Charismatic Leadership Social Process

CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP: STRATEGIES
FOR EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE
C. Marlene Fiol*
University of Colorado–Denver
Drew Harris
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Robert House
University of Pennsylvania
Because of their unique relationship with followers, charismatic leaders can be powerful agents
of social change. Current theories of charismatic leadership have emphasized primarily the person-
ality and behavior of leaders and their effects on followers, organizations, and society. This
emphasis fails to uncover why and how the charismatic leader/follower interaction can generate
social change. Our study draws on theories of social meaning to develop a process model of
charismatic leadership. Empirical exploration of our model suggests that charismatic leaders
employ a set of consistent communication strategies for effecting social change.
INTRODUCTION
We have substantial evidence that charismatic leaders behave differently than non-
charismatic leaders. Further, we know that charismatic leaders can generate radical
social changes, and that the performance of charismatic leaders and their followers
tends to exceed that of their non-charismatic counterparts. To date, however, we
know very little about the processes by which leaders and followers interact to
effect social changes (Meindl, 1992). There is a need to address the following
unanswered questions: Why do charismatic leaders adopt certain behaviors? Why
do their followers respond in predictable ways to those behaviors? How does the
leader/follower interaction generate social change?
In this article, we address these questions by drawing on theories of social change
* Direct all correspondence to: C. Marlene Fiol, University of Colorado at Denver, College of Business,
CB 165, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364; e-mail: mfiol@castle.cudenver.edu.
Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 449–482.

Copyright  1999 by Elsevier Science Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 1048-9843
450 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 3 1999
and construction and destruction of social meaning. We present a model that begins
to explain why and how the charismatic leader/follower interaction can generate
social change. The model suggests theoretical propositions that we test empirically
by content analyzing speeches of all 20th century U.S. presidents through Ronald
Reagan. The empirical results show that charismatic leaders employ consistent
communication strategies for breaking down, moving, and re-aligning the norms
of their followers.
A REVIEW OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

Sociologists, political historians, and political scientists have widely accepted the
theory of charismatic leadership originally advanced by Weber (1947). To our
knowledge, no one has subjected Weber’s theory to quantitative empirical test.
However, several scholars have advanced additional theories that invoke the con-
cept of charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977;
Trice & Beyer, 1986), visionary leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Sashkin, 1988),
or transformational leadership (Burns, 1978). These related theories have been
subjected to substantial empirical investigation.
We refer to this general class of theory as the neo-charismatic leadership para-
digm. While there are some differences among these theories, and while some may
argue that there are some substantive differences among these theories (Bass, 1990;
Yukl, 1994) which indeed there are, we argue that they all fit well within a more
general paradigm. We take this position and use the label “neo-charismatic leader-
ship paradigm” for a number of reasons. First, this new genre of theory has much
in common with the Weberian conceptualization of charisma. As Weber asserted,
all of these theories also assert that exceptionally effective leaders articulate visions
that are based on normative ideological values, offer innovative solutions to major
social problems, stand for nonconservative if not radical change, and generally
emerge and are more effective under conditions of social stress and crisis. Second,
charismatic behavior (visionary, change-oriented, nonconservative) is either implic-
itly or explicitly a central concept in all of the theories of this paradigm.
Third, all of the theories of this paradigm emphasize independent variables that
appeal strongly to followers: symbolic leader behavior; visionary and inspirational
ability; nonverbal communication; appeal to ideological values; and leader expecta-
tions for follower self-sacrifice and for performance beyond the call of duty. Fourth,
while all leadership theories imply an underlying theme of performance improve-
ment, the theories of the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm focus primarily on
affective rather than cognitive-dependent variables: follower emotional attachment
to the mission and values espoused by the leader; emotional and motivational
arousal; enhancement of valences with respect to the mission articulated by the
leader; heightened self esteem; trust and confidence in the leader; and heightened
intrinsic motivation. Fifth, all of these theories assert that leaders described as
charismatic, visionary, or transformational generally have positive effects on follow-
ers and organizations that exceed those of leaders described in theories of non-
charismatic leadership. Sixth, the term charisma has had an enduring and honorable
tradition in the sociological literature, and the above independent and dependent
Strategies for Social Change 451
variables of the neo-charismatic paradigm are consistent with the traditional charis-
matic literature.
Seventh, the similarities among these theories are, in our opinion, far greater
than their differences. Eighth, by grouping these theories all within a common
paradigm we call attention to their common essential elements. Ninth, providing a
common paradigm label for these theories sets them apart from the earlier and
more traditional task/person-oriented and cognitively-oriented leadership theories.
Tenth, and finally, we believe that grouping these theories within a common para-
digm with a label that is descriptive of their essential commonalties brings coherence
to this literature in a meaningful and theoretically parsimonious way.
The theories of the neo-charismatic paradigm have been subjected to more than
100 empirical tests. Collectively, the empirical findings demonstrate with surprising
consistency that leaders described as charismatic, transformational, or visionary
cause followers to become highly committed to the leader’s mission, to make signifi-
cant personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform above and
beyond the call of duty. The findings also demonstrate that such leaders have
positive effects on their organizations and followers, with effect sizes ranging from
0.35 to 0.50 for organizational performance effects, and from 0.40 to 0.80 for effects
on follower satisfaction and organizational identification and commitment.
A recent meta-analysis by Lowe et al. (1996) of 32 correlations between leader
charisma as measured by the Bass (1985) Multifaceted Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) and independent ratings of leader effectiveness demonstrated a mean cor-
rected correlation of .35. A second meta-analysis by these authors, based on 15
correlations between charisma and subordinates’ ratings of their superiors’ effective-
ness, demonstrated a corrected correlation of 0.81. Corrected correlations between
criterion variables and charisma were higher than corrected correlations between
criterion variables and measures of intellectual stimulation, individualized consider-
ation, contingent reward, and management by exception. The effect sizes are usually
at the lower ends of these ranges in studies that did not control for environmental
effects (Lowe et al., 1996), and at the upper ends of these ranges under conditions
of environmental threat, crisis, or uncertainty (House et al., 1991; Waldman et al.,
1998).
Such findings have been demonstrated at several levels of analysis, including
dyads (Howell & Frost, 1989), small informal groups (Howell & Higgins, 1990;
Pillai & Meindl, 1991), formal work units (Curphy, 1992; Hater & Bass, 1988),
major subunits of large complex organizations (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Koene et
al., 1993), overall performance of complex organizations (Koh et al., 1991; Roberts,
1985; Trice & Beyer, 1986; Waldman et al., 1998), and U.S. presidential administra-
tions (House et al., 1991; Simonton, 1987).
The evidence supporting this genre of theory is also derived from a wide variety
of samples, including informal leaders of task groups (Howell & Higgins, 1990),
military officers (Bass, 1985), educational administrators (Koh etr al., 1991), supervi-
sors (Hater & Bass, 1988), middle managers (Howell & Avolio, 1993), subjects in
laboratory experiments (Howell & Frost, 1989), U.S. presidents (House et al., 1991),
chief executive officers of Fortune 500 firms (Waldman et al., 1998), high-level
executives of large Canadian firms (Javidan & Carl, 1997), Canadian government
agencies (Javidan & Carl, 1997), and CEOs of Egyptian firms (Messallam & House,
1997).
The evidence shows that the effects of charismatic leader behaviors are rather
widely generalizable in the United States and that they may well generalize across
cultures. For instance, studies based on the MLQ charisma scale (Bass & Avolio,
1989) have demonstrated similar findings in India (Pereria, 1987), Singapore (Koh
et al., 1991), The Netherlands (Koene et al., 1993), China, Japan (Bass, 1997),
Germany (Geyer & Steyrer, 1994), and Canada (Javidan & Carl, 1997). Finally, a
recent cross-cultural study has shown that the leader behaviors of the neo-charis-
matic leadership paradigm are universally included as prototypical behaviors of
highly effective organizational leaders, having ratings consistently above six on a
seven-point scale of attributed effectiveness for all 60 countries studied (House et
al., 1998).
The studies cited above have dealt with leader behaviors and their effects. To
date, we know very little about the processes by which leaders produce such results.
We need to better understand the underlying motivations and psychological forces
that result in the extraordinary effects of charismatic leaders.
In this article, we address this gap by drawing on theories of change and construc-
tion and destruction of social meaning. We begin by discussing the differing motiva-
tions of followers and leaders, using Lewin’s (1951) field theory to integrate them
into a single theoretical framework. We present a model that depicts charisma as
a social process. We then introduce semiotics as a means for operationalizing and
testing the theory’s predictions. The empirical results show that charismatic leaders
employ consistent communication strategies for effecting social change.
THE MOTIVATIONAL UNDERPINNINGS OF

CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
Follower Motives: Frame Alignment
Shamir et al. (1993) recently advanced a theoretical explanation of an interpretive
process, frame alignment (Snow et al., 1986), by which charismatic leaders motivate
followers to embrace social change. Frame alignment (Snow et al., 1986) refers to
the linkage of individual and leader interpretive orientations, such that some set
of followers’ interests, values, and beliefs and the leader’s activities, goals, and
ideology become congruent and complementary. The term “frame” denotes an
interpretive scheme (Boal & Bryson, 1988; Goffman, 1974) that enables individuals
to locate, perceive, and label occurrences within their life and the world at large.
By rendering events or occurrences meaningful, frames function to organize experi-
ence and guide action, whether individual or collective.
To achieve frame alignment, charismatic leaders engage the self-concepts of
followers in the mission articulated by the leader. Strong engagement of the self-
concept of followers makes it cognitively dissonant for them not to behave in ways
that further mission accomplishment. Charismatic leaders increase the intrinsic
value of follower efforts in pursuit of mission accomplishment by linking effort
and goals to valued aspects of the follower’s self-concept, thus harnessing the
motivational forces of self-expression, self-consistency, self-esteem, and self-worth.

