Description
Case Study on Presidential Leadership, Perceived Leader Effectiveness, and Contextual Influences:- A president is a leader of an organization, company, community, club, trade union, university, country, a division or part of any of these, or, more generally, anything else.
Case Study on Presidential Leadership, Perceived Leader Effectiveness, and Contextual In?uences
Abstract:This study investigates the influence of crisis on leader use of charismatic rhetoric. We examine leader charismatic rhetoric across two major crises, longitudinally exploring potential long-term influences of charismatic rhetoric on perceptions of leader effectiveness. Using an inductive approach to theory generation, we draw upon findings from the data analysis of eight charismatic rhetoric constructs (collective focus, temporal orientation, followers' worth, similarity to followers, values and moral justifications, tangibility, action, and adversity) to advance propositions regarding potential time and ceiling effects of charismatic rhetorical leadership on followers. Additionally, we discuss the relationships between characteristics of the crisis and the use of charismatic rhetorical leadership. In doing so, we identify potential boundary conditions for the use of charismatic rhetoric (as an element of charismatic leadership) within the context of different crises.
The presence of a crisis has long been discussed as one of the primary determinants of the emergence of charismatic leadership (Pillai& Meindl, 1998; Trice & Beyer, 1986). Extending back to Weber's introduction of the construct, the necessary conditions for charismatic leadership emergence have been posited to include: 1) a person who possesses extraordinary gifts; 2) a crisis or time of distress; 3) a revolutionary solution to the crisis; 4) followers who believe in the person and who are attracted to the miraculous qualities of the person; and 5) validation of the person's gifts through repeated successes (Trice& Beyer, 1986; Weber, 1947, 1968; Willner, 1984). More recently, scholarly disagreement about the necessity of a crisis as a prerequisite for charismatic leadership has arisen . Trice and Beyer (1986) maintain a strict adherence to the Weberian concept of charisma, and, as such, hold that a crisis must be present in order for the leader to be attributed charisma. Several studies provide empirical support for the posited linkages between crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership (e.g., Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004a,b; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Pillai, 1996). Other scholars view crisis as a facilitating but unnecessary requirement for charismatic leadership to emerge (Boal& Bryson, 1988; Halverson, Murphy, & Riggio, 2004; Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999). Additional studies support the argument that charismatic leadership can develop outside of crises (Halverson et al., 2004; Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Still others have found a negative relationship between charismatic leadership and crisis situations (Bligh, Kohles, & Pillai, 2005; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Williams, Pillai, Lowe, Jung, & Herst, 2009). The findings of the current body of empirical work investigating crisis as a contextual antecedent of charismatic leadership are equivocal, suggesting that the relationship between crisis and charisma is particularly complex (Pillai& Meindl, 1998). In a recent
919
review of the charismatic leadership literature, Walter and Bruch (2009) found that contextual influences such as the leaders' positional, social, organizational, and national environment, along with crisis situations, have received insufficient research. Hence, additiona l work is needed to better understand the role that crisis plays in the emergence of charismatic leadership. Previous research has investigated charismatic rhetorical leadership within the context of a single crisis (e.g., Bligh & Kohles, 2009; Bligh et al., 2004a,b). We build upon and extend the work of Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b) by answering their call for the study of environmental turbulence as a contextual factor which influences leader use of charismatic rhetoric and subsequent follower reactions. Adopting a longitudinal approach, we examine the use of charismatic rhetorical leadership across two different crises. Specifically, we investigate the extent to which charismatic rhetoric is associated with crisis, whether charismatic rhetoric may differ according to the type of crisis, and the degree to which it is related to follower ratings of leader effectiveness. Our research makes three primary contributions to the literature. First, we add to the scholarly debate about the degree to which crisis is an antecedent for charismatic leadership by considering the patterns of leader charismatic rhetoric across different crises. Doing so enables us to advance a deeper understanding of the dynamic relationship between crisis and the emergence of charismatic rhetorical leadership. Second, by examining a single leader's charismatic rhetoric across two major crises, wehighlight potential follower effects of charismatic rhetoric in the form of perceptions of leader effectiveness. Third, we adopt an inductive approach to theory generation (Locke, 2007) to advance original propositions that are derived from the data analysis; these propositions extend charismatic leadership theory by delineating potential boundary conditions (Bacharach, 1989) for the use of charismatic rhetorical leadership within the context of crises. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. Charismatic rhetorical leadership The term charismatic leadership stems from Weber's (1947, 1968) notion of charismatic authority. Using the adjectives exceptional, supernatural, and magical, along with nouns like hero, prophet, and savior, Weber described charismatic authority as deriving from the possession and public exhibition of unique and spellbinding qualities (Willner, 1984). Since Weber, researchers have shown that these qualities appeal to followers and elicit a fervid following, inspiring followers to forsake their own self - interests and go beyond the call of duty, resulting in increased follower effort, satisfaction, and performance (Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999; House et al., 1991; House, Woycke, & Fodor, 1988). Through such outcomes, charismatic leadership during times of crisis can be used to incite follower social action and promote social change when it is desperately needed (Seyranian& Bligh, 2008). Our view of charismatic leadership is based upon conceptualizations of charisma advanced by Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b), Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993), Trice and Beyer (1986), and Weber (1947, 1968). Thus, we hold that charismatic leadership is emergent during times of crisis, is rooted in a relationship between the leader and followers, and as a result, produces desired motivational effects on follo wers, such that followers will pursue the leader's vision and objectives (Beyer& Browning, 1999; Shamir, 1995; Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Shamir et al., 1993; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). Therefore, we adopt House and Shamir's (1993: 86) definition of charismatic leadership as "an interaction between leaders and followers [during or after a crisis situation] that results in 1) making the followers' self-esteem contingent on the vision and mission articulated by the leader, 2) a strong internalization of the leader's values and goals by the followers, 3) a strong personal or moral?commitment to these values and goals, and 4) a willingness on the part of followers to transcend their self-interests for the sake of the collective. " A part of the charismatic relationship between leaders and followers involves the leader's communications to the followers; this includes the delivery and presentation of the leader's speeches as well as the content of those speeches (Bligh et al., 2004a). Previous empirical work has demonstrated that the strength of the leader's delivery and a charismatic communication style (e.g., verbal elements such as a captivating tone of voice and nonverbal elements including animated facial expressions, a confident interaction style, and di rect eye contact) are related to follower perceptions of leader charisma (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). In the present study we focus on the content of the leader's speeches. Such content has been argued to not only communicate the leader's vision but also to be instrumental in fostering follower acceptance and commitment to that vision (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Shamir et al., 1994). Charismatic leaders use rhetoric to influence followers by: 1) increasing the intrinsic value of effort expended by followers in the pursuit of goals; 2) increasing their self-efficacy and collective-efficacy perceptions; 3) increasing their intrinsic value of goal accomplishment; 4) instilling faith in a better future; and 5) increasing followers' commitment (Shamir et al., 1993, 1994). Together these motivational effects exert their influence by appealing to elements of followers' self-concepts including self-expression, self-consistency, and the enhancement of self-esteem and self-worth (Shamir et al., 1993, 1994). Charismatic leaders appeal to followers through their rhetoric by incorporating the following elements into their speeches: 1) references to history and tradition; 2) an emphasis on the collective identity; 3) reinforcement of the collective efficacy; 4) a focus on the leader's similarity to the followers; 5) discussion of values and moral justifications; 6) references to hope and faith; and 7) appeals to the followers' self-efficacy (Bligh& Kohles, 2008; Bligh et al., 2004a,b; Shamir et al., 1993, 1994; Tan & Wee, 2002). To explore the motivational effects of charismatic rhetoric on followers as posited by Shamir et al. (1993), Bligh and colleagues (Bligh& Hess, 2007; Bligh & Kohles, 2008; Bligh et al., 2004a,b; Seyranian & Bligh, 2008) used the content analysis software, DICTION (Hart, 1999), to operationalize the rhetorical elements of charismatic leadership into eight dictionary-based constructs. In this study, we employ the same operationalization of charismatic rhetoric to analyze the content of Pres ident George W. Bush's speeches during two different crises. Hence, both the theoretical underpinnings (Shamir et al., 1993) and the methodological approach (content analysis) of the current study differ markedly from those reflected by questionnaire -based
920
operationalizations of charismatic (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000) and transformational (Bass& Avolio, 1993) leadership. A description of each rhetorical element of charismatic leadership and its proposed effects on followers is provided in Table 1. 2.2. Charismatic rhetorical leadership in times of crisis A crisis is defined as "a serious threat to the basic structures or the fundamental values and norms of a system, which under time pressure and highly uncertain circumstances necessitates making critical decisions " (Rosenthal, Charles, & t' Hart, 1989: 10). The defining features of a crisis are the threat and inconceivability of the situation (Rosenthal, Boin, & Comfort, 2001). In fact, the perception of a serious and credible threat is considered to be the "requisite feature of all crisis events " (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 2003: 8). Several characteristics assist in defining a crisis; they include the cause, the locus of responsibility, the emergency response, the size, and the length of the crisis (Heath& Millar, 2004). However, urgency and surprise set the crisis apart, and thus make it a dynamic process that disturbs the status quo. The causes of a crisis stem from a combination of environmental flux, organizational failure, and individual mistakes, due to a lack of foresight or a breakdown in decisional vigilance (Rosenthal et al., 2001). Categories of crisis include economic catastrophes such as a stock market crash, psychopathic acts such as terrorism, and natural disasters including earthquakes, hurricanes, or explosions (Mitroff, 2004). Since the two crises of interest in this research, the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina, fall under these major categories, and because heightened threat levels emerged during each incident, it is clear that these events can be classified as crises. Crisis rhetoric is defined by Kiewe (1994) as "the discourse initiated by decision makers in an attempt to communicate to various constituents that a certain development is critical and to suggest a certain course of action to remedy the critical situation" (p. 17). When a leader uses crisis rhetoric, he/she legitimizes the crisis, provides relevant information to followers regarding the circumstances, calls on followers to assist or support his/her proposed solutions to the crisis, and inspires them to work ha rder to achieve the group's mission or goals. 2.3. Research questions An example of a leader's use of rhetoric during crisis and its influence on followers is provided by President George W. Bush's communications following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. Two studies have examined President Bush's charismatic rhetorical leadership during this crisis (Bligh et al., 2004a,b; Hicks, 2005). Using computerized content analysis of President Bush's major speeches both before and after September 11th, Bligh and associates (2004a,b) found that the President's rhetoric increased in charisma post-crisis in comparison to pre-crisis levels. Bligh et al. (2004a) also analyzed President Bush's approval ratings during the same time period. Nationwide polls conducted by top polling organizations showed unusually high approval
Table 1 Characteristics of charismatic rhetoric and their effects on followers. Characteristic of charismatic rhetoric References to history and tradition Overview of characteristic Charismatic leaders will reference their common past with their followers (Shamir et al., 1994) and use a temporal orientation to bring present actions and future goals together. Charismatic leaders will use more inclusive language (Fiol et al., 1999) in order to create and crystallize the "common ground" that the followers and the leaders share. Charismatic leaders point out the benefits of joining together and sharing an identity; they mention the strength that comes from working together (Shamir et al., 1994). Charismatic leaders appeal to their followers by pointing out the similarities in their backgrounds and experiences (Shamir et al., 1994). Specifically, charismatic leaders use word choices that place them on the same level, demonstrate familiarity and commonality, or reference human-interest topics (Bligh et al., 2004a). Charismatic leaders reference the dominant social values of the followers (Shamir& Howell, 1999). Effects on followers Sense of meaningfulness of the actions and goals articulated by the leader.
An emphasis on the collective identity
Raises followers' identity salience so as to link the needed action-steps to the identity (Shamir et al., 1994). Builds a bond of familiarity and solidarity among followers (Hicks, 2005).
Reinforcement of the collective efficacy
A focus on the leader's identification with the followers
The leader builds trust with the followers and gains the followers' acceptance of his/her mission (Conger& Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1994; Tan & Wee, 2002).
