Obama, 2008, August 28). Obama challenges the
American people to rise to the occasion and join his vision, which is a transformational
leadership characteristic, by simply, directly and plainly stating, “I need your help” during
his Victory Night Speech (Obama, 2008, November 4). Obama’s campaign slogans were
“change,” “hope,” and “yes we can,” which align with a transformational leader’s goal to
3
bring institutional change, hope for revitalization, and confidence in a new vision in order to
achieve an improved state of the organization, or in this case the nation (Amernic et al.,
2007; Strange & Mumford, 2002; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).
Although limited, some researchers have acknowledged rhetoric as a key component
of transformational leadership, as stated,
Transformational leaders seek to transform attitudes, values and behaviours…
This imperative provides leaders with the incentive to use a variety of theatrical
and rhetorical devices to encourage followers to believe in the leader’s ability to
exercise unique and extraordinary insight into the environment around them, to
diagnose organizational ailments accurately, to prescribe effective treatment
regimes, and to render organizational transformation. (Amernic, Craig, &
Tourish, 2007, p. 1842)
Other scholars endorse the requirement of communicate to explain their vision,
“Transformational leaders must be able to define and articulate a vision for their
organizations” (Bromley & Kirschner-Bromley, 2007, p. 55), in other words, leaders must be
effective communicators. Leaders “tend to be able to articulate, in an exciting and
compelling manner, a vision of the future that the followers are able to accept and strive
towards” (Kirkbride, 2006, p. 26). I support the idea that Obama did this through his
inspiring and charismatic communication skills, contributing to his success as a
transformational leader.
UNIFICATION
A key component of transformational leadership is unifying the masses to get them
moving in the same direction as the leader’s vision. Leadership is often defined as a
relationship that provokes followers to seek mutual objectives that represent the incentive of
both leaders and followers (Burns, 1978; Krishnan, 2001). Obama was able to identify with
citizens through his personal story and his hope for a better future, which I will demonstrate
is typical for transformational leaders and an important aspect of unification.
The title of one of Obama’s speeches, Out of Many, One nicely sets the stage for how
his rhetoric was transformational because it united American voters, “We’re all connected as
one people” he said and later, “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America –
there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America
and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America” (Obama,
2004, July 27). His rhetoric endeavors not only to align the ideals and future goals of
3
Americans, but also to unite the multiple races that comprise America. Obama meets the
collective group’s expectations by appealing to individuals and the masses, while fostering
alignment with and support his presidential vision. Further evidence of unification rhetoric
leading to transformation is found in the statement, “I will ask you join in the work of
remaking this nation” (Obama, 2008, November 4). He asks the collective group to “join in
the work” both unifying while simultaneously making a call to action.
Obama’s rhetoric often acknowledged his own personal responsibility to transform
the nation, but also held American citizens responsible and called them to act as well, “My
job – our job – is to solve the problem” (Obama, 2009, February 24). Later he again
emphasizes the obligation of individuals and the government,
It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work. But
it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it. . . . It is up to us.......A
willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity. (Obama, 2009,
February 24)
This type of team mentality fosters group think and unification, which can generate
momentum by the masses. Implying anything is possible when working together (strength in
numbers) toward a common vision.
Transformational leadership builds shared responsibility through organizational goals
and a common vision, requiring work by both parties,
Having strong personal values isn’t enough; we need a society in which people
work hard, and in which the government both gives them the resources they need
for their hard work to pay off and protects them from disasters not of their own
making. (Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 441)
Obama consistently promoted such unification, challenging individuals to unify to
collectively drive the change.
An important “function of the modern jeremiad is to promote cultural cohesion,”
(Ritter, 1980, p. 169). Therefore, there must be a unifying message within transformational
rhetoric. Howell and Avolio (1993) explain that transformational leaders “inspire followers
to transcend their own self-interests for a higher collective purpose, mission, or vision” (p.
892), the ‘collective purpose’ becomes national unification.
In Obama’s A More Perfect Union, “The Race Speech,” we can see his
transformational rhetoric clearly implemented to persuade voters from a broad spectrum of
3
backgrounds and experiences toward a unified cohesion, in order to become a
powerful collective force, saying,
We cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together –
unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories,
but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have
come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction –
towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren. (March 18, 2008)
His inspirational rhetoric provokes voters to work together to achieve a better quality of life
for Americans.