Shamir et al. (1993) further argued that charismatic leaders change the salience
hierarchy of values and identities within the follower’s self-concept, thus increasing
the probability that these values and identities will be implicated in action. Finally,
they argued that charismatic leaders increase self-efficacy and collective efficacy by
positive evaluations, communicating higher performance expectations of followers,
showing confidence in followers’ ability to meet such expectations, and emphasizing
followers’ ties to the collective.
Shamir et al. (1993) specified communicative techniques that charismatic leaders
employ to effect frame alignment and mobilize followers to action. They link present
behaviors to past events by citing historical examples (Willner, 1984). They articulate
an ideology clearly, often using labels and slogans. They provide a vivid and positive
image of the future. Further, they amplify certain values and identities and suggest
linkages between expected behaviors, amplified values and identities, and their
vision of the future. By articulating an ideological vision and recruiting a number
of followers who share the values of the vision, charismatic leaders provide for
followers a sense of identity with the collective and a sense of efficacy resulting
from membership in the collective. Articulation of high performance expectations,
together with display of confidence in followers, results in enhancing both follower
self-esteem and self-worth.
Since such a shift in values and identities is socially based, followers’ resulting
behavior should represent a shift from the instrumental to the moral, and from a
concern with individual gains to a concern with contributions to a collective. We
need a theory that explains how and why charismatic leaders engage followers in
such transitions, and how and why followers become engaged.
Leader Motives: Frame Breaking

Sociologists (Eisenstadt, 1968), political scientists (Dow, 1969; Willner, 1984)
and organizational behavior theorists (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House,
1977; Nadler & Tushman, 1990) have described or defined charismatic leaders as
breaking with traditional institutional authority and persuading followers to em-
brace innovative or revolutionary ideas. These definitions imply a motivation to
change the status quo. Charismatic leaders are thus motivated to alter or break the
“frame” or interpretive scheme by which individuals locate, perceive, and label
occurrences in their life consistent with the status quo.
In contrast to the lack of constraint implied by a frame breaking motive, McClel-
land and his colleagues proposed a theory of leader constraint and activity inhibition.
In a seminal work on leader motivation, McClelland et al. (1972) argued that high
power motivation, in combination with low affiliative motivation and high activity
inhibition, predisposes individuals to be effective leaders through satisfying their
need for power by making socially desirable contributions to the larger collective
rather than by pursuing self interests. McClelland and his colleagues supported
their theory with a series of studies (McClelland et al., 1972; McClelland, 1975,
1985) linking men’s expression of power motive in the Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT) with a presumed measure of activity inhibition— the number of times the
word “not” appeared in the stories written by subjects in response to TAT stimulus
material. These studies presumed that the word “not” expressed moral constraint
as reflected in Christian-Judaic caveats such as “Thou shalt not. . . .” Subjects low
in this presumed measure of activity inhibition expressed thoughts about the exercise
of power that were focused on personal dominance or winning at someone else’s
expense. In contrast, subjects who scored high on activity inhibition expressed
power imagery more often in terms of doing good for others, for humanity, or
for some worthy and presumably moral cause. According to McClelland (1972)
individuals who have a high need for power and who also have high activity inhibi-
tion should be more effective leaders because they manifest their need for power
in socially appropriate ways, while meeting the role demands of positions of influ-
ence such as those found in large complex organizations.
House et al. (1991) integrated McClelland et al.’s (1972) leader motive theory
with House’s (1977) theory of charismatic leadership in a model that includes the
most important variables of both theories. House et al. (1991) tested their model
using archival data relevant to all elected U.S. presidents from George Washington
through Ronald Reagan. They studied the presidents’ needs for power, achievement,
affiliation, and activity inhibition. They measured these motives by applying the
TAT coding scheme to the inaugural addresses of all U.S. presidents. The research-
ers assumed that inaugural addresses represented presidents’ fantasies, hopes, and
desires for their terms in office and therefore projections of their nonconscious
motives. Three sets of dependent variables measured presidential success: (1) their
effectiveness in implementing international, economic, and social/domestic policies;
(2) presidential greatness as measured by opinion polls of present day political
scientists; and (3) a measure of successful direct actions such as victory in war, great
decisions, and near-war avoidances such as the Cuban missile crisis. They interpreted
their results as consistent with McClelland: Presidential need for power as measured
by the use of the word “not” in presidential writings significantly predicted presiden-
tial charismatic behavior and effectiveness.
However, Spangler and House (1991) noted that presidents who used the word
“not” most frequently were highly unconstrained in their behavior. They found
that the use of the word “not” was associated with the manner in which presidents
exercised power, rather than the ends for which they exercised power. Specifically,
presidents who used the word “not” most frequently were more impatient, forceful,
radical, demanding and active, and they frequently bypassed the chain of command.
Spangler and House (1991) concluded that with respect to presidential speeches
and writings, the count of the word “not” was not a measure of activity inhibition
as defined by McClelland. Charismatic leaders who frequently invoked the word
“not” appeared less disciplined and less psychologically constrained in the way they
exercise power than other leaders.
The consistently strong ability of “nots” to predict charismatic and effective
leadership suggests substantial practical importance in studying the meaning of
“nots.” However, Spangler and House’s (1991) observation that presidents who
used the word “not” most frequently were highly unconstrained in their behavior
raises questions about McClelland’s (1975, 1985) interpretation that the frequent
use of the word “not” reflects expressions of respect for institutionalized authority,
self-discipline, and belief in a just world.
Because interest in charismatic leaders stems, in part, from their ability to bring
about radical change, how does this fit with McClelland’s notion of restraint on
action and respect for current institutions? Perhaps “not” does not represent uncon-
scious motives. Perhaps, instead, it is a conscious rhetorical device in the repertoire
of communicative tools consistently employed by charismatic leaders to bring about
innovation and gain acceptance for revolutionary ideas. The use of “not” may thus
reflect charismatic leaders’ motivations to break current frames through negation.
Here again, we need a theory that better explains how and why charismatic leaders
engage followers in radical change.
Integrating Leader/Follower Motivations

Lewin’s (1951) field theory provides a useful starting point for integrating theories
of the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm with follower motives in generating
change. Lewin’s theory attempted to describe and explain stability and change in
social norms and conduct. He began by defining a social “field,” consisting of the
collective and its setting. The distribution of social forces within the field determines
what happens throughout the field. For example, conflicting social forces act for
greater and less discrimination against selected ethnic groups. If the forces for each
are equally strong (fgreater 1 fless 5 0), the field maintains a quasi-stationary social
state. The equation says nothing about the absolute strength of either of the opposing
forces; only that they are equal.
Lewin argued that social change can be achieved most effectively if one first
decreases the tension between the opposing forces by reducing the strength of both.
According to this view, instead of attempting to bring about social change by
defining and promoting the objective of the desired change, more effective change
efforts begin by reducing tensions. This tension reduction “unfreezes” the average
state of collective norms around which opposing forces have stabilized. The next
step “moves” the collective norms to a new state. The final step “re-freezes” collec-
tive norms in the new state.
Lewin’s theory suggests that both frame breaking (unfreezing) and frame align-
ment (moving and re-freezing) are critical processes for bringing about social
change. Beyond this, Lewin did not address how unfreezing, moving, and re-freezing
of social norms occurs, only that it revolves around individual perceptions of the
value of those norms. He suggested that the major cause of resistance to social
change lies in individuals’ beliefs in the value of existing social norms. To bring
about social change, then, one cannot focus exclusively on the level of the collective,
nor at the individual level, but rather on the interface between the two: The value
that individuals place on the norms of the collective.
A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO STUDY CHARISMATIC EFFECTIVENESS