References to values and moral justifications
References to hope and faith
References to followers' self-efficacy
Charismatic leaders will employ imagery or metaphors to appeal to the followers and provide them with hope for the future (Shamir et al., 1994). Charismatic leaders may express confidence in their followers as a whole in order to empower them to work toward the institutional goals (Tan& Wee, 2002).
Raises the followers' interest and awareness of the institutional goals by bridging the goals and the actions needed to reach those goals with the motivation of congruent and shared values and morals with the leader (Shamir& Howell, 1999). Inspires followers by faith and hope to pursue the vision of the leader (Shamir et al., 1994). Followers continue to work toward the goals discussed by the leader (Shamir et al., 1994).
921
ratings post-September 11th that were sustained for many months. Bligh et al. (2004a) conclude that, taken together, the President's increased use of charismatic rhetoric coupled with high approval of his handling of the crisis "may have transformed the relationships between the President and the U.S. citizenry toward something that is, by degree, more heavily grounded in charismatic leadership processes than was the case before the crisis " (p. 228). Hence, charismatic rhetorical leadership may be a product of the crisis, the leader, and the followers, such that the particular amalgamation of these factors influences the emergence and level of charismatic leadership. Bligh et al. (2004a: 228) elaborate on this point: The evolution of Bush's rhetoric after the 9/11 crisis represents a compelling case of how leaders can utilize language to ga lvanize support for overarching causes ?Within the context of a threatening crisis, when followers feel an acute desire for a charismatically appealing leader, and when a leader adopts a more charismatic style of rhetorical communication ? surely, the possibilities for the emergence of charismatic leadership are enhanced. Since Bligh and colleagues' (2004a,b) research suggests that the crisis, leader, and followers jointly influence the use of charismatic rhetorical leadership, we explored this interaction by expanding their analysis to include presidential rhetoric across two different types of crises. Thus, this study addresses the following research questions: 1. When a leader has to deal with multiple crises, to what extent does the leader use charismatic rhetoric across time? 2. If charismatic rhetoric is sustained across time, what follower outcomes (such as perceived leader effectiveness) are associated with the continued use of charismatic crisis rhetoric? 3. Is the type of crisis related to the leader's use of charismatic rhetoric and/or to follower perceptions of leader effectiveness associated with that rhetoric? 3. Method 3.1. Sample Our sample included 124 of President George W. Bush's major speeches and radio addresses delivered during the six months prio r to and the six months following two different crises: the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina. Appendix A includes a complete listing of the titles, dates, and types of speeches included in the sample. The speeches were obtained from the White House's official website (http://www.whitehouse.gov). They were divided into 500 word segments to control for their relative length. The speech segments containing less than 100 words were not considered in the analysis, so the speeches ranged in length from 101 to 500 words. After applying these inclusion criteria, our final sample contained a total of 251 passages. We selected speeches for inclusion according to the same selection process employed by Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b). Each speech was defined as a major speech if it was either termed a major speech according to the White House website or was delivered to a prime time audience with the intention of addressing a large number of Americans (Bligh et al., 2004a,b). Also, the President's radio addresses that served as his weekly communications with the American public were included in the analysis. Hence, our sample was representative of the rhetoric of the President as delivered in his speeches to the American public in an array of contexts during the pre- and post-crisis time periods (Bligh et al., 2004a). The sample selection provided us with a benchmark for President Bush's charismatic rhetorical leadership. By replicating the Bligh et al. (2004a,b) sample and extending the sample to an additional crisis, we were better able to compare our results across crises. Despite a very low publication rate for replications within the social sciences, Hunter (2001) makes a compelling argument that replications are desperately needed to confirm advances in the generation of knowledge as part of the normal science process. Toward this end, our research provides a replication and extension of Bligh and colleagues' (2004a,b) research. 3.2. Content analysis Computerized content analysis offers several benefits methodologically. First, it allows a blending of both quantitative and qualitative methods within the same study, so content analysis actually quantitatively analyzes qualitative material (Insch, Moore, & Murphy, 1997). Second, because the coding is standardized through the use of a computer program, the method is highly reliable and systemati c (Bligh et al., 2004a). Third, due to the detail of the program, it recognizes and distinguishes differences in language that human coders may not (B ligh et al., 2004a; Morris, 1994). Fourth, the program provides relatively easy manipulation of texts and the ability to quickly obtain frequencies and counts for dictionaries/passages of interest (Morris, 1994). Thus, relevant to our study is the capability of computerized content analysis to capture the quantitative pattern of President Bush's charismatic rhetoric. Similarly, a number of drawbacks are evident in the computerized content analysis methodology: 1) it takes the complexity out of natural language (Pennebaker& Lay, 2002); 2) it extracts words from their contexts (Bligh et al., 2004b; Insch et al., 1997); 3) the sterility of the analysis does not allow for any higher level creative insights (Bligh et al., 2004a); and 4) the researcher is unable to develop an exhaustive list of dictionary words (Bligh et al., 2004b; Morris, 1994). In short, as with all research methodologies, computerized content analysis has both its benefits and its drawbacks. The particular combination of benefits and drawbacks of content analysis results in an efficient and reliable consideration of the quantity of charismatic rhetoric, but a lack of consideration of the quality of that rhetoric. However, the uniform coding scheme, the reliability of the method, and the ability to
922
analyze large numbers and sizes of text add some distinct strengths to the methodology, thus making it appealing for this particular type of study. DICTION 5.0 is the computerized content analysis program that we used to analyze the rhetorical content of President Bush's speeches. This particular software was selected for two reasons: 1) DICTION was designed specifically to examine the rhetoric of political leaders; and 2) it provides greater continuity and a better level of comparison between the current and Bligh et al. (2004a,b) studies. Also, the program has some special features that make it particularly appropriate and useful for this research. First, DICTION contains 31 dictionaries that total over 10,000 search words, all designed to analyze a text. Second, the program treats homographs by using statistical weighting in an effort to partially account for the context of the words (Hart, 1984, 1999). Third, the program allows for the creation of custom dictionaries. Fourth, the program includes an option to divide texts into 500 word segments to allow for easier comparison across passages. 3.3. Measures 3.3.1. Charismatic rhetoric In accordance with the procedure outlined by Bligh et al. (2004a,b) and others (e.g., Davis, 2007; Zachary, McKenny, Short, Davis, & Wu, 2011), charismatic crisis rhetoric was operationalized using the eight previously hypothesized and empirically supported characteristics of charismatic language identified by Shamir et al. (1993, 1994). These constructs include: 1) a temporal orientation, 2) a collective focus, 3) an appeal to followers' worth, 4) similarity to followers, 5) values and moral justifications, 6) tangibility, 7) action, and 8) adversity (Bligh et al., 2004a). An overview of the creation of these constructs, including the component dictionaries as well as sample words, can be found i n Appendix B. 3.3.2. Contextual in?uences We examined the context within which President Bush delivered his speeches by collecting President Bush's speeches and radio addresses for six months prior to and six months following each crisis. Thus, we divided the sample into four time peri ods: pre-September 11th (March 3rd, 2001 to September 8th, 2001), post-September 11th (September 11th, 2001 to February 23rd, 2002), pre-Hurricane Katrina (March 5th, 2005 to August 20th, 2005), and post-Hurricane Katrina (August 27th, 2005 to February 25th, 2006). We used the 6-month pre-/postcrisis time periods in order to assess the extent to which changes in President Bush's rhetoric (as measured by his speeches and radio addresses) coincided with the occurrence of each crisis. Thus, in line with the operationalization of context of Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b), the 6-month time periods provided a baseline of charismatic rhetoric pre-crisis and a pattern of charismatic rhetoric use post-crisis. 3.3.3. Perceived leader effectiveness Consistent with prior work (e.g., Bligh et al., 2004a), we used the Gallup (2011) weekly presidential approval ratings for the focal time periods as a proxy for followers' perceptions of leader effectiveness. Specifically, we used approval ratings that were gener ated by the Gallup polling organization during the selected time periods by conducting nationwide telephone surveys that ask adult Americans the following question, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? " We adopted this operationalization of perceived leader effectiveness since presidential approval ratings reflect the collective's (or followers') opinions and appraisal of the President's leadership (Bligh et al., 2004a). 3.3.4. Controls By focusing on a single leader across a number of situations, we were able to naturally control for several effects. Indeed, our study can be viewed as a repeated measures design, where the subject, President Bush, serves as his own control (Kerlinger& Lee, 2000). In comparison to analyzing speeches from different leaders, we were able to hold constant the tone of leader voice, a factor that has previously been empirically identified as supporting follower attributions of leader charisma (Kirkpatrick& Locke, 1996). We were also able to control for the vision content found within the speeches (as compared to analyzing speeches from different leaders with different speechwriters). Other individual difference variables such as personality (e.g., self-esteem) and motives (e.g., need for power, activity inhibition) that have been shown to contribute to charismatic leadership (Gardner& Avolio, 1998; House & Howell, 1992; House et al., 1991) were also held constant. Finally, by examining the charismatic rhetoric of a single leader across multiple speeches and crises, we are able to examine variance in his behavior across situations, much as Vroom and Jago (1988) did in their within-person, repeated measures design whereby they tested their normative decision theory by asking managers to indicate their preferred decision style in response to 30 case situations. 3.3.5. Levels of analysis We conceptualize all of the variables examined in this study at the collective level of analysis (Yammarino& Dansereau, 2008; Yammarino, Dionne, Uk Chun, & Dansereau, 2005). We consider the charismatic rhetoric reflected in Bush's speeches to be operating at the collective level, since Bush is the highest-ranking leader (President) of a nation (the United States), which represents a collective of citizens; he nce, the charismatic rhetoric contained in his speeches is reflective of the behavior of the leader of that collective society. We also conceptualize the contextual forces of the September 11th terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina as operating on the collective of the United States. In addition, the approval ratings gathered from the Gallup polls which serve as our measure of perceived leader effectiveness represent the collective assessment of the leader by a society at particular points in time. Finally, it should be noted that the followers in this study are distant followers, as conceptualized by Shamir (1995)
923
in his theory of close versus distant charismatic leadership, because the followers polled to obtain approval ratings did not in teract directly with the leader. 4. Results The means and standard deviations for each of the constructs are summarized in Table 2. We used profile analysis to examine President Bush's patterns of charismatic rhetoric during the different time periods and across the different crises. Profile analysis is a multivariate technique that contrasts several dependent variables across multiple independent variables (Gardner&Martinko, 1988). We contrasted the varying levels of leader charismatic rhetoric with the time period in which the speeches were delivered. In a profile analysis, the profiles ar e compared according to their flatness, parallelism, and levels; if the profiles differ across time for at least one of these tests, then this indicates a significant main effect, or specifically related to this study, that the leader's charismatic rhetoric varied across the time periods (Tabachnick& Fidell, 2001). The profile plot in Fig. 1 graphically illustrates the results of the profile analysis. The flatness test shows that the profiles are not flat, which indicates a significant change in the charismatic rhetoric variables across the time periods (Wilk's?= .009, F(7,241)= 3926.136, p b .001). Additionally, the parallelism test reveals significant differences in the profiles for the time periods (Wilk's ?= .720, F(21,692)= 3.991, p b .001). This suggests the presence of an interaction between the time period and the level of charismatic rhetoric used by President Bush; thus, President Bush used different patterns of charismatic rhetoric at different time periods. For the levels test, the lines follow the same general pattern and are almost right on top of one another for most of the plot; this indicates no significant differences across the time periods (F (3)= 1.795, p= .149). However, the time period lines have different slopes at different points, again suggesting that President Bush used varying patterns of charismatic rhetoric at different points in time. The lines also refl ect the interaction identified through the parallelism test. In order to compare our results with those obtained by Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b), we conducted a MANCOVA to determine whether there were significant differences in the rhetoric of President Bush's speeches and major addresses during the pre-/post-September 11th crisis time periods. The eight variables designed to measure the characteristics of charismatic language were included as dependent variables; the time period served as the independent variable. Because the speeches varied in length from 101 to 500 words, we used the number of words in the speech and the number of different words in the speech as covariates. A summary of the univariate F tests, significance levels, and partial eta squared statistics is provided in Table 3. The MANCOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the two time periods on the combined dependent variables (Wilk's? = .619, F(8,91) = 7.001, p b .001). This suggests that President Bush used differing levels of charismatic rhetoric during the pre-/post-September 11th time period; these results support those of Bligh et al. (2004a,b). Another MANCOVA was conducted to examine whether there were significant differences in President Bush's charismatic rhetorical language use during the pre-/post-Hurricane Katrina time periods. The results indicate that there was not a statistically significant difference between the two time periods on the combined dependent variables (Wilk's? = .897, F(8,138)= 1.971, p = .054). Thus, President Bush did not significantly vary his use of charismatic rhetoric during the pre-/post-Hurricane Katrina time periods.