Obama convinces his followers that although the situation is dire, as a unit it can be
overcome, stating, “If we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis,”
(Obama, 2009, February 24), establishing a common vision that encourages everyone to join
the movement. The use of “we” and “our” links him to the voters and furthers his initiative
for unification while setting the tone for transformation.
Obama “transcends the racial divide so effortlessly that it seems reasonable to expect
that he can bridge all the other divisions” (Klein, 2006) and he did in fact endeavor to unify
the nation in other areas of diversity by closing the gaps between economic social status,
empowering all classes, promoting every individual, regardless of race, financial standing,
religion, and so forth. Obama successfully connects the powerful to the ordinary, linking the
elite to the common, furthering his vision of unification and advocating “Hope is found in
unlikely places; that inspiration often comes not from those with the most power or celebrity,
but from the dreams and aspirations of Americans who are anything but ordinary” (Obama,
2009, February 24). He continually reinforces this idea that although American citizens are
unique, collectively they are the same in their shared hope for opportunity, success, and a
better future, as explained when he avowed America is “bigger than the sum of our
individual ambitions, greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction” (Obama,
2009, January 20).
Transformational rhetoric unites individuals into a group on a common path, “This
nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one” (Obama, 2008,
March 18). Obama was able to set the tone, provide hope and a vision for “limitless
opportunity for progress and a society in which all Americans are fundamentally similar,
despite differences of race, creed, religion, and so forth” (Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 434), to
build unity in the midst of variety.
3
Obama then pushes beyond unification of race in an attempt to unite Americans from
both republican and democratic parties by insisting all citizens desire to improve America
regardless of political views, so uniting toward a common goal will mutually benefit them.
This is evident in his rhetoric, “We need to remind ourselves, despite all of our differences,
just how much we share: Common hopes, common dreams, a bond that will not break”
(Obama, 2006, p. 25).
Obama goes so far as to list the differences among Americans as a mechanism to
unite them through their individualism and uniqueness:
We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents
poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the
Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are
patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war
in Iraq. We are one People, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes,
all of us defending the United States of America. (Obama, 2004, July 27)
Obama shows that through diversity, individualism itself is what unites Americans who
defend such differences and freedoms, as demonstrated when he said, “For alongside our
famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we’re
all connected as one people” (Obama, 2004, July 27); he uses what could be a divisive
characteristic among voters, their differences, as a unifying factor instead.
Obama’s transformational rhetoric attempts to unite a diverse American public by
addressing them collectively, but as independent groups, “Fellow Americans, Democrats,
Republicans, Independents” (Obama, 2004, July 27). By transforming individual political
views into one united view . . . the “American view,” Obama acknowledges an eclectic group
while working to conform them into a cooperative group that can stand together in support of
his vision. In other words, in a diverse country, he was able to appeal to the masses and
unify Americans toward his vision in spite of their differences. This strategy proved
successful for Obama, resulting in the winning number of votes, which of course was the
ultimate goal in the campaign.
Obama frequently communicated this idea of unification using the shared passion for
America as the medium to resonate and influence potential followers (voters), “the values
defining the agency at the heart of the American Dream are both personal (hard work,
responsibility, determination, and so forth) and societal (freedom, potential for upward
4
mobility, inclusiveness, community cohesion, and empowerment)” (Rowland & Jones, 2007,
p. 431), all of which Obama communicated.
Breaking down religious differences and transforming them into a unified nation, he
said,
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a
nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are
shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.
(Obama, 2009, January 20)
He unites Americans by addressing and embracing their differences,
It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and
Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled
and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never
been a collection of Red States and Blue: we are, and always will be, the United
States of America. (Obama, 2008, November 4)
His rhetoric transcended individual variation and unified individuals as a nation, “What is
required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and
take responsibility for our future once more” (Obama, 2009, February 24).
From the examples above, one can see a pattern in Obama’s rhetoric, he “created a
narrative that balanced personal and societal values and in so doing made the American
Dream more accessible” (Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 434). He tends to outline categories of
varying demographics, beliefs, politics, and sexuality in an effort to merge, blend, and unite
by leveling differences in order to work toward simply “America” while highlighting
individual and unique cultures, “ordinary men and women – students and soldiers, farmers
and teachers, nurses and janitors” (Obama, 2008, August 28). Stating, “each of us can
pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family” (Obama, 2008,
August 28). In essence, he persuades Americans that it is feasible for the country to unite
while retaining their individual views.