Although Lewin’s theory provides a useful framework for integrating the motiva-
tional forces underlying charismatic leadership, it offers little guidance about how
one might operationalize and test the theory’s predictions. Since Lewin’s theory
addresses socially-constructed meaning, an appropriate tool for empirical investiga-
tion is semiotics—the science of signs.
Semiotics explicitly deals with the interface between individual and social values,
the critical issue in effecting social change. As a formal mode of analysis, it identifies
the rules that govern the construction and destruction of meaning in a particular
social system (Greimas & Rastier, 1968; Eco, 1979). Like Lewin’s (1951) field theory,
it rests on the assumption that all meaning is contextualized and resides in a system
of underlying oppositions. Semiotic analysis offers a systematic means of linking
multiple surface-level expressions of opposition to the system of meaning that
underlies them.
The Structure of Meaning

The units of signification in any communicative act express meaning through
their differences (Eco, 1979). The social codes that regulate meaning arise from
underlying oppositional structures. Two kinds of opposition interact to give meaning
to a sign, or a unit of signification. For a given sign, the first opposition, called
contradiction, expresses the total absence of the sign. For example, nonlove contra-
dicts love; nonconventional contradicts conventional. A sign can express either end
of the contradiction, but not a combination (e.g., one cannot express love and non-
love at the same time).
For a given sign, the second kind of opposition, called contrariety, includes
another sign. The contrary sign, by social construction, also opposes the meaning
of the original sign. For example, hate is contrary to love; innovation is contrary
to convention. A given sign may have multiple contraries. Hate, loathing, and disgust
each opposes love. Innovation, deviance, and spontaneity oppose convention. In
contrast to contradictions, a sign may include combinations of contrary meaning
or values. For example, one can express love and hate at the same time, though
this combination expresses a complex and unstable condition.
Based on our theoretical framework, a charismatic leader performs the task of
translating innovative ideas into socially conventional ideas, that is, translating a
value into its contrary. Semioticians typically employ a visual representation of a
value’s contradictions and contraries. Figure 1 depicts such a representation for the
values of convention and innovation. Convention is contrary to innovation, and
non-convention is contrary to non-innovation. Convention contradicts non-conven-
tion, and innovation contradicts non-innovation. This framework sets the stage for
our subsequent discussion of leader/follower interactions.
By practice, the dominant positive social value, in this case social convention,
occupies the upper left corner of the semiotic square. Conventions represent social-
ized, institutionalized, and endorsed ideas or values, the frame through which most
people experience their world. The contrary, innovation, occupies the upper right
corner. The contradictions occupy positions diagonal to the values they oppose.
The values depicted in a semiotic square relate hierarchically; the assertion of
the dominant value presumes the negation of its contrary (convention presumes
non-innovation). However, negation of the contrary only allows the possibility of
Figure 1. Social Value Structure
the dominant value (non-innovation makes convention possible). Understanding

the process by which one can effect change in social norms depends on this hierarchy.
Replacing one dominant value with another directly (e.g., replacing convention
with innovation), or shifting the balance of one in favor of the other, will lead to
increasing tension that is likely to undermine change efforts (Lewin, 1951). Ac-
cording to Lewin, an effective change strategy begins by “unfreezing” the dominant
value. Here, this means advocating its contradiction (e.g., replacing convention with
non-convention before advocating innovation, as indicated by the change trajectory
of least resistance in Fig. 1 (Greimas & Rastier, 1968).
The terms and structural relations defined by a semiotic square can provide a
theoretical starting point for identifying the components of meaning of any set of
values within a social system. In this study, they depict values concerning leadership,
values believed to both motivate leaders and to serve as standards by which society
judges leader effectiveness. The next section examines current conceptions of lead-
ership in relation to the semiotic structure outlined above.
The Social Structure of Values

Leaders operate and are judged within a social system whose values define what
is “effective.” Values associated with charismatic leadership imply rejection of the
status quo and reliance on nonconventional solutions to existing social problems.
These values oppose the socially-endorsed dominant cultural values represented
by conventional leadership. Neither the conventional nor the innovative values
contain “objective” content. Conventional leadership may mean one thing in the
United States and something quite different in Cuba. Yet in a given social context,
innovation/ nonconvention always opposes convention/non-innovation.
Within such a meaning system, charismatic leadership, by definition, attempts
to persuade society to embrace a contrary of a current social convention (S2—the
dominant negative value in Fig. 1), that is, innovation. The logical relations depicted
Figure 2. Personal Value Structure
in the semiotic square imply that charismatic leadership is, at its essence, the contrary
of conventions. As one adopts more institutionalized conventions, one appears less
charismatic. According to this model, negation of existing beliefs is a fundamental
characteristic of charismatic leadership.
The social structure of leaders’ values identifies value components at a societal
level. However, it does not reflect the personal values that motivate or predispose
charismatic leaders to promote nonendorsed social values. Nor does it describe the
personal value changes required when members of society follow the charismatic
leader. Therefore, we need to more closely examine the personal value structure
of leaders and of society’s members.
The Personal Substructure of Values

Following Greimas and Rastier (1968), two sets of motivators define individual
human behavior in relation to social values: desire and fear. Following their premise
that desire is a prime human motivator and fear its corollary inhibitor, Fig. 2 shows
the semiotic structure of personal values. The relations among the values in this
square reflect the same structure and hierarchy as those of the social model in Fig. 1.
The terms of the personal value system interact with the social value system to
generate what one observes in human behavior. Different value combinations lead
to either conflicting or compatible relations (Greimas & Rastier, 1968). For example,
desire—that is, aspirations, intentions or a conscious impulse toward something
positive—interacts with endorsed social values to produce a compatible or balanced
relation of personal and social values. Similarly, fear—that is, the anticipation of
danger or the impulse to avoid or overcome a negative—combined with unendorsed
social values (innovation), produces compatibility in personal-social values. Both
relationships are stable over time; are deemed “effective”; and represent “social-
ized” members of society.
On the other hand, people experiencing fear of society’s conventions are unlikely
to remain stable over time or to be “effective.” Similarly, desire combined with
socially unendorsed values (innovation) produces an unstable tension. Charismatic
leaders represent this combination of tension—desire for innovation. Their leader-
ship aims at replacing current social convention with their personal values in order
to achieve a state of balance for themselves.
Shamir et al. (1993) described charismatic leaders as having the power to modify
the beliefs and preferences of individuals in order to create a new compatibility
between personal and social values. Previous theory suggests that charismatic lead-
ers effect such a change through frame re-alignment (Conger & Kanungo, 1987;
Weber, 1947). Our analysis suggests that before followers will align around a new
interpretive frame, they must reverse their previous relationship with the existing
socially dominant values. As described below, this occurs through introducing con-
flict in a compatible convention-based structure and compatibility in a conflictive
innovation-based structure.
FRAME BREAKING, MOVING, AND RE-ALIGNING

Operationalizing Lewin’s (1951) three-phase process for changing social values with
semiotic analysis leads to two distinct strategies for generating innovation (shown
in Fig. 3). Both scenarios assume a starting point of dominant and compatible
personal-social values. In the first case, individual members of society desire current
conventions; in the second, they fear innovation. Both cases are compatible within
the bounds of current conventions. The phases of unfreezing, moving and re-freezing
represent the paths of least resistance in the semiotic squares (e.g., convention to
nonconvention to innovation) and are described in detail below.
Frame Breaking (Unfreezing)

To effect a change in social values, a charismatic leader must first attempt to
reduce the strength of the value individuals place on conventional norms (Lewin,
1951). This is labeled the frame-breaking or unfreezing phase. If the current value
is a desire for convention (first scenario in Fig. 3), the leader must negate this desire
to create a more neutral state, nondesire for convention. A leader can do this by
convincing society that conventional thinking is not fruitful, but rather dysfunctional.
For example, before President Bush could successfully press for intervention into
the Persian Gulf in 1991, he had to convince the congress and the public at large
that conventional wisdom, which interfered with his vision, was wrong. He had to
persuade them that it would not be another Vietnam, that it would not be another
military defeat, that it would not be an embarrassment even in military victory,
and that the United States was not intervening for the sole reason of maintaining
access to low price crude oil. This involved discrediting people’s ties to convention.
If the current value is fear of innovation (second scenario in Fig. 3), the leader
must negate this fear to create a more neutral state, non-fear of innovation. The
second approach involves convincing society that non-innovation is not viable. For
example, President Bush tried to portray the United States as committed by treaty,
Figure 3. Value Transformation Strategies