Table 2 Means and standard deviations for charismatic rhetoric variables by crisis period. Variable Collective focus Mean SD Temporal orientation Mean SD Followers' worth Mean SD Similarity to followers Mean SD Tangibility Mean SD Action Mean SD Adversity Mean SD Values and moral justifications Mean SD N Note: *p b .05; **p b .01; ***p b .001. Pre-September 11th Post-September 11th Pre-Hurricane Katrina Post-Hurricane Katrina F 4.184** 3.444 6.869 18.426 7.055 24.411 10.009 160.642 19.404 95.077 49.847 7.162 11.022 8.872 4.851 104.619 31.992 42 5.747 8.757 15.933 4.871 23.766 10.164 163.234 15.206 65.903 37.811 12.351 11.192 18.150 8.061 131.567 34.829 60 6.086 8.142 18.038 7.646 24.305 7.379 168.266 16.922 86.400 38.312 12.896 10.646 11.232 6.481 112.487 43.293 76 8.702 7.476 2.174 16.032 7.147 .799 22.239 9.529 2.155 164.047 16.119 5.211** 91.516 48.142 3.259* 13.521 11.759 12.731 8.034 4.317** 120.178 45.727 73
924
Fig. 1. Profile plot of charismatic rhetoric variables by crisis period.
Finally, a MANCOVA was performed to investigate whether there were significant differences in President Bush's post-crisis rhetoric (postSeptember 11th versus post-Hurricane Katrina). Overall, the MANCOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the two post-crisis time periods on the combined dependent variables (Wilk's ? = .806, F(8,122) = 3.660, p = .001). This indicates that President Bush's charismatic rhetoric use differed in the September 11th and Hurricane Katrina crises. When the dependent variables were inspected individually, the tangibility (F (1,129)= 8.428, p b .01) and adversity (F(1,129) = 10.864, p = .001) variables were the only ones to reach statistical significance within the MANCOVA. The partial eta squared for these variables was relatively large, indicating that 13.9% of the variance associated with these variables can be explained by the time period. An examination of the non-adjusted means for the tangibility variable during each of the post-crisis time periods indicated that the differences between the time periods were most likely due to the President's increased use of rhetoric referencing precise and concrete outcomes during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as compared to the time period following the September 11th crisis (post-September 11th M = 65.903, post-Hurricane Katrina M = 91.516). Yet, the unadjusted means for the adversity variable indicate that President Bush made fewer references to adversity in his speeches after the Hurricane Katrina crisis in comparison to the post-9/11 crisis (post-September 11th M = 18.150, post-Hurricane Katrina M = 12.731). 5. Discussion Based upon the results summarized above, we advance several propositions derived from the data. These propositions are introd uced and discussed in the following sections.
5.1. Crisis as an antecedent for charismatic leadership Overall, our results, like those of Bligh et al. (2004a,b) and others (e.g., House et al., 1991; Pillai, 1996), suggest that crisis serves as an antecedent for charismatic leadership. More specifically, President Bush's rhetoric became more charismatic after the Septemb er 11th crisis in comparison to pre-crisis levels. Interestingly, several of the charismatic rhetoric variables that increased post-September 11th did not quite return to the pre-September 11th levels when examined during the pre-Hurricane Katrina
925 Table 3 MANCOVA results by crisis period. Crisis period Pre-/post-September 11th Collective focus Temporal orientation Followers' worth Similarity to followers Values and moral justifications Tangibility Action Adversity Pre-/post-Hurricane Katrina Collective focus Temporal orientation Followers' worth Similarity to followers Values and moral justifications Tangibility Action Adversity Post-September 11th/Post-Hurricane Katrina Collective focus Temporal orientation Followers' worth Similarity to followers Values and moral justifications Tangibility Action Adversity Note: *p b .05; **p b .01; ***p b .001. Variable Sig. .000*** .120 .022* .679 .540 .002** .001*** .012* .000*** .054 .121 .262 .090 .689 .036* .995 .717 .117 .001** .091 .479 .083 .240 .226 .004** .887 .001** Partial eta squared .381 .024 .053 .002 .004 .091 .109 .063 .310 .103 .017 .009 .020 .001 .030 .000 .001 .017 .194 .022 .004 .023 .011 .011 .061 .000 .078 Wilk's lambda .619
.897
.806
period. Thus, the increases in charismatic crisis rhetoric that occurred following the Hurricane Katrina crisis were not as apparent due to the relatively elevated post-September 11th levels. Because the rhetorical leadership of President Bush did change and increase in charisma following each of the crises, Boal and Bryson's (1988) crisis-responsive model provides a plausible explanation for the charismatic rhetorical leadership of President Bush. Boal and Bryson (1988) suggest that there are two forms of charismatic crisis leadership: visionary (which begins from a theoretical schema of action and then progresses to actions) and crisis-responsive (which begins with actions aimed at alleviating the crisis and then follows with new theoretical and interpretative schema to justify the actions taken). In comparison with the effects of visionary-charismatic leadership, the effects of crisis-responsive charismatic leadership decline more rapidly (Boal& Bryson, 1988; Hunt et al., 1999). In general, the levels of President Bush's rhetoric followed a polynomial pattern, increasing in charismatic content in the aftermath of a crisis and then decreasing (at least slightly) once the stress and hardship of the crisis began to subside. Fig. 2 shows the trend line for perceptions of leader effectiveness as reflected by the historical approval ratings of President Bush throughout his two terms in office (Gallup, 2011). As shown in this figure, after the spike during the September 11th crisis, the President's approval ratings gradually decreased. Hence, both the President's rhetoric and followers' sent iments regarding the way in which the President dealt with the crisis appear to be crisis-responsive. The presence of a crisis as a pre-condition for charismatic rhetoric could explain why the mean scores for the charismatic rhetoric variables during the pre-Hurricane Katrina time period did not return to pre-September 11th levels. Indeed, the continued elevated usage of charismatic rhetoric could be due to the fact that other major crisis or stress situations had developed during the time period between these crises. For example, Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom were ongoing "wars" that arose in part as a response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Thus, the President's rhetoric referring to these military operations was most likely more active, referencing the goal-directedness and the accomplishments of the military throughout the duration of these operations. This increased use of active language may explain why the President's charismatic rhetoric did not return to pre-September 11th crisis levels. Moreover, it presumably bolstered the pre- and post-Hurricane Katrina mean scores on the action variable, providing additional support for the argument that crisis is strongly linked to the emergence of charismatic rhetorical leadership. 5.2. Perceptions of leader effectiveness associated with charismatic leadership rhetoric According to Weber (1947, 1968), in order for a leader to be considered charismatic, he or she must experience repeated successes. For the crisis-responsive charismatic leader to continue to be attributed charisma by followers, the leader has to relate the crisis to the current situation in such a way that followers continue to identify with the leader (Boal& Bryson, 1988). Therefore, President Bush's charismatic rhetoric intentionally may not have decreased or changed following September 11th. The President may have used the rhetoric that was successful in sparking perceptions that he was an effective leader with the purpose of continuing to foster these perceptions. However, looking at his approval ratings longitudinally, it is clear that even if his
926
Approval (%)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 a M 1 rr0 A p 1 y0 M 1 a Ju n 01 0 ug 01 A 1 l Ju -0 Se 1 p 1 0 Oct-0 Nov- 1
September 11th Crisis
0 ec D 1 -
02 Ja n Feb -
02
Pre-/post-September 11th
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Approval (%)
Hurricane Katrina Crisis
Ju n 0 J5 ul 0 A 5 u g0 5 S e p0 5 O c t- 5 0 N o v0 5 D e c0 5 Ja n -6 0 F be 6 0
M a r05 A p r05 M a y0 5
Pre-/post-Hurricane Katrina
Fig. 2. George W. Bush approval ratings by crisis period.
rhetoric didn't change following the time period during which he was considered to be the most effective, follower perceptions of leader effectiveness (as measured by approval ratings) decreased. While many external factors may have contributed to this inverse relationship, we suspect that the President's continued use of charismatic rhetoric may have become unproductive as the amount of time that passed following each crisis increased. Hence, while each crisis may have been extremely salient to followers immediately following the event, such salience is likely to have steadily declined with the passage of time, reducing the hypothesized effects of charismatic rhetoric on followers. For instance, as the level of uncertainty and urgency associated with the crisis decreased over time, followers' need for charismatic leadership may have also declined. This argument is consistent with prio r theory and research that indicates charismatic leadership is most effective under conditions of environmental uncertainty, such as a crisis (Boal& Bryson, 1988; Hunt et al., 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001). Additionally, President Bush may have overused charismatic language during a crisis, resulting in a numbing effect on followers. Hearing the same charismatic rhetoric consistently may have made the rhetoric less influential. Correspondingly, there may be a level at which additional charismatic rhetoric during crisis becomes unnecessary because the hypothesized charismatic rhetorical content has already been included in prior communications. As such, further use of charismatic crisis rhetoric may not serve to enhance follower perceptions of leader effectiveness or incite followers to further action. The pattern of findings here suggests that while President Bush used increased levels of charismatic rhetoric during the September 11th and Hurricane Katrina crises, the desired follower effects in terms of perceived effectiveness were not realized during both the pre- and post-Hurricane Katrina time periods. We suggest that this pattern reflects a ceiling effect. That is, while a basic level of charismatic crisis rhetoric is required to produce desired follower perceptions, effort, and performance, further use of charismatic language beyond this level will not necessarily produce greater follower attributions of leader effectiveness. Hence, we propose the following: Proposition 1. A minimal level of charismatic rhetorical crisis leadership is needed during a crisis to produce desired follower perceptions of leader effectiveness. Above the minimal level, however, followers will become numb to the charismatic rhetoric. Proposition 2. Above the minimal level of charismatic crisis rhetoric, the desired follower outcomes will gradually taper off, resulting in increasingly lower levels of perceived leader effectiveness.