Obama is persistent and consistent in his rhetoric, which strives to evoke patriotism
and a united front that transcends political parties.
The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and
Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together
and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red
America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.
(Obama, 2008, August 28)
4
All Americans must unite in order to meet that common goal; you can see further evidence of
this in his rhetoric: “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes,
all of us defending the United States of America” (Obama, 2004, July 27). This is
transformational leadership because it penetrates political parties and other affiliations to
foster the mentality of striving for a greater good through unity.
Transformation requires a movement by the masses, so a transformational leader
must appeal to the broad spectrum of Americans, “People of every creed and color, from
every walk of life – is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our
dreams can be one” (Obama, 2008, August 28). Transformational leadership merges the
multitudes by finding the commonalities among diverse, independent individuals, “Men and
women of every race . . . Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life”
(Obama, 2008, March 18). Obama “called upon these social groups to do their moral duty, to
join the national progressive alliance” (Howard-Pitney, 1990, p. 148). Time after time,
Obama’s rhetoric united Americans, transforming them from opponents to cohesive group
motivated to vote for Obama and his vision established through his communication.
RACIAL STALEMATE
Only moments into his speech Out of Many, One, Obama (2004) articulated that any
race and heritage can persevere in America, explaining the hope and faith his parents held for
the nation, “They would give me an African name, Barack, or ‘blessed,’ believing that in a
tolerant America your name is no barrier to success.” This is the African American jeremiad
demonstrating the sins of the past can be left in the past, forgiven, and used for good in order
to change and improve individuals, the culture, and the government. His transformational
rhetoric portrays the hope of something better to come in the future.
Obama’s rhetoric, through a white versus black perspective and experiences in
American culture, is transformational leadership via transformational rhetoric because he is
ultimately bridging that gap to unite the races to meet a common goal. Obama’s rhetoric
addresses the emotional ramifications affiliated with each of the races:
Anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working – and
middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly
5
privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as
they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from
scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs
shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor........When they
hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a
spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never
committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods
are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. (Obama, 2008, March 18)
Holding all parties accountable for their behavior and perceptions, Obama arouses feelings of
guilt in an effort to stimulate change in both perspectives and align into one common vision –
his vision. He rebukes both races saying, “Black anger often proved counterproductive, so
have these white resentments” (Obama, 2008, March 18).
Obama’s rhetoric does not just stop with the bad news, but provides a solution, the
path to transform the situation,
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging
that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of
black people; that the legacy of discrimination – and current incidents of
discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be
addressed. Not just with words but with deeds. (Obama, 2008, March 18)
Obama strives to unite the races through intellectual appeals, by curtailing the emotional
aspects of the race issue.
Obama (2008, March 18) uses an interesting approach in his rhetoric by scolding
whites, while simultaneously empathizing with them, “to the larger aspirations of all
Americans – the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose
been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.” In this he appeals to a variety of races
by showing whites have been wronged too, possessing an ability to “Unpack the racial
irritations gnawing at many whites” (Drehle, 2008) and communicating it is time for
transformation.
He also holds the African American population responsible for the present and future,
“For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past
without becoming victims of our past” (Obama, 2008, March 18). Bobbitt (2004) explains,
Black guilt differs from white guilt in that black guilt grows out of African
Americans’ historical status as an oppressed minority. An oppressed minority
will often feel guilt and shame because it comes to accept the negative image of
itself held up to it by the dominant majority. (p. 43)
But Obama strives to push past the “historical status” to form a new balance among diversity.
5
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s rhetoric “cleanses black guilt by transforming the very
conditions of that guilt, oppression and socioeconomic inferiority, into a virtue” becoming
“virtuous martyrs who suffered in order to redeem America of its sins” (Bobbitt, 2004, p.
43). Similarly, Obama tailors his rhetoric to accommodate the different perspectives and
internal struggles for various races. Later Obama (2008, March 18) bridges the race gap
even more saying,
It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the
expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of
black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
Again, his unification theme is carried through the topics of race and political policy.