Note: Scenarios 1 and 2 represent different original social values that call for dis-
tinct value transformation strategies. S and P notations refer to the social and
personal values depicted in Figs. 1 and 2. Movement from left to right shows
successive phases of the change process over time, and the resulting values at
each phase.
precedence, and moral obligation to not sit by and watch an ally fall to an aggressor.
That is, non-intervention equated with non-innovation, which according to the
President’s arguments, was not a viable option.
Frame Moving
To build a new stable and compatible value structure, leaders must eventually
move personal values from a neutral to a more active state, and social values from
opposing to conforming with the desired innovation (Lewin’s (1951) second phase).
An effective way to initiate the shift is to first negate the endorsed social norms
that are contrary to the innovation (e.g., convert convention to non-convention as
in Fig. 1 above). At the same time, followers’ values must move from a passive
state (non-desire or non-fear) to an active state (desire or fear). Thus frame moving
will include a double negation: non-desire for convention must be transformed into
desire for non-convention, and non-fear of innovation into fear of non-innovation.
Following our previous example, having discredited conventional thinking about
U.S. military intervention, President Bush attempted to shift non-fear of innovation
to fear of non-innovation by portraying Saddam Hussein as a neo-Hitler who must
be stopped before he reached full power. Negating or inverting both personal
and social values minimizes potential resistance since the resulting values remain
compatible with the prior ones. The resulting values, however, now encompass the
personal motivators (desire and fear) needed to move collective values to a new
level (Lewin, 1951).
Frame Re-aligning (Re-freezing)

Finally, the third phase of the change process involves re-freezing new and
compatible values (Lewin, 1951). If successful, the second phase results in personal
motivators that a leader can now channel in the desired direction. Through substitut-
ing a compatible positive image for the negated social norm, leaders mobilize
followers to action (Shamir et al., 1993). The first scenario in Fig. 3 entails substitut-
ing innovation for non-convention, leading to the final desire for innovation. In the
second scenario, it entails substituting positive values for both personal and social
negative values (from fear/non-innovation to desire/innovation). In the President
Bush example, the administration needed more than discrediting conventional views
of U.S. military intervention and creating fear of Saddam Hussein. A new vision
(innovation), the “new world order,” had to replace the discredited convention.
This final change phase will likely meet with minimal resistance as it represents
filling a void rather than opposing an entrenched position. The success of this final
phase of value transformation critically hinges on a leader’s ability to provide for
followers a sense of positive identity with the change (Shamir et al., 1993).
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE

The semiotic modeling of the social value transformation process suggests the need
for distinct communication strategies in each of the three phases. To summarize,
effective change agents bring about a new set of social and personal value combina-
tions by first reducing the strength of a current value through neutralizing follower
ties to the value. They then move the value through a process of negating both the
social and personal values. Finally, they solidify the links between their innovative
vision and the values of their followers by substituting the negated social value with
a positive value. The following briefly describes several communication strategies for
effecting these changes and summarizes the discussion with a series of propositions.
Negation
As described above, a change process requires breaking, neutralizing, negating
and substituting. The use of the word “not” is an essential rhetorical device for
breaking, neutralizing and negating. Since charismatic leaders, by definition, attempt
more innovations and are seen as more successful in those change efforts, they
should use the word “not” more frequently than non-charismatic leaders. We include
this as our first proposition, though it has already received significant empirical
support (House et al., 1991). Here, the proposition reflects a process rather than a
personality trait, and is fundamental to our overall model of value transformation.
Proposition 1. Charismatic leaders will use the word “not” more often than
non-charismatic leaders.
During the initial phase of a change process, charismatic leaders must negate
the followers’ personal values towards convention or innovation. During the second
phase, they must move the neutralized values toward a less neutral position by
negating both the original convention and the neutralized personal links to that
convention. This phase thus calls for a double negation.
During the final phase, charismatic leaders must substitute a new and positive
social norm for that which they have negated. During this phase, they no longer
rely on negation as the critical means of effecting change. Thus, they will use fewer
“nots” during this final phase of transformation.
From the above, it follows that the use of the word “not” through the change
phases is curvilinear. One would expect “nots” to be used frequently in the frame-
breaking phase, more frequently in the form of double negation in the frame-
moving phase, and less frequently in the final frame–re-freezing phase. Because
non-charismatic leaders are less likely to attempt radical change, we would expect
them to not follow this pattern.
Proposition 2A. During a transformation, charismatic leaders will use the

word “not” frequently during the initial phase, more frequently during
the middle phase, and infrequently during later phases.
Proposition 2B. The use of “nots” by non-charismatic leaders will not follow
the curvilinear pattern of charismatic leaders.
Inclusion and Consensus Building

While negation is a critical rhetorical device for the breaking down or unfreezing
that occurs in the early phases of social change, endorsement and affirmation are
important in later phases. Given the instability induced in earlier phases, change
agents must generate relations of trust with followers in which parties believe that
“things will work out” (Gambetta, 1988; Gartner & Low, 1990). Again, specific
communication strategies help generate and sustain trusting relationships.
Charismatic leaders will include nonbelievers within the innovative frame (Goff-
man, 1974) they wish to generate by managing the boundaries around the subjects of
their discourse. They can do this in two ways. First, they employ inclusive rather than
exclusive referents (Fiol, 1989). One would expect a charismatic leader to use more
associative referent terms such as “we,” “us,” “our group,” or “our organization” rather
than terms that imply disassociation or noninclusion such as “I,” “you,” or “me.”
Proposition 3. Charismatic leaders will use more inclusive language than

non-charismatic leaders.
Second, effective change agents enlarge the boundaries of their discourse by

employing high levels of abstraction. Eisenberg (1984) has argued that the ambiguity
associated with values at a high level of abstraction allows consensus building
around those values without necessarily achieving consensus around their meaning.
To effectively engage their followers in a movement toward innovation, charismatic
leaders will likely employ high levels of abstraction in their discourse during the
frame-moving phase. Following the example of the Persian Gulf intervention of
1991, President Bush attempted to rally society around innovation by calling for
the United States to create a “new world order.” This phrase has many meanings.
Its ambiguity aided Bush in building a consensus around his views.
Proposition 4. Charismatic leaders will communicate at higher levels of ab-

straction than non-charismatic leaders.
Inclusive language and abstract representation are rhetorical techniques that

serve a similar purpose: to include and engage followers in a change process that
defies conventions. Inclusion explicitly invites followers to engage and embrace the
leader’s values, while higher levels of abstraction open the space for followers to
align their personal values with those of the leader. Since engagement and inclusion
are necessary for maintaining or changing social values (regardless of the content
of the values) one would expect both charismatic leaders and non-charismatic
leaders to combine the two techniques for maximum effectiveness.
Proposition 5. All effective leaders will use more inclusive language with
higher levels of abstraction.
However, like negation, inclusion and abstraction carry out more specific roles
in each phase of a transformation process. According to our model, the early
unfreezing phase is a period of breaking personal ties to convention. The focus is
on individuals, rather than society. One would thus expect relatively low levels of
abstraction and less use of inclusion in the first phase. In contrast, one would expect
greater use of abstract and inclusive language during the frame-moving phase, when
charismatic leaders must actively engage their followers in a process of visualizing
a change at the level of the collective. In the final phase, one would again expect
inclusion and abstraction to be less critical since the move toward social-level change
has already taken place. As in Proposition 2, we would not expect to see this pattern
for non-charismatic leaders.
Proposition 6A. During a transformation, charismatic leaders will use higher

levels of inclusion and abstraction during the middle phase than in earlier
or later phases.
Proposition 6B. The use of inclusion and abstraction by non-charismatic
leaders will not follow the curvilinear pattern of charismatic leaders.
Table 1. Communication Strategies for Effecting Social Change

Phase One Phase Two Phase Three
Negation Moderate frequency High frequency in Low frequency in the
in the use of “not.” the use of “not.” use of “not.”
Inclusion Low frequency of High frequency of Moderate
inclusive referents inclusive referents frequency of
(moderate use of (low use of non- inclusive referents.
non-inclusive inclusive
referents). referents).
Levels of Low levels of High levels of Moderate levels of
Abstraction abstraction abstraction. abstraction.
(infrequent use
of high-level
abstraction).
In sum, our model suggests that charismatic leaders employ specific communica-
tion strategies to move the change process through the three phases of frame
breaking, moving, and re-alignment. Table 1 summarizes the communication pat-
terns that characterize each of the three phases.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
We applied semiotic analysis to 42 speeches from all 20th century U.S. presidents
through Ronald Reagan (a sample of 14 presidents)1. A prior study of “nots” (House
et al., 1988) provided some of the speeches; others were drawn from various archives
of presidential speeches. We selected speeches that addressed a wide, national
audience either in topic matter or in physical audience. Most of the speeches were
inaugural addresses or addresses to congress. In some cases those were not available,
and we chose substitutes from a set that was available to reflect subject matter
similar in scope and audience to inaugural or congressional addresses. Appendix
A lists the presidents and the speeches.
Although one might worry that professional speechwriters create most presiden-
tial addresses (at least in more contemporary speeches), substantial evidence demon-
strates that presidents greatly influence the language and motive imagery in their
speeches. Winter and Stewart (1977) demonstrated the construct validity of inaugu-
ral motive imagery for 20th century presidents. House et al. (1991) found that
motive scores derived from the motive imagery in the inaugural addresses of all
elected presidents predicted both presidential leader style and presidential effective-
ness with respect to the implementation of their economic, international, and social
domestic policies.
For each president, we chose a speech from his first year in office, a middle year
in office, and his last year in office. The sequence of these speeches approximated
three general phases of social transformation. While value transformations may
involve a specific issue (e.g., income tax), one can argue that presidential leaders
have broad agendas that take many years to accomplish. We may especially view
the charismatic presidents as attending to a general change in national direction or
general societal values (e.g., F.D. Roosevelt and “The New Deal,” R.R. Reagan
and “The New Dawn in America”).
Coding Communication Acts