927
5.3. The type of crisis as a contextual factor Several contextual factors may have influenced followers' ratings of President Bush's effectiveness during and after these crises. Specifically, the crises differed in their causes, locus of responsibility, and perceived threat level (Heath& Millar, 2004). For example, the September 11th crisis stemmed from an attack on the United States through multiple, coordinated acts of terrorism, whereas Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster. The difference in the causes of these crises suggests variant perceptions of the threat of each crisis. The September 11th crisis presented a threat from a human enemy, which rhetorically was perhaps easier for President Bush to identify, providing a unifying "us versus them" effect on followers. Additionally, this crisis may have been viewed as a threat to the entire country, potentially resulting in followers feeling a psychological vulnerability. In other words, followers may have felt that they were no longer safe in their own country and that everyone in the country was at risk of suffering from a terrorist attack. However, in the case of Hurricane Katrina, it may have been more difficult for President Bush to frame "mother nature" or an "act of god" as a threat from an enemy. Instead, a crisis involving a natural disaster may have produced a helpless feeling, due to a lack of an enemy to blame. In contrast to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, this threat may have been viewed as affecting a relatively small portion of the United States population. Thus, the differences in the actual crises and the threats that they posed may partially explain the variations in follower perceptions of leader effectiveness during the two crises. The crises also varied in their scope and in the timing of their emergency response. While the September 11th crisis was isolated to particular sites (the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and the crash site of the United 93 flight outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania), due to the nature of the threat of the crisis (a terrorist group), this crisis may have instilled fear in citizens across the United States, necessitating a timely use of charismatic rhetoric to unify the country and assuage the fears of its citizens. In contrast, the Hurricane Katrina crisis, though it affected many states including Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, may have been seen as a localized natural disaster. While the geographic scope of Hurricane Katrina was much larger, the timing of the President Bush's response to the Hurricane Katrina crisis was slower in comparison to his response to the September 11th crisis (Sylves, 2006). This may have influenced President Bush's pattern of charismatic rhetoric as well as his approval ratings in the aftermath of these crises. Due to the differing contextual factors of these crises, both the leader and followers may have emotionally processed them differently. For the crises examined in this research, followers most likely had varying levels and types of emotional involvement. Evidence of the American public's different emotional experiences of these crises is reflected in the emergence of a unified United States during the time period following September 11th — a shared emotional climate that was absent during the Hurricane Katrina crisis. Indeed, the different types of crisis and their varying characteristics could help explain President Bush's c hanging approval ratings across these crises. Conceptually, the above-mentioned considerations suggest the following: Proposition 3. The characteristics of the crisis (cause, locus of responsibility, perceived threat level, and scope) act as determining factors of leader charismatic crisis rhetoric and follower perceptions of leader effectiveness. 5.4. Study limitations and future research directions It is very difficult to measure a complex construct such as charisma and its effects in situ. While we found that increased usage of charismatic rhetoric co-varied with perceived leader effectiveness as reflected by presidential approval ratings following the September 11th crisis, but less so after the Hurricane Katrina crisis, other causes could have affected follower perceptions of leader effectiveness. These might include economic conditions, the media coverage of the crises, the track record of the leader, and the existence of other crises and stressful situations during the same time period, including international political events such as the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. Field studies such as ours that use opportunistic designs and archival data to assess the relationships between naturally occurring events cannot control for many extraneous e vents that could serve as potential confounds; hence, other factors beyond those measured in this study cannot be ruled out as contributing to the development (or lack thereof) of the charismatic relationship between the leader and his followers. While we acknowledge that this lack of control for extraneous variables represents a serious threat to internal validity (Cook& Campbell, 1976), this limitation is partially offset by the external validity obtained from observing charismatic rhetorical leadership in situ (Bryman& Stephens, 1996; Grant &Wall, 2009). Indeed, the longitudinal and inductive approach (Locke, 2007) employed in this study enabled us to generate original propositions about potential boundary conditions that impact the use and effectiveness of charismatic rhetorical leadership. Hence, the current study serves to replicate prior and generate original findings regarding charismatic rhetorical leadership while setting the stage for future research designed to test the propositions advanced. Nonetheless, our empirical findings should be interpreted with caution, given the aforementioned limitations. Additionally, because our research is based on a case study of a single leader, two distinct crises, and correlational analys es, it is impossible to provide a definitive answer to the question that has generated so much debate within the literature on charismatic leadership: Is the presence of a crisis a necessary or sufficient condition for the emergence of charismatic leadership? Our analysis revealed that President Bush's use of charismatic rhetoric escalated following the September 11th terrorist attacks and that during this time period he was also perceived as an effective leader; however, his elevated use of charismatic rhetoric (above that of the post-September 11th time period) during the Hurricane Katrina crisis suggests a ceiling effect, such that further use of charismatic rhetoric was ineffective as measured by presid ential approval ratings. Moreover,
928
because the steady decline in Bush's approval ratings implies that the effectiveness of his rhetoric decreased over time, the extent to which the focal crises were necessary, or even efficacious, for fostering a charismatic relationship with his constituency is ambiguous. Indeed, given the limitations of our design we cannot determine whether a reversal in the order with which the crises occurred would have produ ced a different pattern of results. It is possible that the more localized effects of Hurricane Katrina in comparison to the September 11th crisis would have produced less dramatic changes to either President Bush's use of charismatic rhetoric and/or follower responses to that rhetoric had it preceded, rather than followed, the terrorist attacks. Accordingly, it is important to recognize that our findings and the propositions we advance are only suggestive of possible relationships between charismatic rhetoric, crisis characteristics, and perceptions of leader effectiv eness. To address this limitation and explicate the causal linkages among these variables, we recommend greater use of experimental designs that possess higher internal validity (Cook& Campbell, 1976), such as those employed by prior experimental investigations into these relationships (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Halverson et al., 2004; Hunt et al., 1999). However, it is also important to recognize that these studies typically identify the laboratory setting as a potential threat to external validity (Cook& Campbell, 1976) and call for research in field settings to address this limitation. Thus, because our research draws from archival data that was collected in field settings, it addresses one of the limitations of prior experimental research and provides the type of complementary support that a concerted research stream of basic and applied research is intended to generate as part of the development of the social sciences (Neuman, 2002). We also advocate additional replications and extensions of Bligh and colleagues' (2004a,b) and our own research using samples of speeches from different political leaders facing different kinds of crises. For example, an examination of the relationships between P resident Obama's charismatic rhetoric, the crises he has encountered (particularly the economic turbulence that has coincided with his first term in office), and perceived leader effectiveness would be valuable. In an assessment of the rhetoric employed by candidates during the 2008 Presidential Election, Bligh and Kohles (2009) demonstrated that Obama exhibited substantially higher levels of charismatic rhetoric than his opponent, John McCain. Moreover, while President Obama also enjoyed historically high approval ratings at the outset of his presidency, these rating s have steadily declined to reach record lows during his third year in office (Gallup, 2011). In this sense, President Obama's experience mirrors that of President Bush, in that both encountered a steady decline in approval ratings despite high levels of charismatic rhetoric. No te that this pattern is consistent with Weber's (1947, 1968) and subsequent authors' (e.g., Bass, 1985) assertion that while charismatic leadership may be effective in eliciting initial follower support for the leader's vision, such support will not be sustained without tang ible evidence of success in achieving that vision. Thus, an alternative explanation to our "ceiling effects" proposition regarding the disconnect between President Bush's continued use of charismatic rhetoric and follower perceptions of his leader effectiveness (presidential approval ratings) is that the citizens did not see him as making adequate progress toward fulfilling his vision. A systematic, longitudinal examination of the relationships between charismat ic rhetoric, the presence or absence of crisis, judgments of vision fulfillment, and presidential approval ratings across presidential tenures woul d help to determine the utility of these competing explanations. We examined the extent to which the content of the leader's speeches was charismatic according to previously theorized dimensions (Shamir et al., 1993). We did not measure other verbal or nonverbal elements of the leader's communications that have been found to influence follower attributions of charismatic leadership (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Gardner, 2003; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996); thus, we only measured a portion of charismatic leadership. To address this limitation, future work could examine audio and video recordings of leader speeches to explore how the leader's delivery of speeches across different crisis situations influences follower attributions of cha risma. Also, future research could examine how different leader behaviors in comparison with the leader's rhetoric influence the charismatic leader - follower relationship. For example, considering the leader's decisiveness in the crisis, whether the leader is consistent in matching rhetorical content with actions, and whether the leader takes responsibility for the crisis or attributes blame to others in the crisis (depending on the type of crisis) may all influence charismatic (or non-charismatic) attributions made by followers. Another limitation of our study stems from the omission of a measure of follower attributions of charismatic leadership from our analysis. While our content analysis provides us with a measure of leader charismatic rhetoric consistent with that employed by several prior studies (Bligh& Hess, 2007; Bligh & Kohles, 2008; Bligh & Robinson, 2010; Bligh et al., 2004a,b; Seyranian & Bligh, 2008), we lack a direct measure of charisma to confirm that such rhetoric did indeed produce attributions of charisma. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that prior research has documented a positive relationship between charismatic rhetoric and attributed charisma (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994). Moreover, we did employ presidential approval ratings as a measure of perceived leader effectivness, a variable that has previously been shown to be strongly and positively correlated with attributed charisma (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Gardner, 2003; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). However, because many factors beyond attributed charisma impact perceptions of leader effectiveness (Lowe et al., 1996), additional research that employs a direct measure of attributed charisma is needed to corroborate the posited relationship between charismatic leader rhetoric and attributed charisma implied in our study. The role of speechwriters in the creation of the President's message and communications to the American public certainly need s to be recognized and taken into account when assessing the charismatic rhetoric of the President. Thus, we acknowledge that we were also interpreting the charisma of the speechwriters in addition to that of the President. However, as Winter (1987) notes, U.S. Presidents have an influence on the content of their speeches through their instructions to speechwriters and their own personal edits. Moreover, due to the distance between the President and the American constituency, "it is the symbolic words and images that a leader is able to evoke that are largely responsible for subsequent charismatic or non-charismatic
929
attributions, regardless of who crafted them " (Bligh et al., 2004a, p. 229). Thus, the words of the leader become some of the most important stimuli for follower impressions when the distance between the leader and follower is great (Shamir, 1995).
6. Conclusion This research examined the rhetorical content of President Bush's speeches and radio addresses to investigate his levels of c harismatic rhetorical leadership during the time periods preceding and following the two major crises of his presidency: the September 11th terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. The results indicate that President Bush's charismatic rhetoric was crisis- responsive, supporting previous scholarly assertions that crisis acts as a key precursor for charismatic leadership (e.g., Bligh et al., 2004a,b; House et al., 1991; Pillai, 1996). By deriving theory from the data through an inductive approach (Locke, 2007), this paper identifies potential boundary conditions on the effects of charismatic leadership. In particular, it posits time, ceiling, and contextual effects that may influence the extent to which charismatic crisis rhetoric is effective, offering consideration of potential moderating factors of the charismatic leader -follower relationship.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to express their deep appreciation to the Action Editor, Shelley Dionne, three anonymous reviewers, and friendly reviewer Tyge Payne for providing a host of constructive suggestions that guided the development of this manuscript. We also extend special thanks to Kinley Sturkie and John M. Coggeshall of the Clemson University Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and James Witte of the George Mason University Department of Sociology and Anthropology for serving on the first author's thes is committee and for providing comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
Appendix A. Speeches included in the sample
Date 3/3/01 3/10/01 3/17/01 3/24/01 3/31/01 4/7/01 4/14/01 4/21/01 4/28/01 5/5/01 5/12/01 5/19/01 5/26/01 6/2/01 6/8/01 6/11/01 6/13/01 6/16/01 6/23/01 6/30/01 7/7/01 7/14/01 7/21/01 7/28/01 8/4/01 8/9/01 8/11/01 8/18/01 8/25/01 9/1/01 9/7/01 9/8/01 9/11/01 9/14/01 9/15/01 9/20/01 9/22/01 9/29/01
Speech title Federal Budget/Tax Relief House Passage of Tax Relief Plan Tax Relief Plan Federal Budget Health and Education for American Children Education/Tax Reform Easter Greetings Democracy in Western Hemisphere Progress over First 100 Days Cinco de Mayo Energy Plan Energy Plan Remembrance of Memorial Day Passage of Tax Plan Homeownership President Addresses Global Climate Change Remarks at Opening of the NATO Meeting Father's Day Message Patients' Bill of Rights Department of Defense Education Medicare G-7/G-8 Summit Americans with Disabilities Act Medicaid Reform Remarks on Stem Cell Research Stem Cell Research Faith-based and Community Initiatives Budget Education Reform President Voices Concern over Economy Education Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation National Day of Prayer Attack Response Joint Session Economy Progress Made in War on Terrorism
Speech type RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA PA PA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA PA RA RA RA RA PA RA PA M RA M RA RA (continued on next page)
930 Appendix A ()continued) (continued Speech title Date 10/6/01 10/7/01 10/11/01 10/13/01 10/20/01 10/27/01 11/3/01 11/10/01 11/10/01 11/24/01 12/1/01 12/8/01 12/11/01 12/15/01 12/22/01 12/25/01 12/29/01 1/5/02 1/12/02 1/19/02 1/26/02 1/29/02 2/2/02 2/9/02 2/16/02 2/23/02 3/5/05 3/12/05 3/19/05 3/26/05 4/2/05 4/9/05 4/16/05 4/23/05 4/30/05 5/7/05 5/14/05 5/21/05 5/28/05 6/4/05 6/11/05 6/18/05 6/22/05 6/25/05 6/28/05 6/30/05 7/2/05 7/9/05 7/16/05 7/21/05 7/23/05 7/30/05 8/6/05 8/13/05 8/20/05 8/27/05 9/3/05 9/10/05 9/14/05 9/15/05 9/17/05 9/24/05 10/1/05 10/8/05 10/15/05 10/22/05 10/29/05 11/5/05 11/12/05 Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan Presidential Address Prime Time News Conference Economy Terrorism Legislation in War on Terrorism Anthrax President Speaks to the United Nations War on Terrorism Thanksgiving Job Creation/Economic Stimulus Economic Stimulus The World Will Always Remember 9/11 Economic Stimulus Economy, Terrorism Christmas Radio Address Year in Review Economy Economy and Budget Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 2002 Priorities State of the Union Pension Protection Black History Month Asia Trip Energy Security Middle East Social Security Iraq Easter WMD Commission Report Pope John Paul II Energy Budget Social Security European Trip Economy War on Terror Memorial Day Congressional Priorities Economic Security Economic Security and War on Terror President Discusses Energy Policy and Economic Security Iraq Presidential Address on Iraq and War on Terror President Discusses G-8 Summit and Progress in Africa Independence Day War on Terror Supreme Court President Promotes Central American Free Trade Agreement Supreme Court Key Priorities Economy War on Terror War on Terror Democracy in the Middle East Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts September 11 and Hurricane Katrina President Addresses United Nations High Plenary Meeting President Discusses Hurricane Relief in Address to the Nation Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts Hurricane Preparation and Recovery Democracy in Iraq Supreme Court Nomination Iraq Constitution Homeland Security Iraqi Elections Supreme Court Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Speech type RA M PA RA RA RA RA PA PA RA RA RA PA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA M RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA PA RA PA RA M PA RA RA RA PA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA PA M RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA
931 Appendix A ()continued) (continued Speech title Date 11/19/05 11/26/05 12/3/05 12/10/05 12/17/05 12/18/05 12/24/05 12/31/05 1/7/06 1/14/06 1/21/06 1/28/06 1/31/06 2/4/06 2/11/06 2/18/06 2/25/06 U.S.-Asia Trade Relations Thanksgiving Border Security and Immigration Reform Patriot Act Homeland Security and Patriot Act Presidential Address Christmas 2005 Accomplishments and Future Priorities Economy Supreme Court Economy and Small Business Supreme Court State of the Union American Competitiveness Initiative Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Energy President's 2006 Agenda Speech type RA PA RA RA RA M RA RA RA RA RA RA M RA RA RA RA
Note: RA = Radio Address; M = Major Speech; PA = Public Address.