Obama’s transformational rhetoric first points out the sins of the nation, then offers
repentance to restore the nation through racial unity,
The future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic
children and Native American children........That those kids who don’t look like
us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they
are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not
this time. (Obama, 2008, March 18)
This is transformational leadership and transformational rhetoric because it demands both
individual and communal commitment to stop this trend. This transformational leadership
and transformational rhetoric encourages working together toward a common goal and vision
that Obama will lead to morph into one demographic group – Americans.
Obama rhetorically paints a united vision to inspire collective transformation and
unity of a diverse America to begin the change, “men and women of every race… to
Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life” (Obama, 2008, March 18).
His transformational rhetoric uses patriotism, rather than superficial demographics as
common ground for unification, “This time we want to talk about the men and women of
every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the
same proud flag” (Obama, 2008, March 18), he articulates how diverse individuals unite
comprise the heart of America.
The function of transformational rhetoric is to motivate and inspire all citizens
regardless of race into social change- stimulating action. Similar to Martin Luther King Jr.,
Obama was seeking “fundamental change and progress on the national level… Grounded in
optimism about America and its future” (Howard-Pitney, 1990, p. 146). The ultimate goal in
5
a presidential campaign is to drive citizens to vote for a candidate, so although the people
have the power and authority to make the change, the rhetor must communicate to energize
them into action.
In conclusion, Obama utilized transformational leadership through transformational
rhetoric, inspirational and compelling oratory that transformed a divided and diverse
America into a unified America (majority votes at the poll booths), rendering a truce (at least
temporarily) in the racial stalemate on Election Day, which resulted in the first African
American President of the United States.
6
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
This chapter will briefly reflect back on the leadership and communication topics
covered in this thesis, then suggest theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and
future research opportunities. While there are a plethora of conclusions one can invoke, I
will focus on three primary areas: enactment, communication, and leadership. These three
elements morph into a powerful combination when synergized.
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
While a broad spectrum of theoretical implications could be drawn from this
research, I will focus on one, the most important avenue to pursue in my view and the most
profound finding of this thesis. The main theoretical implication that can be drawn from this
research is in respect to the relationship between communication and leadership. I believe
the correlation between rhetoric and leadership is more cohesive and tightly woven together
than the current body of research offers. I advocate transformational rhetoric is essential for
transformational leadership to occur. Using transformational rhetoric as the cornerstone for
transformational leadership may help scholars and leaders motivate, move, and enact their
vision rather than simply listing characteristics and experiences that make an individual
qualified for the job. Through refined communication skills, leaders would be equipped to
demonstrate, utilize, perform, and apply transformational leadership, rather than just defining
6
it. By persuading the masses through communication, leaders can drive followers’ actions
toward the vision with a clear plan and course of action.
Transformational rhetoric informs us about transformational leadership, showing how
people become transformational leaders, how leader’s communication contributes to or
hampers change in followers, and how communication can be a tool for leaders. The
theoretical contribution is the idea that transformational rhetoric provides a new perspective
by looking at the rhetoric embedded in leadership and may augment, broaden, and expand
scholars understanding of leadership styles. Through a critical analysis of the rhetoric used
by leaders, scholars can better reflect on, grow, and equip more effective transformational
leaders by improving and incorporating communication as a contributing factor to their
goals. Further research on the correlation between communication and leadership will enrich
the understanding of them both.
This study contributes to both the fields of communication and leadership on multiple
levels- it will help scholars, leaders, or would be leaders, and also aids followers to better
understand their leaders. Transformational rhetoric provides a clearer understanding,
heuristically and theoretically, about leadership and what makes it work. It furthers the field
of communication by examining not only the definition of the transformational leadership
model, but also by providing a possible means to become a transformational leader. Through
clear and decisive communication, leaders can more effectively rally citizens, employees,
faculty, and other followers in support of their vision. Limited studies have been done on the
rhetorical aspects of transformational leadership, but rhetoric is an essential element to
understanding leadership. What one says is the main component for potential followers to
assess what a leader will do once in a position of authority. As transformational leadership
moves forward, communication skills necessarily must progress too. Rhetoric is adaptable
and therefore transformational by nature, so by mastering communication a person is more
likely to become an effective transformational leader.
This research advances not only the field of communication and how to apply
communication to leadership, but it also advances the leadership discipline, by showing
transformational leadership simply will not work without communication. There is limited
literature with the perspective of transformational rhetoric as a method for transformational
leadership.