The unit of analysis in each speech was a logical sentence. Logical sentences
were defined as complete grammatical phrases (i.e., “subject . . . verb . . . object”)
or sub-phrases which were separated by a hyphen from the remainder of the
sentence. Compound sentences were treated as two (or more) logical sentences.
Each speech provided 11 to 18 sentences according to the following rules: (1) Code
a minimum of ten sentences, (2) complete coding to the end of the paragraph
containing the tenth sentence. This procedure yielded 645 coded sentences. Samples
of speeches and their coding are provided in Appendix B.
Each sentence provided coding for three independent variables relating to the
propositions above. First, as mentioned above, coders recorded the temporal se-
quence of a speech (1, 2, 3) and treated these as phases of transformation (unfreez-
ing, moving, and re-freezing).
Second, coders identified sentences as inclusive/non-inclusive (I/NI) according
to the use of inclusive versus noninclusive pronouns. Presidents set an agenda for
the nation whether they address the nation directly or through groups like congress.
Examples of inclusive language include uses of “we,” “our,” and “us,” when applied
to a large collective, usually the nation, but occasionally the world if the nation
was implied as part of it. If pronouns referred to a small, specifically identified
group (e.g., “Tom and I . . . We . . .”), then coders treated the pronoun as non-
inclusive. Coders treated all uses of proper nouns, non-inclusive pronouns, and
passive constructions as non-inclusive. If they found two different types of usage
in a sentence (e.g., “us against them”), they coded the sentence as inclusive if the
“us” referred to the country.
Finally, the domain level of a discourse indicates its level of abstraction. Coders
assigned each sentence one of the following domain levels (from least to most
abstract): (1) individuals (e.g., I, F.D.R., George), (2) particular things or events
(e.g., the income tax, this battle, the meeting), (3) the country or nation, including
the people of the nation, and (4) the world, foreign countries, and universal beliefs
(e.g., mankind, truth, justice). Thus, the greater abstractions at the higher domain
levels allow a larger collective to locate itself in the presidents’ message.
Coding Charisma
Charisma was treated as a binary variable, with charismatic presidents coded as 1
and non-charismatic presidents coded as 0. We followed the classification procedures
used by House et al. (1988). In their study, eight reputable political historians
identified American presidents as charismatic, non-charismatic, neither charismatic
nor non-charismatic, or uncertain, using the following guidelines. Charisma is the
ability to exercise diffuse and intensive influence over the normative or ideological
orientations of others (Etzioni, 1961). As a result we can identify charismatic leaders

by their effects on their followers such that followers of charismatic leaders:
1. Have a high degree of loyalty, commitment, and devotion to the leader;

2. Identify with the leader and the mission of the leader;
3. Emulate his values, goals, and behavior;
4. See the leader as a source of inspiration;
5. Derive a sense of high self-esteem from their relationship with the leader
and his mission; and
6. Have an exceptionally high degree of trust in the leader and the correctness
of his beliefs.
The historians classified the leaders according to their relationship with their
cabinet members rather than to the public since that study was interested in organiza-
tional leadership rather than mass or political leadership. Their classification proce-
dure resulted in two groups—charismatic and non-charismatic. In the current study,
four of the 14 presidents qualified as charismatic, and ten as non-charismatic.
Appendix A lists the charismatic and non-charismatic presidents in our sample.
Reliability
Interrater agreement among the political historians was .88. House et al. (1991)
confirmed the validity of the political historians’ classification of presidents. They
demonstrated that presidents classified as charismatic had stronger and more posi-
tive affective ties with their cabinet members than did non-charismatic presidents.
House et al. also confirmed the classifications by use of data collected from presiden-
tial biographical writings collected in an independent study by Simonton (1987).
Thus, the ratings were triangulated with three independent sources.
Doctoral candidates in management coded the speeches used in the current
study. Coder training involved a review of coding rules, detailed analyses of a pre-
coded speech selected for its potentially ambiguous phrasing, and trial coding against
a key of three previously coded speeches. Agreement with the key was 95–100
percent indicating adequate reliability. Further, an intercoder reliability test was
conducted based on coding by three coders of one-fourth of the total set of speeches.
Interrater reliability was over 90 percent for all coded dimensions in the subsample
of texts.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The propositions fall into two groups—simple comparisons between groups and
comparisons over time. Propositions 3 and 4 suggest simple comparisons of means.
Using a least squares means test to adjust for the unbalanced sample sizes (Searle
et al., 1980), Table 2 shows support for Propositions 3 and 4. The charismatic leaders
used more inclusive language and higher levels of abstraction than did the non-
charismatic leaders.
Proposition 5 also involves comparing group means. The Table 3 analysis of
Table 2. Tests of Propositions 3 and 4: Comparison of Group

Means for Charismatic and Non-Charismatic Leaders in Using
Inclusive and Abstract Imagery
Group Mean
Charismatic Non-charismatic Pr(Ho): Proposition
Variable Leaders (C) Leaders (NC) mean (C) 5 mean (NC) Supported
Inclusion 1.43 1.31 0.0034* Prop. 3
Abstraction 3.14 2.43 0.0001* Prop. 4
Note: * Significance tests attaining the level of 0.05 or better.
variance shows that for all leaders the level of inclusion increased as the level of
abstraction increased. The means tests between levels in Table 3 shows that the
two upper levels of abstraction varied significantly in their amount of inclusion
from the two lower levels, but within the two upper levels and within the two lower
levels the average amount of inclusion did not vary significantly. This suggests that
the distinction between individuals (level 1) and nonpersonal, specific topics (level 2)
may not be important, at least in terms of the boundaries of discourse. Nor, appar-
ently, did the leaders create different boundaries around country, world, or universal
values (levels 3 and 4). However, they did, as proposed, create different boundaries
around specific topics (levels 1 and 2) and broad, abstract topics (levels 3 and 4).
The remaining propositions address timing issues. Here, graphical views of the
data clearly show the trends suggested in Propositions 2 and 6; also, the graphs
help illuminate the statistical analyses. Figures 4 and 5 show that the charismatic
leaders followed the pattern of moderate use of “nots” in phase 1, higher use of
“nots” in phase 2, and low use of “nots” in phase 3. These figures also show that
the pattern for the non-charismatic presidents was quite different, with the first
Table 3. Tests of Proposition 5: Interaction in Use of Inclusive

and Abstract Imagery
Analysis of Variance (model: inclusion 5 abstraction)
R-square F Value Pr . F
0.232 64.70 0.0001*
Least Squares Means Test

Pr(Ho):INCLSV(i) 5 INCLSV(j)
ABSTRCT INCLSV
Level Mean i/j 1 2 3 4
1 1.078 1 0.348 0.0001* 0.0001*
2 1.137 2 0.0001* 0.0001*
3 1.560 3 0.293
4 1.610 4
Notes: ABSTRCT 5 Level of abstraction (1 5 individual, 2 5 thing, 3 5 country, 4 5 world/ideals). INCLSV 5
Degree of inclusive language (1 5 non-inclusive, you, he, she, it, them; 2 5 inclusive, we, us, our).
* Significance tests attaining the level of 0.05 or better.
Figure 4. Nots by Year: Percent of Nots Used
phase having higher use of “nots” than the subsequent phases. The statistics in
Table 4 indicate that for all leaders, as a group, the third phase differed significantly
from the first two phases. Additionally, the leader-year means tests show that
this third-year difference arises because of the charismatic leaders. The difference
between Phase 1 and Phase 2 does not achieve statistical significance; in this regard
Proposition 2 is not fully supported. However, our general argument holds: Charis-
matic leaders used “nots” during the unfreezing and moving phases at a significantly
higher level than during the re-freezing phase, and their pattern of usage was
different from that of non-charismatic leaders.
Figures 6 and 7 show the pattern of leaders’ use of inclusive language in relation
to Propositions 6A and 6B. All leaders used inclusive language more during the
middle, moving phase, than the other two phases. The statistics in Table 5 support
the impression given by the figures. So the data strongly support Proposition 6A,
that charismatic leaders used more inclusive language in their middle phases than
in other phases. The data do not support Proposition 6B. However, charismatic
leaders in the sample did exhibit a more pronounced pattern in their use of inclusive
language than their non-charismatic counterparts.
Figures 8 and 9 show patterns of usage for high levels of abstraction (combined
levels 3 and 4).2 Here, the pattern for charismatic leaders is distinctly different than
Figure 5. Nots by Year: Percent of All Sentences
for non-charismatic leaders as predicted in Proposition 6B. Table 6 shows statistical

support for the level of abstraction arguments in Propositions 6A and 6B. The
analysis of variance shows significant relationships between abstraction, phase,
charisma and the interaction between phase and charisma. The combined means
tests show higher use of abstractions in the middle phase for all leaders. The
separated means tests show charismatic leaders followed the proposed pattern with
significantly higher levels of abstraction than non-charismatic leaders.
Overall, the propositions receive consistent and strong support from the data.
This sample suggests that leaders, in general, follow discernible, purposeful patterns
of discourse. While attempting social change, charismatic leaders appear to apply
different and more pronounced patterns of discourse than non-charismatic leaders.
These differences in rhetorical technique provide insights into how the charismatic
process works, and support our arguments about why followers attach themselves
to charismatic leaders and their causes.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