Appendix B. Operational definitions, descriptions, and sample words of charismatic leadership constructs
Construct Collective focus
Operational definition Collectives + People references ? Self-reference
Dictionary description Singular nouns connoting plurality; these words refer to social groupings, task groups, and geographical entities Refers to sociological, political, and generic group designations First-person references in which the locus of action rests with the speaker Present-tense verbs referencing physical activity, social operations, and task-performance Past-tense forms of the verbs included in the present concern dictionary Positive adjectives regarding a person, group, or entity Includes words related to universally respected abstract virtues Includes terms associated with positive affective states, moments of joy, and times of triumph Consists of words which build a sense of completeness and assurance such as totalizing terms, adverbs of permanence, and resolute adjectives Most common words in the English language such as common prepositions, conjunctions, connectives, and demonstrative and interrogative pronouns Commonly known and used personal pronouns and family and relation terms "Broad-based, Judeo-Christian terminology including value-laden terms and theological constructs" (Bligh et al., 2004a; p. 234) Standard American nationalistic language such as constitutional and historic terms Words which denote tangibility and materiality Measure of code-restriction based on the repeated use of a limited number of words Score indicating a speaker's avoidance of overstatement and preference for precise statements (Bligh et al., 2004a) Words associated with competition, social domination, goal-directedness, and resistance Words expressing task-completion, organized human behavior, and general functionality
Sample words Assembly, cabinet, humanity, mankind, nation, race, union Crowd, residents, constituencies, majority, citizenry, population I, I'd, I'll, I'm, I've, me, mine, my, myself Become, care, desire, make, need, request, take, want Became, cared, desired, made, needed, requested, took, wanted Admirable, brave, delightful, intelligent, kind, lovely, respected Ambition, devotion, ideals, leadership, merit, optimism, promise, reassurance Comfort, cherish, delight, fascinate, gratify, laugh, love, pleasure, rejoice Anybody, everybody, fully, obvious, permanent, totally, unquestionably
Temporal orientation
Present concern + Past concern
Followers' worth
Praise + Inspiration + Satisfaction Leveling +
Similarity to followers
Familiarity +
About, between, for, on, past, than, who, with
Human Interest Values and moral justifications Spirituality + Patriotic Terms Tangibility Concreteness + Insistence ? Variety
Children, family, friends, parents, relatives, widows, yours Charity, church, blessing, eternal, faith, hope, mercy Equality, freedom, justice, inalienable, liberty, old-glory Animal, baseball, cancer, factory, household, movie, school, silk, sugar Score calculated based on repetition of key terms Score calculated by dividing the number of different words in a passage by the number of total words Attack, challenge, combat, dominate, furious, hurt, kill, oppose, preempt Achieve, aspire, create, finish, motivate, pursuit, resolution, succeed (continued on next page)
Action
Aggression + Accomplishment ?
932 Appendix B ()continued) (continued Operational definition Construct Passivity ? Ambivalence Blame + Hardship + Denial Dictionary description Terms of neutrality and inactivity, including compliance, docility, and disinterest Words expressing hesitation such as hedges and statements of approximation and confusion Descriptions of evil actions, outright denigrations, and unfortunate circumstances Words referring to natural disasters, unsavory political outcomes, and hostile actions Includes standard negative contractions and terms designating null sets Sample words Accept, acquiesce, complacent, disinterested, hesitate, lackadaisical Blur, confound, hesitate, puzzle, quandary, vacillate, wonder Contemptible, desperate, guilty, incompetent, mediocre, rash, senile Conflict, crisis, death, fear, insecurity, loss, outrage, sorrow, tension Didn't, hadn't, never, wasn't, wouldn't
Adversity
References
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345-374. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496 -515. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego, CA US: Academic Press. Beyer, J. M., & Browning, L. D. (1999). Transforming an industry in crisis: Charisma, routinization and supportive culture. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 483 -520. Bligh, M. C., & Hess, G. D. (2007). The power of leading subtly: Alan Greenspan, rhetorical leadership, and monetary policy. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 87-104. Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2008). Negotiating gender role expectations: Rhetorical leadership and women in the U.S. senate. Leadership, 4, 381 -402. Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2009). The enduring allure of charisma: How Barack Obama won the historic 2008 presidential election. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 483-492. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004a). Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist attacks. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211 -239. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004b). Charting the language of leadership: A methodological investigation of President Bush and the crisis of 9/11. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 562-574. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. (2005). Charisma and crisis in the California recall election. Leadership, 1, 323 -352. Bligh, M. C., & Robinson, J. L. (2010). Was Gandhi "charismatic"? Exploring the rhetorical leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 844 -855. 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: Lexington Books. Bryman, A., & Stephens, M. (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 353-370. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. Handbook of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (pp. 223-326). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Davis, K. M. (2007). The presidential crisis rhetoric of September 11th, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina: Examples of charismatic leadership or not? Master's thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 355-391. Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. J. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 449-482. Gallup (2011). Presidential approval ratings —George W. Bush. Retrieved August 1st, 2011 fromhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approvalratings-george-bush.aspx Gardner, W. L. (2003). Perceptions of leader charisma, effectiveness and integrity: Effects of exemplification, delivery and ethical reputation. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 502-527. Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32 -58. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management: An observational study linking audience characteristics with verbal self-presentations. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 42-65. Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 653 -686. Halverson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (2004). Charismatic leadership in crisis situations: A laboratory investigation of stress and crisis. Small Group Research, 35, 495-514. Hart, R. (1984). Verbal style and the presidency: A computer-based analysis. New York: Academic Press. Hart, R. (1999). DICTION 5.0: The text-analysis program. [Computer program]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Scolari/Sage. Heath, R. L., & Millar, D. P. (2004). A rhetorical approach to crisis communication: Management, communication processes, and strategic responses. In D. Millar & R. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 1 -18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hicks, S. T. W. (2005). Presidential rhetorical crisis leadership: The speeches of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush on the events of 12-7-41 and 09-11-01. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Communication, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993). Communicating visions: An exploration of the role of delivery in the creation of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 405-427. Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 165 -189. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81 -109. House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81 -107). New York: Academic 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, 364-396. House, R. J., Woycke, J., & Fodor, E. M. (1988). Charismatic and non-charismatic leaders: Differences in behavior and effectiveness. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 98-121). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 423 -448. Hunter, J. E. (2001). The desperate need for replications. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 149-158.
933 Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E., & Murphy, L. D. (1997). Content analysis in leadership research: Examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 1-25. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Wadsworth-Thomson Learning. Kiewe, A. (1994). Introduction. In A. Kiewe (Ed.), The modern presidency and crisis rhetoric (pp. 15 -37). Westport, CT: Praeger. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36-51. Locke, E. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33, 867-890. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. D., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425. Mitroff, I. I. (2004). Crisis leadership: Planning for the unthinkable. Hoboken, NJ: Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc. Morris, R. (1994). Computerized content analysis in management research. Journal of Management, 20, 903 -931. Neuman, W. L. (2002). Social science research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Pennebaker, J. W., & Lay, T. C. (2002). Language use and personality during crises: Analyses of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's press conferences. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 271-282. Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership in groups: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 543 -562. Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A "meso" level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643 -671. Rosenthal, U., Boin, R. A., & Comfort, L. K. (2001). The changing world of crises and crisis management. In U. Rosenthal, R. Boin & L. Comfort (Eds.), Managing crises: Threats, dilemmas, opportunities (pp. 5-27). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Rosenthal, U., Charles, M. T., & t' Hart, P. (Eds.). (1989). Coping with crises: The management of disasters, riots and terrorism. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Westport, CT: Praeger. Seyranian, V., & Bligh, M. C. (2008). Presidential charismatic leadership: Exploring the rhetoric of social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 54 -76. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and a exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19 -47. Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 25-42. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577 -594. Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismati c leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257-283. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387 -409. Sylves, R. T. (2006). President Bush and Hurricane Katrina: A presidential leadership study. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 26-56. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon. Tan, H. H., & Wee, G. (2002). The role of rhetoric content in charismatic leadership: A content analysis of a Singaporean leader's speeches. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 5, 317-342. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement organizations. Research in Organizat ional Behavior, 8, 113-164. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ US: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and pro fitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143. Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2009). An affective events model of charismatic leadership behavior: A review, theoretical integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 35, 1428-1452. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (A. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1968). In S. Eisenstadt (Ed.), Max Weber on charisma and institution building; selected papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Lowe, K. B., Jung, D., & Herst, D. (2009). Crisis, charisma, values, and voting behavior in the 2004 presiden tial election. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 70-86. Willner, A. R. (1984). The spellbinders. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motives profile of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 96-202. Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 135 -141. Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Uk Chun, J., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879-919. Zachary, M. A., McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., Davis, K. M., & Wu, D. (2011). Franchise branding: An organizational identity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 629-645.
doc_997518033.docx
Case Study on Presidential Leadership, Perceived Leader Effectiveness, and Contextual Influences:- A president is a leader of an organization, company, community, club, trade union, university, country, a division or part of any of these, or, more generally, anything else.
Case Study on Presidential Leadership, Perceived Leader Effectiveness, and Contextual In?uences
Abstract:This study investigates the influence of crisis on leader use of charismatic rhetoric. We examine leader charismatic rhetoric across two major crises, longitudinally exploring potential long-term influences of charismatic rhetoric on perceptions of leader effectiveness. Using an inductive approach to theory generation, we draw upon findings from the data analysis of eight charismatic rhetoric constructs (collective focus, temporal orientation, followers' worth, similarity to followers, values and moral justifications, tangibility, action, and adversity) to advance propositions regarding potential time and ceiling effects of charismatic rhetorical leadership on followers. Additionally, we discuss the relationships between characteristics of the crisis and the use of charismatic rhetorical leadership. In doing so, we identify potential boundary conditions for the use of charismatic rhetoric (as an element of charismatic leadership) within the context of different crises.