6
In this thesis I’ve considered a variety of elements in Obama’s speeches leading up to
the 2008 election: hope, change, innovation, a call to action, repetition in rhetoric,
motivation, unification, the American jeremiad and the African American jeremiad all of
which were communicated and thus contributed to his transformational leadership. I
reference Obama’s use of transformational rhetoric, reinforcing the notion that a
transformational leader must be a transformational communicator. While there are
limitations to my research, these limitations point to practical implications as well as a
direction for future research.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are a multitude of practical implications a reader can draw from this study, but
I will focus on one point of interest, which is the idea that communication and leadership can
be taught (Northouse, 2007). This one implication alone opens the door for a variety of
practical applications for potential advancement of those two fields of discipline.
This single practical implication, the ability to teach and then synergize
communication with leadership, specifically transformational rhetoric coupled with
transformational leadership, has potential to improve both a person’s communication and
leadership skills, which could have far reaching impacts in the individual’s personal,
vocational, and educational areas of life. The combination of transformational rhetoric and
transformational leadership skills can be applied when seeking leadership opportunities and
also can be used in order to implement changes within an organization.
People are unlikely to follow unless they know where they are headed; so
communicating is essential because it informs followers about a leader’s values, goals, and
vision, equipping them to assess and discern what lies ahead based on communication.
Conversely, the person appears to be a better leader when they are an adept communicator
who can smoothly articulate and convey an idea with convicting, and inspiring rhetoric; traits
that align with transformational leadership characteristics. Communication, specifically
transformational rhetoric, provides the explanation for how people can become
transformational leaders. If communication skills can be taught through education at toast
masters, academic programs in communication, and other types of training programs, then
communication might be the solution to becoming a better leader. This mirrors the
6
theorization of rhetoric as an art, something that can be taught (Northouse, 2007). If so, then
skilled communicators, whether taught or by natural ability, would have the potential to use
their communication competencies to achieve desired leadership positions by transforming
minds, concepts, policies and such initiatives through their communication.
The practical application of teaching the skill of transformational rhetoric include:
enabling leaders to achieve their ultimate goal, whether an election into office, an initiative to
change policy, an attempt to introduce a new model or business plan at a company, and
numerous other vocational agendas. A practical application would be to add communication
courses to academic curriculum focused on leadership and business. Further research might
confirm that communication has a direct impact on the success of leadership; the field of
communication has potential to advance from somewhat of a “soft” art to a “hard” tactical
skill directly related to effective leadership and prosperous business outcomes.
This approach is innovative for both the field of communication and the field of
leadership; my hope is that a critical analysis of the rhetoric used by leaders will provide a
practical understanding of leadership styles as well as emphasize the value of effective
communication in leadership positions. This case study provides at least one practical
implication to scholars and leaders by offering the means to effective leadership is through
communication, while communication delivers the tool necessary to seek, achieve and
potentially maintain leadership positions as organizations adapt and change over time.
LIMITATIONS
While there are various limitations in this research, I will focus on: the rhetor, the
medium of communication (transformational rhetoric), the circumstances, and the artifacts
analyzed herein, as these limitations point to opportunities for future research. The first
limitation is the rhetor. There is only one Barack Obama, so the study does not have efficacy
since the case study was narrow in scope, focusing on one individual leader and his
communication. The rhetor was also limited because while there are thousands of CEOs,
teachers, and other such leaders available, there are few Presidential candidates and only one
President ultimately. So supplementary research would be valuable to augment the theory
suggesting utilization of transformational rhetoric would be effective in other individuals and
vocations as well. The rhetor is also limited in that he is an American speaking to an
6
American audience, so it would be interesting to learn the effectiveness of transformational
leadership and transformational rhetoric when used by senior dignitaries in other countries,
so additional research on an international scope would greatly augment my theory.
Another way this research is limited by the rhetor is that it concentrates only on the
rhetoric communicated directly by Obama. But the argument could be made that a poor
communicator could utilize a surrogate spokesperson such as a Publicist, a Public Relations
agent, Press Secretary, and other such communication professionals to make up for or
conceal poor communication skills or lack of leadership for that matter. While I suspect
hearing the message from the source, the one who will be making the decisions and will have
the authority once in the position of leadership is likely more powerful than hearing it from a
spokesperson, this research is limited by the organic communication by Obama, leaving
room for future research regarding the cumulative impact of both the rhetor and secondary
order affects by surrogate communicators. More research is needed in the area of
communication to verify whether or not transformational rhetoric is just as effective from a
surrogate spokesperson as from the actual leader.
