Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness - Statistical Data Included

Administrative Science Quarterly, Sept, 2001 by Cynthia G. Emrich, Holly H. Brower, Jack M. Feldman, Howard Garland

**********

We analyzed two sets of U.S. presidents' speeches to determine whether their propensities to convey images in words were linked to perceptions of their charisma and greatness. As predicted, presidents who engaged in more image-based rhetoric in their inaugural addresses were rated higher in charisma (Study 1). Presidents who engaged in more image-based rhetoric in speeches that historians considered their most significant ones were rated higher in both charisma and greatness (Study 2). Together, these findings suggest that the successful articulation and enactment of a leader's vision may rest on his or her ability to paint followers a verbal picture of what can be accomplished with their help.

The ability to articulate a compelling vision of a bright future is the sine qua non of charisma and greatness, two key outcomes for leaders. Charisma has been described as a magical ability (Etzioni, 1961), a certain personality characteristic (Weber, 1947), and a powerful aura (Willner, 1984). Though descriptions of charisma abound, there is consensus that charismatic leaders inspire followers "to perform above and beyond the call of duty" (House, Spangler, and Woycke, 1991: 364) by appealing to their emotions and enduring motives rather than by controlling their access to material rewards and resources. Greatness has been described as successful performance (Murray and Blessing, 1983, 1994) and general prestige or reputation (Maranell, 1970). In practice, it has been operationalized quite simply as "performance in office, omitting everything done before or after" (Bailey, 1966: 24). Much is known about charisma and greatness. Less is known, however, about how leaders articulate vision that is sufficiently compelling to evoke attributions of charisma and greatness among their followers.

House and Shamir (1993) examined eight theories of charismatic, visionary, and transformational leadership with the goa of distilling them into a single, overarching theory of charisma. Eleven behavioral dimensions emerged from this examination, but only one--visionary behavior--was represented in all eight theories. Visionary behavior involves the articulation of "an ideological goal ... that emphasizes fundamental values such as beauty, order, honesty, dignity, and human rights" (House and Shamir, 1993: 97). The skillful use of rhetoric is believed to be critical to the charismatic leader's visionary behavior (House, 1977; Conger and Kanungo, 1987, 1988; House and Shamir, 1993; Gardner and Avolio, 1998).

Willner (1984: 152) conducted case studies of world-class charismatic leaders and concluded that Biblical imagery, metaphors, folk tales, rhyme, and repetition were critical to their "rhetorical spellbinding" (see also Conger, 1991; Den Hartog and Verburg, 1997). Shamir, Arthur, and House (1994) proposed that charismatic leaders inspire extraordinary commitment and devotion by including many references to a collective's history and tradition, their own identification with followers, shared values and moral justifications, and so forth. Most recently, Fiol, Harris, and House (1999) discovered that charismatic leaders engage more frequently in inclusive language and in language that accommodates multiple interpretations than do their non-charismatic counterparts. Taken together, these studies demonstrate the link between leaders' use of various rhetorical techniques and perceptions of their charisma.

Studies of charisma emphasize the strong emotional and affective bond between leaders and followers. Studies of greatness, in contrast, emphasize achievement. Leaders who share a strong emotional bond with their followers are not necessarily the same leaders who effect great change. For example, Winter (1987) found that the most popular presidents were ones whose achievement, affiliation, and power motivations mirrored the prototypical motivations of their times, whereas the greatest presidents were ones who possessed the strongest power motivation. An important implication of these findings is that greatness and charisma are not fully overlapping constructs. Indeed, empirical measures of charisma (Simonton, 1988) and greatness (Murray and Blessing, 1983) are only moderately correlated.

Schlesinger (1948, 1962) conducted the first systematic studies of greatness by asking historians, journalists, and political scientists to rate each U.S. president on a scale with endpoints ranging from "Great" to "Failure." Although criticized as being too simplistic and as failing to survey a sufficiently broad sample of scholars, Schlesinger's findings have been replicated several times (Maranell, 1970; Murray and Blessing, 1983; Smith et al., 2000). In each study, the same four presidents have been deemed "Great" (Lincoln, Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, and Jefferson), and the same two to three presidents have been deemed "Failures" (Grant, Harding, and, more recently, Nixon).

Presidential greatness, like charisma, is a broad construct, and recent investigations have focused similarly on decomposing it into more manageable components (Maranell, 1970; Murray and Blessing, 1983; Smith et al., 2000). Murray and Blessing (1983, 1994) surveyed 846 American historians, asking them to rate Presidents Washington through Carter on the same "Great" to "Failure" continuum used in previous studies. They then examined historians' responses to questions on presidential background and administration to gain insight into the factors underlying their ratings. Presidential background characteristics such as age, education, appearance, religion, occupation, and prior political experience appeared unrelated to greatness. In contrast, numerous historians wrote that they considered "presidential personality and character" to be critical requisites. When Murray and Blessing compared presidents' personalities (as described by historians and biographers), however, they discovered so much variation among th e personalities of even the "Great" presidents that they looked for other factors that could explain historians' assessments. When Murray and Blessing (1994: 58; emphasis added) examined the major roles undertaken by U.S. presidents, they discovered that the role of symbolic spokesman for the nation rivaled foreign-policy planner and domestic-policy initiator in historians' estimations of what mattered most: "the president's ability to set the national agenda and then point the public in that direction through the skillful use of imagery and rhetoric was often the first step along the road to ensuring himself a solid place in history." They cautioned, however, that no president was deemed "Great" or "Near Great" unless his "excellent use of rhetoric ... was accompanied by solid achievements" (p. 59).