The presence of a crisis has long been discussed as one of the primary determinants of the emergence of charismatic leadership (Pillai& Meindl, 1998; Trice & Beyer, 1986). Extending back to Weber's introduction of the construct, the necessary conditions for charismatic leadership emergence have been posited to include: 1) a person who possesses extraordinary gifts; 2) a crisis or time of distress; 3) a revolutionary solution to the crisis; 4) followers who believe in the person and who are attracted to the miraculous qualities of the person; and 5) validation of the person's gifts through repeated successes (Trice& Beyer, 1986; Weber, 1947, 1968; Willner, 1984). More recently, scholarly disagreement about the necessity of a crisis as a prerequisite for charismatic leadership has arisen . Trice and Beyer (1986) maintain a strict adherence to the Weberian concept of charisma, and, as such, hold that a crisis must be present in order for the leader to be attributed charisma. Several studies provide empirical support for the posited linkages between crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership (e.g., Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004a,b; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Pillai, 1996). Other scholars view crisis as a facilitating but unnecessary requirement for charismatic leadership to emerge (Boal& Bryson, 1988; Halverson, Murphy, & Riggio, 2004; Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999). Additional studies support the argument that charismatic leadership can develop outside of crises (Halverson et al., 2004; Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Still others have found a negative relationship between charismatic leadership and crisis situations (Bligh, Kohles, & Pillai, 2005; Pillai & Meindl, 1998; Williams, Pillai, Lowe, Jung, & Herst, 2009). The findings of the current body of empirical work investigating crisis as a contextual antecedent of charismatic leadership are equivocal, suggesting that the relationship between crisis and charisma is particularly complex (Pillai& Meindl, 1998). In a recent
919
review of the charismatic leadership literature, Walter and Bruch (2009) found that contextual influences such as the leaders' positional, social, organizational, and national environment, along with crisis situations, have received insufficient research. Hence, additiona l work is needed to better understand the role that crisis plays in the emergence of charismatic leadership. Previous research has investigated charismatic rhetorical leadership within the context of a single crisis (e.g., Bligh & Kohles, 2009; Bligh et al., 2004a,b). We build upon and extend the work of Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b) by answering their call for the study of environmental turbulence as a contextual factor which influences leader use of charismatic rhetoric and subsequent follower reactions. Adopting a longitudinal approach, we examine the use of charismatic rhetorical leadership across two different crises. Specifically, we investigate the extent to which charismatic rhetoric is associated with crisis, whether charismatic rhetoric may differ according to the type of crisis, and the degree to which it is related to follower ratings of leader effectiveness. Our research makes three primary contributions to the literature. First, we add to the scholarly debate about the degree to which crisis is an antecedent for charismatic leadership by considering the patterns of leader charismatic rhetoric across different crises. Doing so enables us to advance a deeper understanding of the dynamic relationship between crisis and the emergence of charismatic rhetorical leadership. Second, by examining a single leader's charismatic rhetoric across two major crises, wehighlight potential follower effects of charismatic rhetoric in the form of perceptions of leader effectiveness. Third, we adopt an inductive approach to theory generation (Locke, 2007) to advance original propositions that are derived from the data analysis; these propositions extend charismatic leadership theory by delineating potential boundary conditions (Bacharach, 1989) for the use of charismatic rhetorical leadership within the context of crises. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. Charismatic rhetorical leadership The term charismatic leadership stems from Weber's (1947, 1968) notion of charismatic authority. Using the adjectives exceptional, supernatural, and magical, along with nouns like hero, prophet, and savior, Weber described charismatic authority as deriving from the possession and public exhibition of unique and spellbinding qualities (Willner, 1984). Since Weber, researchers have shown that these qualities appeal to followers and elicit a fervid following, inspiring followers to forsake their own self - interests and go beyond the call of duty, resulting in increased follower effort, satisfaction, and performance (Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999; House et al., 1991; House, Woycke, & Fodor, 1988). Through such outcomes, charismatic leadership during times of crisis can be used to incite follower social action and promote social change when it is desperately needed (Seyranian& Bligh, 2008). Our view of charismatic leadership is based upon conceptualizations of charisma advanced by Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b), Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993), Trice and Beyer (1986), and Weber (1947, 1968). Thus, we hold that charismatic leadership is emergent during times of crisis, is rooted in a relationship between the leader and followers, and as a result, produces desired motivational effects on follo wers, such that followers will pursue the leader's vision and objectives (Beyer& Browning, 1999; Shamir, 1995; Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Shamir et al., 1993; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). Therefore, we adopt House and Shamir's (1993: 86) definition of charismatic leadership as "an interaction between leaders and followers [during or after a crisis situation] that results in 1) making the followers' self-esteem contingent on the vision and mission articulated by the leader, 2) a strong internalization of the leader's values and goals by the followers, 3) a strong personal or moral?commitment to these values and goals, and 4) a willingness on the part of followers to transcend their self-interests for the sake of the collective. " A part of the charismatic relationship between leaders and followers involves the leader's communications to the followers; this includes the delivery and presentation of the leader's speeches as well as the content of those speeches (Bligh et al., 2004a). Previous empirical work has demonstrated that the strength of the leader's delivery and a charismatic communication style (e.g., verbal elements such as a captivating tone of voice and nonverbal elements including animated facial expressions, a confident interaction style, and di rect eye contact) are related to follower perceptions of leader charisma (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). In the present study we focus on the content of the leader's speeches. Such content has been argued to not only communicate the leader's vision but also to be instrumental in fostering follower acceptance and commitment to that vision (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Shamir et al., 1994). Charismatic leaders use rhetoric to influence followers by: 1) increasing the intrinsic value of effort expended by followers in the pursuit of goals; 2) increasing their self-efficacy and collective-efficacy perceptions; 3) increasing their intrinsic value of goal accomplishment; 4) instilling faith in a better future; and 5) increasing followers' commitment (Shamir et al., 1993, 1994). Together these motivational effects exert their influence by appealing to elements of followers' self-concepts including self-expression, self-consistency, and the enhancement of self-esteem and self-worth (Shamir et al., 1993, 1994). Charismatic leaders appeal to followers through their rhetoric by incorporating the following elements into their speeches: 1) references to history and tradition; 2) an emphasis on the collective identity; 3) reinforcement of the collective efficacy; 4) a focus on the leader's similarity to the followers; 5) discussion of values and moral justifications; 6) references to hope and faith; and 7) appeals to the followers' self-efficacy (Bligh& Kohles, 2008; Bligh et al., 2004a,b; Shamir et al., 1993, 1994; Tan & Wee, 2002). To explore the motivational effects of charismatic rhetoric on followers as posited by Shamir et al. (1993), Bligh and colleagues (Bligh& Hess, 2007; Bligh & Kohles, 2008; Bligh et al., 2004a,b; Seyranian & Bligh, 2008) used the content analysis software, DICTION (Hart, 1999), to operationalize the rhetorical elements of charismatic leadership into eight dictionary-based constructs. In this study, we employ the same operationalization of charismatic rhetoric to analyze the content of Pres ident George W. Bush's speeches during two different crises. Hence, both the theoretical underpinnings (Shamir et al., 1993) and the methodological approach (content analysis) of the current study differ markedly from those reflected by questionnaire -based
920
operationalizations of charismatic (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000) and transformational (Bass& Avolio, 1993) leadership. A description of each rhetorical element of charismatic leadership and its proposed effects on followers is provided in Table 1. 2.2. Charismatic rhetorical leadership in times of crisis A crisis is defined as "a serious threat to the basic structures or the fundamental values and norms of a system, which under time pressure and highly uncertain circumstances necessitates making critical decisions " (Rosenthal, Charles, & t' Hart, 1989: 10). The defining features of a crisis are the threat and inconceivability of the situation (Rosenthal, Boin, & Comfort, 2001). In fact, the perception of a serious and credible threat is considered to be the "requisite feature of all crisis events " (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 2003: 8). Several characteristics assist in defining a crisis; they include the cause, the locus of responsibility, the emergency response, the size, and the length of the crisis (Heath& Millar, 2004). However, urgency and surprise set the crisis apart, and thus make it a dynamic process that disturbs the status quo. The causes of a crisis stem from a combination of environmental flux, organizational failure, and individual mistakes, due to a lack of foresight or a breakdown in decisional vigilance (Rosenthal et al., 2001). Categories of crisis include economic catastrophes such as a stock market crash, psychopathic acts such as terrorism, and natural disasters including earthquakes, hurricanes, or explosions (Mitroff, 2004). Since the two crises of interest in this research, the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina, fall under these major categories, and because heightened threat levels emerged during each incident, it is clear that these events can be classified as crises. Crisis rhetoric is defined by Kiewe (1994) as "the discourse initiated by decision makers in an attempt to communicate to various constituents that a certain development is critical and to suggest a certain course of action to remedy the critical situation" (p. 17). When a leader uses crisis rhetoric, he/she legitimizes the crisis, provides relevant information to followers regarding the circumstances, calls on followers to assist or support his/her proposed solutions to the crisis, and inspires them to work ha rder to achieve the group's mission or goals. 2.3. Research questions An example of a leader's use of rhetoric during crisis and its influence on followers is provided by President George W. Bush's communications following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. Two studies have examined President Bush's charismatic rhetorical leadership during this crisis (Bligh et al., 2004a,b; Hicks, 2005). Using computerized content analysis of President Bush's major speeches both before and after September 11th, Bligh and associates (2004a,b) found that the President's rhetoric increased in charisma post-crisis in comparison to pre-crisis levels. Bligh et al. (2004a) also analyzed President Bush's approval ratings during the same time period. Nationwide polls conducted by top polling organizations showed unusually high approval
Table 1 Characteristics of charismatic rhetoric and their effects on followers. Characteristic of charismatic rhetoric References to history and tradition Overview of characteristic Charismatic leaders will reference their common past with their followers (Shamir et al., 1994) and use a temporal orientation to bring present actions and future goals together. Charismatic leaders will use more inclusive language (Fiol et al., 1999) in order to create and crystallize the "common ground" that the followers and the leaders share. Charismatic leaders point out the benefits of joining together and sharing an identity; they mention the strength that comes from working together (Shamir et al., 1994). Charismatic leaders appeal to their followers by pointing out the similarities in their backgrounds and experiences (Shamir et al., 1994). Specifically, charismatic leaders use word choices that place them on the same level, demonstrate familiarity and commonality, or reference human-interest topics (Bligh et al., 2004a). Charismatic leaders reference the dominant social values of the followers (Shamir& Howell, 1999). Effects on followers Sense of meaningfulness of the actions and goals articulated by the leader.
An emphasis on the collective identity
Raises followers' identity salience so as to link the needed action-steps to the identity (Shamir et al., 1994). Builds a bond of familiarity and solidarity among followers (Hicks, 2005).
Reinforcement of the collective efficacy
A focus on the leader's identification with the followers
The leader builds trust with the followers and gains the followers' acceptance of his/her mission (Conger& Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1994; Tan & Wee, 2002).
References to values and moral justifications
References to hope and faith
References to followers' self-efficacy
Charismatic leaders will employ imagery or metaphors to appeal to the followers and provide them with hope for the future (Shamir et al., 1994). Charismatic leaders may express confidence in their followers as a whole in order to empower them to work toward the institutional goals (Tan& Wee, 2002).
Raises the followers' interest and awareness of the institutional goals by bridging the goals and the actions needed to reach those goals with the motivation of congruent and shared values and morals with the leader (Shamir& Howell, 1999). Inspires followers by faith and hope to pursue the vision of the leader (Shamir et al., 1994). Followers continue to work toward the goals discussed by the leader (Shamir et al., 1994).