Second, this research is limited by the form of communication. It might be argued
that it was Obama’s unique use of enactment rhetoric (communicating his background and
heritage) that was the change agent for his transformational leadership (vice the use of
transformational rhetoric). If his enactment rhetoric was more impactful than the
transformational rhetoric, then that would restrict duplication of this case study since
enactment is unique to the individual.
Enactment within this study has its limitations too, for example, the African
American jeremiad is unlikely to be effective coming from a non-African American or
multinational leader. The American jeremiad, however, likely could be applied by a broader
spectrum of races to an American audience, because all Americans share the slave history,
are patriotic, and typically have optimistic hope for the American Dream. Additional
research on key leaders of different genders, races, sexual orientations, or religions would
provide further evidence on the effectiveness of a particular type of rhetoric a person
employs within their transformational leadership. More research may uncover a different
style or even a diverse combination of rhetoric is just as powerful as transformational
rhetoric in conjunction with the American and African American jeremiads discussed herein.
6
Third, this study was limited to a unique set of circumstances unlikely to be
replicated. Further research is needed to see if these results can be applied to other
circumstances; however, the idea of using transformational rhetoric within the
transformational leadership style translates to a wide array of situations. This case study has
a very specific set of circumstances that worked for Obama, but the broad concepts could be
applied theoretically to a variety of scenarios. Although I contend both leadership and
communication can be taught, further research on other leaders may validate if Obama’s
approach could be duplicated by another leadership figure, in another moment in time, to
another audience, and for a different leadership position. The strongest evidence that
Obama’s rhetoric and leadership were transformational was that he was the first African
American elected as President, “It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what
we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America”
(Obama, 2008, November 4). However, the standard of “success” for transformational
leadership and rhetoric requires further research. This research marks success as election
into the Presidency, but perhaps even if he had not won the campaign there would still be
measurable levels of “success” via transformed minds across American in various topics he
was promoting. Also, this research is limited by the examination of transformational rhetoric
used within Presidential and political leadership, further analysis on transformational rhetoric
applied to various types of leaders in a different sets of circumstances would further the
concept and contribution to communication and leadership research.
Finally, this thesis was restricted to a select set of speeches. This research omitted a
focused analysis of his communication in the books he authored prior his presidential run.
This study lacks analysis comparing Obama’s rhetoric between his first and second
campaigns for the presidency, so additional analysis on supplemental artifacts would reveal
if his communication style changed or was consistent from one campaign to the next. Either
way, research is needed to determine if his rhetoric was equally effective because it was
transformational or because he was the incumbent.
In conclusion, although many limitations could be identified in this research, the four
areas I focused on were limitations in regard to the rhetor, limitations in respect to the style
and method of communication analyzed in this case study, limitations dictated by the
circumstances, and the limited number of artifacts featured herein. There is great potential to
6
expand existing research by testing these theories on additional rhetors, by investigating
other means of communication that may have contributed to transformational leadership, by
exploring transformational rhetoric and its effectiveness in other the circumstances, and
dissecting and analyzing additional rhetorical artifacts by Obama. The concept of examining
rhetoric in leadership furthers both the field of communication and leadership studies, which
warrants consideration for future research.
CONCLUSION
In this case study, I identified characteristics that contributed to transformational
leadership in each of Obama’s speeches: hope, a case for change, innovation, a call to action,
repetitive rhetoric, motivation, unification, American jeremiad, and African American
jeremiad. All of these utilized transformational rhetoric in support of his transformational
leadership and ultimately his vision for the nation.
Despite the extensive research on transformational leadership, there is very little
theorization about how to become a transformational leader or how transformational
leadership is carried out. I believe the way to close that gap is to consider the
communication contribution to successful leadership more closely. Communicating
transformational ideas is how transformational leadership is enacted. This rhetoric of change
is a close subcategory of transformational leadership, my hope is to further the
transformational leadership model by expanding it to include communication as part of the
construct.
The interplay between the characteristics of transformational leadership is also
important,
Leadership requires the ability to implement pursuit of the vision. Inspiration
without implementation is provocation, not leadership. Implementation without
inspiration is management or administration, not leadership. Therefore, leaders
must be both creative –in order to inspire- and courageous- in order to induce
implementation. (Ackoff, 1999, p. 21)
Although this is a poetic explanation, it still fails to offer how to lead, inspire, or implement
transformational leadership. I contend communication via transformational rhetoric is the
necessary element to do all these things.