To date, the qualities and motives that define charismatic leadership have been as
elusive as those defining entrepreneurship. For decades, researchers have tried to
Table 4. Test of Proposition 2a

Analysis of Variance (Model: NOTS 5 PHASE 1 CHARM 1 PHASE*CHARM)
R-square F value Pr . F
0.023 2.97 0.012*
Type F
Source DF III SS Mean square value Pr . F
PHASE 2 1.503 0.751 5.48 0.004*
CHARM 1 0.026 0.026 0.19 0.665
PHASE*CHARM 2 0.840 0.420 3.07 0.047*
Least Squares Means Tests
All leaders combined
Pr(Ho): NOTS(i) 5 NOTS(j)
PHASE NOTS mean i/j 1 2 3
1 0.189 1 0.627 0.0022*
2 0.170 2 0.0103*
3 0.069 3
Leaders separated
Pr(Ho): NOTS(i) 5 NOTS(j)
NOTS
CHARM PHASE mean i/j 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 0.200 1 0.083 0.065 0.686 0.816 0.001*
0 2 0.126 2 0.924 0.356 0.121 0.045*
0 3 0.122 3 0.317 0.103 0.052
1 1 0.177 4 0.593 0.014*
1 2 0.213 5 0.003*
1 3 0.015 6
Notes: CHARM 5 code for charismatic leader, 0 5 non-charismatic, 1 5 charismatic. PHASE 5 sequence in
transformation (sequence of speech). NOTS 5 average number of times a president uses the word
“not” per sentence.
a
“NOTS” use will vary by charismatic/non-charismatic and by the phase of transformation.
identify the personality and characteristics that predispose individuals to be effective

agents of social change. The emphasis has been on leader motives and personality
characteristics as well as leader behaviors and their effects. The results have not
disclosed the psychological processes that explain why leaders of the neo-charismatic
paradigm have such extraordinary effects on followers and organizations. This study
has attempted to redirect attention to such psychological processes. The theoretical
framework emphasizes frame breaking for leaders and frame alignment for follow-
ers. It combines these into a process model of how the leader/follower interactions
can result in social change.
The empirical results of the study suggest that charismatic leaders employ a pre-
dictable, consistent set of linguistic techniques to break down, move, and re-align
certain beliefs of their followers. Specifically, the presidents of our sample employed
techniques of negation, inclusion, and abstraction more frequently during the middle
phase of their tenure as leaders than in the earlier and later phases. To explain
Figure 6. Inclusive Sentences by Year: Percentage of Inclusive Sentences Used
why these techniques are effective and how they operate, it is necessary to discuss
them within the larger context of social interaction. It is not possible to separate
the role of language from its social context. The power of language resides in its
potential to both reflect and shape social norms and attitudes. To discuss the
empirical results of this study, then, we must locate them within the broader context
of leaders’ strategic communications and follower responses to such communi-
cations.
Lewin’s (1951) field theory provided a framework for describing the phases of
social change. Though the theory suggests the general need for strategies of negation
for unfreezing, and strategies of affirmation for re-freezing, it offers little guidance
about how to operationalize and test the theory’s predictions. A semiotic framing
of the interactions of personal and social values allowed us to systematically trace
the dynamics of such a change process.
By identifying both personal and social components of a change process, semiotics
provided a basis for describing and explaining the interactions among the negating
and affirming aspects of a charismatic leader’s change strategy. Moreover, by high-
lighting the changing interactions of personal positive and negative motivators and
social values across the phases of social transformation, a semiotic perspective
Figure 7. Inclusive Sentences by Year: Percentage of All Sentences
suggested specific change strategies appropriate for different phases of the process.
For example, during the initial frame-breaking phase, a semiotic perspective argues
that the aim must be to neutralize individual ties of desire (fear) to a (non)conven-
tion, rather than to break down the convention itself. Following this perspective,
one would expect change strategies to include negation (frequent “nots”) that
focuses on particulars rather than universals (low levels of abstraction) and that
does not emphasize the inclusion of individuals in the collective (low levels of
inclusion).
The relative infrequency of abstract and inclusive language, combined with a
moderate degree of negation in the first year’s speeches of our charismatic presidents
(see Figs. 4–9), may thus reflect interrelated components of a more general strategy
aimed at loosening individual ties to a collective norm within the bounds of compati-
bility (see Table 1). Similarly, the reduced level of negation, abstraction, and inclu-
sion in the language of charismatic leaders in their final year of presidency, again
may reflect a coherent approach to the requirements of re-freezing attitudes and
norms: channeling personal motivators (already developed) in the desired direction.
According to our model and empirical results, the middle phase—frame mov-
ing—represents the most challenging and critical period of a social change process.
Our empirical results show that negation, inclusion, and abstraction all peaked

Analysis of Variance (Model: INCL 5 PHASE 1 CHARM 1 PHASE*CHARM)
R-square F value Pr . F
0.079 10.89 0.0001*
Type F
PHASE 2 8.970 4.485 21.36 0.0001*
CHARM 1 1.818 1.818 8.66 0.003
PHASE*CHARM 2 2.818 1.409 6.71 0.001*
Least Squares Means Test
All leaders combined (Proposition 6a)
INCLSV Pr(Ho): INCLSV(i) 5 INCLSV(j)

PHASE mean i/j 1 2 3
1 1.271 1 0.0001* 0.7780
2 1.554 2 0.0001*
3 1.285 3
Leaders separated (Proposition 6b)
Pr(Ho): INCLSV(i) 5 INCLSV(j)
INCLSV
0 1 1.300 1 0.05* 0.187 0.402 0.0001* 0.572
0 2 1.404 2 0.001* 0.019 0.0001* 0.336
0 3 1.231 3 0.871 0.0001* 0.112
1 1 1.242 4 0.0001* 0.236
1 2 1.705 5 0.0001
1 3 1.338 6
transformation (sequence of speech). INCLSV 5 Degree of inclusive language (1 5 non-inclusive, you, he,
she, it, them; 2 5 inclusive, we, us, our).
a
Inclusive imagery use will vary by charismatic/non-charismatic and by the phase of transformation.
during this period. The results are consistent with semiotic theory, which calls for
a negation or inversion of both personal (non-desire to desire) and social (conven-
tion to non-convention) values. The theory and data suggest that movement towards
a new compatible link between personal motivators and social norms requires the
simultaneous construction and destruction of what people know and believe. It
calls for a high level of negation combined with equally high levels of affirming
forms of identity and consensus building. The interdependence of negative and
positive aspects of change strategies follows Gambetta’s (1988) theory of trust
building: The greater the break from tradition, the greater the need for trust-
building activities.
LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study opens the door to a research agenda that to date has remained largely
unexplored. If charismatic leadership is about social transformation, whether trans-
Figure 8. Abstract Sentences by Year: Percentage of High Level