921
ratings post-September 11th that were sustained for many months. Bligh et al. (2004a) conclude that, taken together, the President's increased use of charismatic rhetoric coupled with high approval of his handling of the crisis "may have transformed the relationships between the President and the U.S. citizenry toward something that is, by degree, more heavily grounded in charismatic leadership processes than was the case before the crisis " (p. 228). Hence, charismatic rhetorical leadership may be a product of the crisis, the leader, and the followers, such that the particular amalgamation of these factors influences the emergence and level of charismatic leadership. Bligh et al. (2004a: 228) elaborate on this point: The evolution of Bush's rhetoric after the 9/11 crisis represents a compelling case of how leaders can utilize language to ga lvanize support for overarching causes ?Within the context of a threatening crisis, when followers feel an acute desire for a charismatically appealing leader, and when a leader adopts a more charismatic style of rhetorical communication ? surely, the possibilities for the emergence of charismatic leadership are enhanced. Since Bligh and colleagues' (2004a,b) research suggests that the crisis, leader, and followers jointly influence the use of charismatic rhetorical leadership, we explored this interaction by expanding their analysis to include presidential rhetoric across two different types of crises. Thus, this study addresses the following research questions: 1. When a leader has to deal with multiple crises, to what extent does the leader use charismatic rhetoric across time? 2. If charismatic rhetoric is sustained across time, what follower outcomes (such as perceived leader effectiveness) are associated with the continued use of charismatic crisis rhetoric? 3. Is the type of crisis related to the leader's use of charismatic rhetoric and/or to follower perceptions of leader effectiveness associated with that rhetoric? 3. Method 3.1. Sample Our sample included 124 of President George W. Bush's major speeches and radio addresses delivered during the six months prio r to and the six months following two different crises: the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina. Appendix A includes a complete listing of the titles, dates, and types of speeches included in the sample. The speeches were obtained from the White House's official website (http://www.whitehouse.gov). They were divided into 500 word segments to control for their relative length. The speech segments containing less than 100 words were not considered in the analysis, so the speeches ranged in length from 101 to 500 words. After applying these inclusion criteria, our final sample contained a total of 251 passages. We selected speeches for inclusion according to the same selection process employed by Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b). Each speech was defined as a major speech if it was either termed a major speech according to the White House website or was delivered to a prime time audience with the intention of addressing a large number of Americans (Bligh et al., 2004a,b). Also, the President's radio addresses that served as his weekly communications with the American public were included in the analysis. Hence, our sample was representative of the rhetoric of the President as delivered in his speeches to the American public in an array of contexts during the pre- and post-crisis time periods (Bligh et al., 2004a). The sample selection provided us with a benchmark for President Bush's charismatic rhetorical leadership. By replicating the Bligh et al. (2004a,b) sample and extending the sample to an additional crisis, we were better able to compare our results across crises. Despite a very low publication rate for replications within the social sciences, Hunter (2001) makes a compelling argument that replications are desperately needed to confirm advances in the generation of knowledge as part of the normal science process. Toward this end, our research provides a replication and extension of Bligh and colleagues' (2004a,b) research. 3.2. Content analysis Computerized content analysis offers several benefits methodologically. First, it allows a blending of both quantitative and qualitative methods within the same study, so content analysis actually quantitatively analyzes qualitative material (Insch, Moore, & Murphy, 1997). Second, because the coding is standardized through the use of a computer program, the method is highly reliable and systemati c (Bligh et al., 2004a). Third, due to the detail of the program, it recognizes and distinguishes differences in language that human coders may not (B ligh et al., 2004a; Morris, 1994). Fourth, the program provides relatively easy manipulation of texts and the ability to quickly obtain frequencies and counts for dictionaries/passages of interest (Morris, 1994). Thus, relevant to our study is the capability of computerized content analysis to capture the quantitative pattern of President Bush's charismatic rhetoric. Similarly, a number of drawbacks are evident in the computerized content analysis methodology: 1) it takes the complexity out of natural language (Pennebaker& Lay, 2002); 2) it extracts words from their contexts (Bligh et al., 2004b; Insch et al., 1997); 3) the sterility of the analysis does not allow for any higher level creative insights (Bligh et al., 2004a); and 4) the researcher is unable to develop an exhaustive list of dictionary words (Bligh et al., 2004b; Morris, 1994). In short, as with all research methodologies, computerized content analysis has both its benefits and its drawbacks. The particular combination of benefits and drawbacks of content analysis results in an efficient and reliable consideration of the quantity of charismatic rhetoric, but a lack of consideration of the quality of that rhetoric. However, the uniform coding scheme, the reliability of the method, and the ability to
922
analyze large numbers and sizes of text add some distinct strengths to the methodology, thus making it appealing for this particular type of study. DICTION 5.0 is the computerized content analysis program that we used to analyze the rhetorical content of President Bush's speeches. This particular software was selected for two reasons: 1) DICTION was designed specifically to examine the rhetoric of political leaders; and 2) it provides greater continuity and a better level of comparison between the current and Bligh et al. (2004a,b) studies. Also, the program has some special features that make it particularly appropriate and useful for this research. First, DICTION contains 31 dictionaries that total over 10,000 search words, all designed to analyze a text. Second, the program treats homographs by using statistical weighting in an effort to partially account for the context of the words (Hart, 1984, 1999). Third, the program allows for the creation of custom dictionaries. Fourth, the program includes an option to divide texts into 500 word segments to allow for easier comparison across passages. 3.3. Measures 3.3.1. Charismatic rhetoric In accordance with the procedure outlined by Bligh et al. (2004a,b) and others (e.g., Davis, 2007; Zachary, McKenny, Short, Davis, & Wu, 2011), charismatic crisis rhetoric was operationalized using the eight previously hypothesized and empirically supported characteristics of charismatic language identified by Shamir et al. (1993, 1994). These constructs include: 1) a temporal orientation, 2) a collective focus, 3) an appeal to followers' worth, 4) similarity to followers, 5) values and moral justifications, 6) tangibility, 7) action, and 8) adversity (Bligh et al., 2004a). An overview of the creation of these constructs, including the component dictionaries as well as sample words, can be found i n Appendix B. 3.3.2. Contextual in?uences We examined the context within which President Bush delivered his speeches by collecting President Bush's speeches and radio addresses for six months prior to and six months following each crisis. Thus, we divided the sample into four time peri ods: pre-September 11th (March 3rd, 2001 to September 8th, 2001), post-September 11th (September 11th, 2001 to February 23rd, 2002), pre-Hurricane Katrina (March 5th, 2005 to August 20th, 2005), and post-Hurricane Katrina (August 27th, 2005 to February 25th, 2006). We used the 6-month pre-/postcrisis time periods in order to assess the extent to which changes in President Bush's rhetoric (as measured by his speeches and radio addresses) coincided with the occurrence of each crisis. Thus, in line with the operationalization of context of Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b), the 6-month time periods provided a baseline of charismatic rhetoric pre-crisis and a pattern of charismatic rhetoric use post-crisis. 3.3.3. Perceived leader effectiveness Consistent with prior work (e.g., Bligh et al., 2004a), we used the Gallup (2011) weekly presidential approval ratings for the focal time periods as a proxy for followers' perceptions of leader effectiveness. Specifically, we used approval ratings that were gener ated by the Gallup polling organization during the selected time periods by conducting nationwide telephone surveys that ask adult Americans the following question, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? " We adopted this operationalization of perceived leader effectiveness since presidential approval ratings reflect the collective's (or followers') opinions and appraisal of the President's leadership (Bligh et al., 2004a). 3.3.4. Controls By focusing on a single leader across a number of situations, we were able to naturally control for several effects. Indeed, our study can be viewed as a repeated measures design, where the subject, President Bush, serves as his own control (Kerlinger& Lee, 2000). In comparison to analyzing speeches from different leaders, we were able to hold constant the tone of leader voice, a factor that has previously been empirically identified as supporting follower attributions of leader charisma (Kirkpatrick& Locke, 1996). We were also able to control for the vision content found within the speeches (as compared to analyzing speeches from different leaders with different speechwriters). Other individual difference variables such as personality (e.g., self-esteem) and motives (e.g., need for power, activity inhibition) that have been shown to contribute to charismatic leadership (Gardner& Avolio, 1998; House & Howell, 1992; House et al., 1991) were also held constant. Finally, by examining the charismatic rhetoric of a single leader across multiple speeches and crises, we are able to examine variance in his behavior across situations, much as Vroom and Jago (1988) did in their within-person, repeated measures design whereby they tested their normative decision theory by asking managers to indicate their preferred decision style in response to 30 case situations. 3.3.5. Levels of analysis We conceptualize all of the variables examined in this study at the collective level of analysis (Yammarino& Dansereau, 2008; Yammarino, Dionne, Uk Chun, & Dansereau, 2005). We consider the charismatic rhetoric reflected in Bush's speeches to be operating at the collective level, since Bush is the highest-ranking leader (President) of a nation (the United States), which represents a collective of citizens; he nce, the charismatic rhetoric contained in his speeches is reflective of the behavior of the leader of that collective society. We also conceptualize the contextual forces of the September 11th terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina as operating on the collective of the United States. In addition, the approval ratings gathered from the Gallup polls which serve as our measure of perceived leader effectiveness represent the collective assessment of the leader by a society at particular points in time. Finally, it should be noted that the followers in this study are distant followers, as conceptualized by Shamir (1995)
923
in his theory of close versus distant charismatic leadership, because the followers polled to obtain approval ratings did not in teract directly with the leader. 4. Results The means and standard deviations for each of the constructs are summarized in Table 2. We used profile analysis to examine President Bush's patterns of charismatic rhetoric during the different time periods and across the different crises. Profile analysis is a multivariate technique that contrasts several dependent variables across multiple independent variables (Gardner&Martinko, 1988). We contrasted the varying levels of leader charismatic rhetoric with the time period in which the speeches were delivered. In a profile analysis, the profiles ar e compared according to their flatness, parallelism, and levels; if the profiles differ across time for at least one of these tests, then this indicates a significant main effect, or specifically related to this study, that the leader's charismatic rhetoric varied across the time periods (Tabachnick& Fidell, 2001). The profile plot in Fig. 1 graphically illustrates the results of the profile analysis. The flatness test shows that the profiles are not flat, which indicates a significant change in the charismatic rhetoric variables across the time periods (Wilk's?= .009, F(7,241)= 3926.136, p b .001). Additionally, the parallelism test reveals significant differences in the profiles for the time periods (Wilk's ?= .720, F(21,692)= 3.991, p b .001). This suggests the presence of an interaction between the time period and the level of charismatic rhetoric used by President Bush; thus, President Bush used different patterns of charismatic rhetoric at different time periods. For the levels test, the lines follow the same general pattern and are almost right on top of one another for most of the plot; this indicates no significant differences across the time periods (F (3)= 1.795, p= .149). However, the time period lines have different slopes at different points, again suggesting that President Bush used varying patterns of charismatic rhetoric at different points in time. The lines also refl ect the interaction identified through the parallelism test. In order to compare our results with those obtained by Bligh and colleagues (2004a,b), we conducted a MANCOVA to determine whether there were significant differences in the rhetoric of President Bush's speeches and major addresses during the pre-/post-September 11th crisis time periods. The eight variables designed to measure the characteristics of charismatic language were included as dependent variables; the time period served as the independent variable. Because the speeches varied in length from 101 to 500 words, we used the number of words in the speech and the number of different words in the speech as covariates. A summary of the univariate F tests, significance levels, and partial eta squared statistics is provided in Table 3. The MANCOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the two time periods on the combined dependent variables (Wilk's? = .619, F(8,91) = 7.001, p b .001). This suggests that President Bush used differing levels of charismatic rhetoric during the pre-/post-September 11th time period; these results support those of Bligh et al. (2004a,b). Another MANCOVA was conducted to examine whether there were significant differences in President Bush's charismatic rhetorical language use during the pre-/post-Hurricane Katrina time periods. The results indicate that there was not a statistically significant difference between the two time periods on the combined dependent variables (Wilk's? = .897, F(8,138)= 1.971, p = .054). Thus, President Bush did not significantly vary his use of charismatic rhetoric during the pre-/post-Hurricane Katrina time periods.