7
Transformation requires conscious choices coupled with intentional actions by
participants, resulting in a movement. The movement either supports the rhetor or the
movement acts in opposition to the rhetor. In Obama’s campaign leading up to the election,
inaction by citizens would have been detrimental to his campaign, as he needed citizens to
take action (vote) in order for his transformational leadership to be effective. In Obama’s
campaign, the first step in his transformational vision was to get eligible voters to the poll
booth, which takes action and effort. According to the Huffington Post website, the 2008
election stimulated a 14% increase in Democrats registering to vote than in 2004, with more
than 130 million voters in 2008, far exceeding the 2004 election which had only 122 million
citizens turnout to the voting booths (Barr, 2008). Democrats, youth, and African Americans
reportedly comprised the majority of the newly registered voters. Arguably, Obama
succeeded in moving voters to the voting booths as he promoted participation throughout his
campaign. Since he was able to move citizens to register and to vote, he had the potential to
transform the nation to align with his vision as well.
Various elements of transformational leadership were evident in Obama’s rhetoric; he
communicated his vision of change, unification, his hope for a better future and a better
country. Obama’s use of the American jeremiad and the African American jeremiad led to
successful leadership because of his communication skills, which were primarily
transformational rhetoric. I contend that his background, unique heritage, and multi-racial
perspective lent credibility to his African American jeremiad messages, but it was his ability
to communicate his vision and diverse background that allowed him to connect with
Americans and ultimately persuaded them to move in his direction. Examining his rhetoric
at the most basic level, people can see how his communication contributed overall to his
transformational leadership. His transformational rhetoric embeds the vision of “change,”
which Obama included in all the speeches in this case study. Examples of his change
rhetoric include phrases such as “call for action,” “drive and innovation,” and “revive,” all of
which conjure the idea of transformation or change and require active participation by the
cohorts to create movement in his direction (Obama, 2009, February 24).
Through simple slogans such as “change,” which equates to transformation, a
narrative of “hope,” which also implies change through the hope of something different,
something better, he framed his vision. His passion and charisma stimulated emotion,
7
coupled with cognitive persuasion and repetition within his rhetoric re-enforced the action he
was seeking from followers; they needed to vote for him in order to transform the nation. It
takes action for an organization (country in this case) to achieve the vision, “A rhetoric of
hope also entails an important persuasion campaign. Senator Obama really wants more
people to participate in the political process and ultimately to vote for him” (Atwater, 2007,
p. 123).
Obama’s transformational leadership stemmed from and was actualized through
communication. His transformational leadership was his communication. Communicating
his vision, communicating the action necessary to bring that vision into reality, and
communicating why such change was important and necessary for the continued
improvement of both individuals and the nation at large.
Communication is the necessary foundation for a leader to successfully transform the
community, the people, the policy, and other initiatives. Unless people can effectively
articulate the vision and communicate the road to that vision, then I contend they will not be
a successful transformational leader. Transformational leadership is not attainable without
communication. Communication is the essential ingredient to be an effective leader. Simply
put, leadership is communication. In order to lead, people must be able to effectively
communicate where they will lead. In addition, actions by the leader must support the
communication; there are many clichés to this end, such as “lead by example” and “practice
what you preach.” So people might conclude that leadership and communication go hand-in-
hand, without one, the other is not at its full potential.
The majority of current theories are lacking the element of communication when
defining transformational leadership. I hope transformational rhetoric will assist leaders by
providing a practical tool to become more effective in both reaching their goals and
implementing their vision. It may also contribute to other models of leadership by
encouraging scholars in the leadership discipline to consider rhetoric as an element of
leadership by assessing how rhetoric and its intent can be used to enact the desired style of
leadership simply by articulating it through communication!
I hope to further the field of communication by encouraging future analysis of
transformational leadership, to include communication as part of the definition. Not just any
style of communication, but specifically transformational rhetoric. This research is intended
7
to advance not only the field of communication but also provide a tool for those seeking
leadership positions by teaching a specific communication style, that of transformational
rhetoric, and how to apply it to transformational leadership.
7
REFERENCES