Sentences Used
formation of a nation’s or a corporation’s agenda, then it is time that we concentrate

on the processes underlying the effects of leader behaviors. The word “charisma”
derives from the Greek word for “gift.” We have for too long focused on trying to
identify and define the “gifted,” without recognizing that the “gift” of change agents
resides in their social interactions over time.
A redirection of research efforts toward a focus on the social processes underlying
charismatic leadership will require that we include characterizations of followers,
as well as leaders, into our models. The present study begins by testing a model of
leader communication strategies employed in effective change efforts. The commu-
nication model behaves consistently with our semiotic modeling of leader communi-
cation strategies and follower frame realignment. An important next step is to
incorporate empirical data concerning if, how, and when follower frames actually
shift during a change process.
This points to limitations of our empirical testing that need to be addressed in
future research. Following the lead of prior studies of charisma using U.S. presidents
(House et al., 1988, 1991; Winter & Stewart, 1977), we have assumed presidents
have general agendas (innovation or stability) that they convey through their public
Figure 9. Abstract Sentences: High Level as Percent of All
speeches. Testing our model in a wider variety of settings, in particular in settings

that might allow for more specific identification and tracking of values being ad-
dressed, will add to our understanding of the charismatic process. Also, other
settings would allow for larger sample sizes, greater variation in charisma (one
might argue that to some extent all U.S. presidents have been more charismatic
than the average leader) and a shift from dichotomous to continuous measures of
charisma.
Focusing on charisma as a social process will also require that we develop addi-
tional dimensions of leader/follower interactions. In this study, we focused on the
role of three communication techniques—negation, abstraction, and inclusion—
because they correspond closely to the change strategies of negation and consensus
building suggested by our model. Other communication techniques (e.g., feedback
processes, active versus passive forms of communication, use of communication
media) may be critical as well. Moreover, the research agenda needs to be broadened
to include nonverbal forms of leader/follower interchange.
Our model offers an alternative explanation for the well-documented phenome-
non of charismatic leaders’ frequent use of the word “not.” In its primary grammati-
cal role, “not” negates a word or a group of words. The results of this study suggest

Analysis of Variance (Model: ABSTRACTION 5 PHASE 1 CHARM 1 PHASE*CHARM)
R-square F Value Pr . F
0.174 26.83 0.0001*
Type F
PHASE 2 31.311 15.656 21.61 0.0001*
CHARM 1 66.916 66.916 92.36 0.0001*
PHASE*CHARM 2 8.508 4.254 5.87 0.0030*
Least Squares Means Tests
All Leaders Combined (Proposition 6A)
ABSTRCT Pr(Ho): ABSTRCT(i) 5 ABSTRCT(j)

PHASE mean i/j 1 2 3
1 2.748 1 0.0002* 0.0068*
2 3.095 2 0.0001*
3 2.504 3
Leaders Separated (Proposition 6B)
Pr(Ho): ABSTRCT(i) 5 ABSTRCT(j)
ABSTRCT
0 1 2.400 1 0.063 0.311 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.015*
0 2 2.583 2 0.004* 0.001* 0.0001* 0.323
0 3 2.301 3 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.001*
1 1 3.097 4 0.001* 0.010*
1 2 3.607 5 0.0001*
1 3 2.708 6
transformation (sequence of speech). ABSTRCT 5 Level of abstraction (1 5 individual, 2 5
thing, 3 5 country, 4 5 world/ideals).
a
Levels of abstraction imagery use will vary by charismatic/non-charismatic and by the phase of transformation.
that negation may serve the rhetorical functions of unfreezing and moving attitudes
and values, rather than indicating personal restraint (McClelland, 1975, 1985). An
important contribution of this study, however, lies in its portrayal of “nots” as only
one component of a systematic strategy for generating social change. It suggests
that a comprehensive view of the processes that define charisma is more enlightening
than is research based on single components of the process (such as the use of
“nots”) in isolation. It also suggests that future studies should expand beyond the
much studied “not” and look at other forms of negation (“neither/nor,” “no,”
“none,” “however,” “but,” . . .).
Finally, the theoretical framework and results of this study provide a forceful
argument that charismatic leadership is a dynamic process that is impossible to
capture in a single snapshot. The effectiveness of change strategies at one point in
a leader’s tenure depends importantly on preceding leader/follower interactions.
Further progress in our understanding of this important phenomenon will be sub-
stantially enhanced if we recognize the interactive elements of the charismatic

process over time.
APPENDIX A
Presidents in Study
Rated as charismatic:
T. Roosevelt
F. Roosevelt
J. Kennedy
R. Reagan
Rated as non-charismatic (or unrated):
W. Taft
W. Wilson
C. Coolidge
H. Hoover
H. Truman
D. Eisenhower
L. Johnson
R. Nixon
G. Ford
J. Carter
Presidential Speeches Coded

T. Roosevelt - First Annual Message to Congress December 3, 1901
- In Chicago, Illinois. April 2, 1903
- Fourth Annual Message to Congress December 6, 1904
W. Taft - Address to Joint Session of Congress June 16, 1909
- Annual Message to Congress December 5, 1911
- Special Message to Congress January 17, 1912
W. Wilson - Inaugural Address March 4, 1913
- Annual Address to Congress December 8, 1914
- Special Message to Congress August 29, 1916
C. Coolidge - First Annual Message to Congress December 6, 1923
- Inaugural Address March 4, 1925
- Fourth Annual Message to Congress December 7, 1926
H. Hoover - Inaugural Address March 4, 1929
- Statement to Press on Income Tax Revenues April 5, 1930
- Statement to Press on Hoarding of Currency February 3,
1932
F. Roosevelt - Address before the Pan American Union April 23, 1933
- Address on Armistice Day November 11, 1935

- Address to Congress January 3, 1936
H. Truman - Address to Joint Session of Congress April 16, 1945
- Statement to Press on Demobilization January 8, 1946
- Special Message to Congress February 9, 1948
D. Eisenhower - Remarks to Committee for Economic Development May
20, 1954
- Statement on Mutual Security 1955
- Special Message to Congress 1956.
J. Kennedy - Inaugural Address January 20, 1961
- News Conference February 2, 1962
- Statement to Press April 11, 1963
L. Johnson - Annual Message to Congress January 8, 1964
- Special Message to Congress May 8, 1965
- Remarks upon Signing the Economic Report January 27,
1966
R. Nixon - News Conference March 14, 1969
- Statement to Press March 15, 1971
- Statement upon Signing the Education Amendments June
23, 1972
G. Ford - Remarks on Taking the Oath of Office August 9, 1974
- Annual Budget Message to Congress February 3, 1975
- Statement on Signing the Income Tax Reform Bill Sep-
tember 6, 1976
J. Carter - Statement to Press April 7, 1977
- Statement to Press February 1, 1978
- Remarks at a White House Briefing January 10, 1980
R. Reagan - Statement to Press June 19, 1981
- Remarks to Press September 2, 1983
- Address to Nation July 7, 1984
Appendix B
Samples of Speeches Coded
The following two samples illustrate the nature of the coding used to analyze
presidential speeches. These samples include additional annotation (beyond what
the coders used) to help the reader understand how the codes were applied.
Codes:
1. The logical sentences are numbered in square brackets [n] at the beginning
of the sentence. A logical sentence was a complete grammatical sentence,
or a section of the speech separated by a dash (“-”) or by a semicolon (“;”).
Logical sentences were the unit of measure for grouping utterances regarding
“nots,” inclusions, and level of abstraction.
2. Nots are set in bold. The number of nots were counted for each logical
sentence (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3).
3. For inclusive properties the coders searched for a definitive pronoun (“I,
me, we, our, us, etc.) to determine if a sentence included the listeners our
excluded them. The absence of a definitive pronoun usually indicated the
speaker did not include the listener actively in the utterance. The coders
used an “A” (for associative) or “D” (for disassociative) placed in brackets
{} near the definitive pronoun (if no definitive pronoun the code and a brief
description is placed at the end of the sentence.) For added identification,
the key determinant has been underlined here.
4. The definitive phrase for determining the level of abstraction is highlighted
in italics followed by the level of abstraction in parentheses (L1 5 individual,
a person or place; L2 5 a particular thing such as the agenda or congress
or a bill; L3 5 the country; L4 5 the world or human ideals such as peace,
justice, or freedom), also in italic. If a sentence contains ambiguous or dual
levels of abstraction, the higher level of abstraction is used.
Sample 1—John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address January 20, 1961 (first twelve
sentences):
[1]. {A} observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom (L4)-
[2] symbolizing an end as well as a beginning (L4) {no definitive pronoun, implied
“it”-D}-[3] signifying renewal as well as change (L4) {implied “it”-D}. [4] For I have
sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath (L3—the oath is the
oath of our country’s leaders) our {A} forebears prescribed nearly a century and
three quarters ago.
[5] The world (L4) is very different now {D}. [6] For man holds in his mortal
hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life
(L4) {D}. [7] And yet the same revolutionary beliefs (L4) for which our {A} forebears
fought are still at issue around the globe-[8] the belief that the rights of man {L4}
come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.{D}
[9] We {A} dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution
(L3). [10] Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike,
that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans (L4) {D}-[11] born
in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by hard and bitter peace, proud of
our (A) ancient heritage (L3-the whole sentence is about American experience and
values)-[12] and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human
rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we {A} are
committed today at home and around the world (L4).
Sample 2-Lyndon B. Johnson, First Annual Message to Congress on the State
of the Union-January 8, 1964. (first ten sentences):
[1] I will be brief, for our {A-the collective addressed in the congress) time is
necessarily short and our agenda (L2) is already long.
[2] Last year’s congressional session (L2) was the longest in peacetime history.{D}
[3] With that foundation let us {A} work together to make this year’s session the
best in the Nation’s history. (L3)
[4] Let this session of congress be known as the session which did more for civil
rights (L4) that the last hundred sessions combined {D}; [5] as the session which
enacted the most far-reaching tax cut (L2) of our {A} time; [6] as the session which
declared all-out war on human poverty and unemployment (L4) in these United
States {D}; [7] as the session which finally recognized the health needs (L2) of our
{A} older citizens; [8] as the session which reformed our {A} tangled transportation
and transit policies (L2); [9] as the session which achieved the most effective,
efficient, foreign aid program (L2) ever {D}; [10] and as the session which helped
to build more homes, more schools, more libraries, and more hospitals (L2) than
any single session in the history of our {A} Republic.
NOTES
1. Why only 20th century presidents? Presidential researchers contend that the 20th century
presidency varied in three important ways from the pre-20th century presidency. First,
the style of language changed in the 20th century. Pre-20th century presidents used more
flowery language, as well as more subordinated and conditional language (differences
based on Flesch index significant at the 0.0001 level). Second, the United States ended
a period of isolationism, joining in international affairs. Finally, mass media changed
the speed, means, and reach of presidential communications, allowing them to reach
national audiences rapidly and simultaneously.
Why only through Ronald Reagan? We wished to replicate the 20th century sample
of presidents used in the House et al. (1991) and the Spangler and House (1991) studies.
2. The lower levels of abstraction (1 and 2) create an inverse pattern of the higher levels.
REFERENCES
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership performance beyond expectations. New York: Academic Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper &
Row.
Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. (1988). Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological and
structural approach. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim
(Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 11–28). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Burns, G. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647.
Curphy, G. J. (1992). An empirical investigation of the effects of transformational and
transactional leadership on organizational climate, attrition, and performance. In
K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. R. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of Leadership.(pp. 177–187)
Greensboro, NC: The Center for Creative Leadership.
Dow, T. E. (1969). The theory of charisma. Sociology Quarterly, 10, 306–318.
Eco, U. (1979). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communi-
cation Monographs, 51, 227–242.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1968). Max Weber: On charisma and institution building. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.
Fiol, C. M. (1989). A semiotic analysis of corporate language: Organizational boundaries

and joint venturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 277–303.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Gartner, W. B., & Low, M. (1990). Trust as an organizing trope. Unpublished paper presented
at the Academy of Management meeting, San Francisco, August.
Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. (1994). Transformationale fuehrung, klassische fuehrungs-
theorien und erfolgsindikatoren von bankbetrieben. Zeitschrift fuer Betriebswirtschaft,
64(8), 961–979.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Greimas, A. J., & Rastier, F. (1968). The interaction of semiotic constraints. Yale French
Studies: Game, Play, Literature, 41, 86–105.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Supervisors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions
of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, Il: Southern Illinois
University Press.
House, R. J., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, A., Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., & Dickson, M.
(1998). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W.
Mobley (Ed.), Advances in Global Leadership. Stamford, CT: JAI Press (in press).
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S.
presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36(3), 364–396.
House, R. J., Woycke, J., & Fodor, E. M. (1988). Charismatic and noncharismatic leaders:
Differences in behavior and effectiveness. In J. R. Conger & R. Kanungo (Eds.),
Charismatic leadership (pp. 98–121) San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-
unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2), 243–269.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 317–341.
Javidan, M., & Carl, D. (1997). Motivational consequences of charismatic leadership: An
empirical investigation. Working paper, School of Business Administration, University
of Calgary.
Koene, H., Pennings, H., & Schreuder, M. (1993). Leadership, culture, and organizational
effectiveness. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), The Impact of Leadership (pp.
215–223). Greensboro NC: The Center for Creative Leadership.
Koh, W. L., Terborg, J. R., & Steers, R. M. (1991). The impact of transformational leaders
on organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, teacher satisfaction
and student performance in Singapore. Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Manage-
ment Meeting, August.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 40 (July), 812–825.
McClelland, D. C., Davis, W. V., Kalin, R., & Wanner, E. (1972). The drinking man: Alcohol
and human motivation. New York: Free Press.
Meindl, J. R. (1992). Reinventing leadership: A radical, social psychological approach. In
J.K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and
research (pp. 89–118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Messallam, A., & House, R. J. (1997). A test of the neo-charismatic theory of leadership
based on Egyptian CEOs. In process.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader. California Manage-
ment Review, 32(2), 77–97.
Pereria, D. (1987). Factors associated with transformational leadership in an Indian engi-
neering firm. Paper presented at the Administrative Science Association of Canada.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1991). The effects of a crisis on the emergence of charismatic
leadership: A laboratory study. Best Paper Proceedings (pp. 235–239). Miami, FL:
Academy of Management.
Roberts, N. C. (1985). Transforming leadership: A process of collective action. Human
Relations, 38, 1023–1046.
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. A. Kanungo (Eds.), Charis-
matic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp.122–160). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Searle, S. R., Speed, T., & Milliken, G. A. (1980). Population marginal means in the linear
model: An alternative to least squares means. The American Statistician, 34, 216–221.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self concept based on theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.
Simonton, D. K. (1987). Presidential style: Personality, biography, and performance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 928–936.
Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment
processes, micromobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Re-
view, 51, 464–481.
Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive
profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 439–455.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement
organizations. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (pp. 113–164). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Waldman, D., Ramirez, G., & House, R. J. (1998). The effects of CEO charismatic leader
behavior on firm profits under conditions of perceived environmental certainty and un-
certainty: A longitudinal investigation. Working paper, Reginald Jones Center for Stra-
tegic Management, The Wharton School of Management, University of Pennsylvania.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (A.M. Henderson, T. Par-
sons (Trans.), & T. Parsons (Eds.)), New York: Free Press (Original work published 1922).
Willner, A. R. (1984). The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Winter, D. G., & Stewart, A. J. (1977). Power motive reliability as a function of retest
instruction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 436–440.
Yukl, G. A. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Charismatic Leadership Social Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charismatic Leadership Social Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP: STRATEGIES

FOR EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE

Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 449–482.

A REVIEW OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP RESEARCH

THE MOTIVATIONAL UNDERPINNINGS OF

motivational forces of self-expression, self-consistency, self-esteem, and self-worth.

Leader Motives: Frame Breaking

Integrating Leader/Follower Motivations

A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO STUDY CHARISMATIC EFFECTIVENESS

The Structure of Meaning

Figure 1. Social Value Structure

the dominant value (non-innovation makes convention possible). Understanding

The Social Structure of Values

Figure 2. Personal Value Structure

The Personal Substructure of Values

FRAME BREAKING, MOVING, AND RE-ALIGNING

Frame Breaking (Unfreezing)

Figure 3. Value Transformation Strategies

Frame Re-aligning (Re-freezing)

COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE

Proposition 2A. During a transformation, charismatic leaders will use the

Inclusion and Consensus Building

Proposition 3. Charismatic leaders will use more inclusive language than

Second, effective change agents enlarge the boundaries of their discourse by

Proposition 4. Charismatic leaders will communicate at higher levels of ab-

Inclusive language and abstract representation are rhetorical techniques that

Proposition 6A. During a transformation, charismatic leaders will use higher

Table 1. Communication Strategies for Effecting Social Change

Coding Communication Acts

orientations of others (Etzioni, 1961). As a result we can identify charismatic leaders

1. Have a high degree of loyalty, commitment, and devotion to the leader;

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Table 2. Tests of Propositions 3 and 4: Comparison of Group

Table 3. Tests of Proposition 5: Interaction in Use of Inclusive

Least Squares Means Test

Figure 4. Nots by Year: Percent of Nots Used

Figure 5. Nots by Year: Percent of All Sentences

for non-charismatic leaders as predicted in Proposition 6B. Table 6 shows statistical

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Table 4. Test of Proposition 2a

identify the personality and characteristics that predispose individuals to be effective

Figure 6. Inclusive Sentences by Year: Percentage of Inclusive Sentences Used

Figure 7. Inclusive Sentences by Year: Percentage of All Sentences

Table 5. Test of Proposition 6a

INCLSV Pr(Ho): INCLSV(i) 5 INCLSV(j)

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Figure 8. Abstract Sentences by Year: Percentage of High Level

formation of a nation’s or a corporation’s agenda, then it is time that we concentrate

Figure 9. Abstract Sentences: High Level as Percent of All

speeches. Testing our model in a wider variety of settings, in particular in settings

Table 6. Test of Proposition 6a

ABSTRCT Pr(Ho): ABSTRCT(i) 5 ABSTRCT(j)

stantially enhanced if we recognize the interactive elements of the charismatic

Rated as non-charismatic (or unrated):

Presidential Speeches Coded

- Address on Armistice Day November 11, 1935

Fiol, C. M. (1989). A semiotic analysis of corporate language: Organizational boundaries

You might also like