Table 2 Means and standard deviations for charismatic rhetoric variables by crisis period. Variable Collective focus Mean SD Temporal orientation Mean SD Followers' worth Mean SD Similarity to followers Mean SD Tangibility Mean SD Action Mean SD Adversity Mean SD Values and moral justifications Mean SD N Note: *p b .05; **p b .01; ***p b .001. Pre-September 11th Post-September 11th Pre-Hurricane Katrina Post-Hurricane Katrina F 4.184** 3.444 6.869 18.426 7.055 24.411 10.009 160.642 19.404 95.077 49.847 7.162 11.022 8.872 4.851 104.619 31.992 42 5.747 8.757 15.933 4.871 23.766 10.164 163.234 15.206 65.903 37.811 12.351 11.192 18.150 8.061 131.567 34.829 60 6.086 8.142 18.038 7.646 24.305 7.379 168.266 16.922 86.400 38.312 12.896 10.646 11.232 6.481 112.487 43.293 76 8.702 7.476 2.174 16.032 7.147 .799 22.239 9.529 2.155 164.047 16.119 5.211** 91.516 48.142 3.259* 13.521 11.759 12.731 8.034 4.317** 120.178 45.727 73
924
Fig. 1. Profile plot of charismatic rhetoric variables by crisis period.
Finally, a MANCOVA was performed to investigate whether there were significant differences in President Bush's post-crisis rhetoric (postSeptember 11th versus post-Hurricane Katrina). Overall, the MANCOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the two post-crisis time periods on the combined dependent variables (Wilk's ? = .806, F(8,122) = 3.660, p = .001). This indicates that President Bush's charismatic rhetoric use differed in the September 11th and Hurricane Katrina crises. When the dependent variables were inspected individually, the tangibility (F (1,129)= 8.428, p b .01) and adversity (F(1,129) = 10.864, p = .001) variables were the only ones to reach statistical significance within the MANCOVA. The partial eta squared for these variables was relatively large, indicating that 13.9% of the variance associated with these variables can be explained by the time period. An examination of the non-adjusted means for the tangibility variable during each of the post-crisis time periods indicated that the differences between the time periods were most likely due to the President's increased use of rhetoric referencing precise and concrete outcomes during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as compared to the time period following the September 11th crisis (post-September 11th M = 65.903, post-Hurricane Katrina M = 91.516). Yet, the unadjusted means for the adversity variable indicate that President Bush made fewer references to adversity in his speeches after the Hurricane Katrina crisis in comparison to the post-9/11 crisis (post-September 11th M = 18.150, post-Hurricane Katrina M = 12.731). 5. Discussion Based upon the results summarized above, we advance several propositions derived from the data. These propositions are introd uced and discussed in the following sections.
5.1. Crisis as an antecedent for charismatic leadership Overall, our results, like those of Bligh et al. (2004a,b) and others (e.g., House et al., 1991; Pillai, 1996), suggest that crisis serves as an antecedent for charismatic leadership. More specifically, President Bush's rhetoric became more charismatic after the Septemb er 11th crisis in comparison to pre-crisis levels. Interestingly, several of the charismatic rhetoric variables that increased post-September 11th did not quite return to the pre-September 11th levels when examined during the pre-Hurricane Katrina
925 Table 3 MANCOVA results by crisis period. Crisis period Pre-/post-September 11th Collective focus Temporal orientation Followers' worth Similarity to followers Values and moral justifications Tangibility Action Adversity Pre-/post-Hurricane Katrina Collective focus Temporal orientation Followers' worth Similarity to followers Values and moral justifications Tangibility Action Adversity Post-September 11th/Post-Hurricane Katrina Collective focus Temporal orientation Followers' worth Similarity to followers Values and moral justifications Tangibility Action Adversity Note: *p b .05; **p b .01; ***p b .001. Variable Sig. .000*** .120 .022* .679 .540 .002** .001*** .012* .000*** .054 .121 .262 .090 .689 .036* .995 .717 .117 .001** .091 .479 .083 .240 .226 .004** .887 .001** Partial eta squared .381 .024 .053 .002 .004 .091 .109 .063 .310 .103 .017 .009 .020 .001 .030 .000 .001 .017 .194 .022 .004 .023 .011 .011 .061 .000 .078 Wilk's lambda .619
.897
.806
period. Thus, the increases in charismatic crisis rhetoric that occurred following the Hurricane Katrina crisis were not as apparent due to the relatively elevated post-September 11th levels. Because the rhetorical leadership of President Bush did change and increase in charisma following each of the crises, Boal and Bryson's (1988) crisis-responsive model provides a plausible explanation for the charismatic rhetorical leadership of President Bush. Boal and Bryson (1988) suggest that there are two forms of charismatic crisis leadership: visionary (which begins from a theoretical schema of action and then progresses to actions) and crisis-responsive (which begins with actions aimed at alleviating the crisis and then follows with new theoretical and interpretative schema to justify the actions taken). In comparison with the effects of visionary-charismatic leadership, the effects of crisis-responsive charismatic leadership decline more rapidly (Boal& Bryson, 1988; Hunt et al., 1999). In general, the levels of President Bush's rhetoric followed a polynomial pattern, increasing in charismatic content in the aftermath of a crisis and then decreasing (at least slightly) once the stress and hardship of the crisis began to subside. Fig. 2 shows the trend line for perceptions of leader effectiveness as reflected by the historical approval ratings of President Bush throughout his two terms in office (Gallup, 2011). As shown in this figure, after the spike during the September 11th crisis, the President's approval ratings gradually decreased. Hence, both the President's rhetoric and followers' sent iments regarding the way in which the President dealt with the crisis appear to be crisis-responsive. The presence of a crisis as a pre-condition for charismatic rhetoric could explain why the mean scores for the charismatic rhetoric variables during the pre-Hurricane Katrina time period did not return to pre-September 11th levels. Indeed, the continued elevated usage of charismatic rhetoric could be due to the fact that other major crisis or stress situations had developed during the time period between these crises. For example, Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom were ongoing "wars" that arose in part as a response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Thus, the President's rhetoric referring to these military operations was most likely more active, referencing the goal-directedness and the accomplishments of the military throughout the duration of these operations. This increased use of active language may explain why the President's charismatic rhetoric did not return to pre-September 11th crisis levels. Moreover, it presumably bolstered the pre- and post-Hurricane Katrina mean scores on the action variable, providing additional support for the argument that crisis is strongly linked to the emergence of charismatic rhetorical leadership. 5.2. Perceptions of leader effectiveness associated with charismatic leadership rhetoric According to Weber (1947, 1968), in order for a leader to be considered charismatic, he or she must experience repeated successes. For the crisis-responsive charismatic leader to continue to be attributed charisma by followers, the leader has to relate the crisis to the current situation in such a way that followers continue to identify with the leader (Boal& Bryson, 1988). Therefore, President Bush's charismatic rhetoric intentionally may not have decreased or changed following September 11th. The President may have used the rhetoric that was successful in sparking perceptions that he was an effective leader with the purpose of continuing to foster these perceptions. However, looking at his approval ratings longitudinally, it is clear that even if his
926
Approval (%)
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 a M 1 rr0 A p 1 y0 M 1 a Ju n 01 0 ug 01 A 1 l Ju -0 Se 1 p 1 0 Oct-0 Nov- 1
September 11th Crisis
0 ec D 1 -
02 Ja n Feb -
02
Pre-/post-September 11th
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Approval (%)
Hurricane Katrina Crisis
Ju n 0 J5 ul 0 A 5 u g0 5 S e p0 5 O c t- 5 0 N o v0 5 D e c0 5 Ja n -6 0 F be 6 0
M a r05 A p r05 M a y0 5
Pre-/post-Hurricane Katrina
Fig. 2. George W. Bush approval ratings by crisis period.
rhetoric didn't change following the time period during which he was considered to be the most effective, follower perceptions of leader effectiveness (as measured by approval ratings) decreased. While many external factors may have contributed to this inverse relationship, we suspect that the President's continued use of charismatic rhetoric may have become unproductive as the amount of time that passed following each crisis increased. Hence, while each crisis may have been extremely salient to followers immediately following the event, such salience is likely to have steadily declined with the passage of time, reducing the hypothesized effects of charismatic rhetoric on followers. For instance, as the level of uncertainty and urgency associated with the crisis decreased over time, followers' need for charismatic leadership may have also declined. This argument is consistent with prio r theory and research that indicates charismatic leadership is most effective under conditions of environmental uncertainty, such as a crisis (Boal& Bryson, 1988; Hunt et al., 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001). Additionally, President Bush may have overused charismatic language during a crisis, resulting in a numbing effect on followers. Hearing the same charismatic rhetoric consistently may have made the rhetoric less influential. Correspondingly, there may be a level at which additional charismatic rhetoric during crisis becomes unnecessary because the hypothesized charismatic rhetorical content has already been included in prior communications. As such, further use of charismatic crisis rhetoric may not serve to enhance follower perceptions of leader effectiveness or incite followers to further action. The pattern of findings here suggests that while President Bush used increased levels of charismatic rhetoric during the September 11th and Hurricane Katrina crises, the desired follower effects in terms of perceived effectiveness were not realized during both the pre- and post-Hurricane Katrina time periods. We suggest that this pattern reflects a ceiling effect. That is, while a basic level of charismatic crisis rhetoric is required to produce desired follower perceptions, effort, and performance, further use of charismatic language beyond this level will not necessarily produce greater follower attributions of leader effectiveness. Hence, we propose the following: Proposition 1. A minimal level of charismatic rhetorical crisis leadership is needed during a crisis to produce desired follower perceptions of leader effectiveness. Above the minimal level, however, followers will become numb to the charismatic rhetoric. Proposition 2. Above the minimal level of charismatic crisis rhetoric, the desired follower outcomes will gradually taper off, resulting in increasingly lower levels of perceived leader effectiveness.
927
5.3. The type of crisis as a contextual factor Several contextual factors may have influenced followers' ratings of President Bush's effectiveness during and after these crises. Specifically, the crises differed in their causes, locus of responsibility, and perceived threat level (Heath& Millar, 2004). For example, the September 11th crisis stemmed from an attack on the United States through multiple, coordinated acts of terrorism, whereas Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster. The difference in the causes of these crises suggests variant perceptions of the threat of each crisis. The September 11th crisis presented a threat from a human enemy, which rhetorically was perhaps easier for President Bush to identify, providing a unifying "us versus them" effect on followers. Additionally, this crisis may have been viewed as a threat to the entire country, potentially resulting in followers feeling a psychological vulnerability. In other words, followers may have felt that they were no longer safe in their own country and that everyone in the country was at risk of suffering from a terrorist attack. However, in the case of Hurricane Katrina, it may have been more difficult for President Bush to frame "mother nature" or an "act of god" as a threat from an enemy. Instead, a crisis involving a natural disaster may have produced a helpless feeling, due to a lack of an enemy to blame. In contrast to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, this threat may have been viewed as affecting a relatively small portion of the United States population. Thus, the differences in the actual crises and the threats that they posed may partially explain the variations in follower perceptions of leader effectiveness during the two crises. The crises also varied in their scope and in the timing of their emergency response. While the September 11th crisis was isolated to particular sites (the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and the crash site of the United 93 flight outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania), due to the nature of the threat of the crisis (a terrorist group), this crisis may have instilled fear in citizens across the United States, necessitating a timely use of charismatic rhetoric to unify the country and assuage the fears of its citizens. In contrast, the Hurricane Katrina crisis, though it affected many states including Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, may have been seen as a localized natural disaster. While the geographic scope of Hurricane Katrina was much larger, the timing of the President Bush's response to the Hurricane Katrina crisis was slower in comparison to his response to the September 11th crisis (Sylves, 2006). This may have influenced President Bush's pattern of charismatic rhetoric as well as his approval ratings in the aftermath of these crises. Due to the differing contextual factors of these crises, both the leader and followers may have emotionally processed them differently. For the crises examined in this research, followers most likely had varying levels and types of emotional involvement. Evidence of the American public's different emotional experiences of these crises is reflected in the emergence of a unified United States during the time period following September 11th — a shared emotional climate that was absent during the Hurricane Katrina crisis. Indeed, the different types of crisis and their varying characteristics could help explain President Bush's c hanging approval ratings across these crises. Conceptually, the above-mentioned considerations suggest the following: Proposition 3. The characteristics of the crisis (cause, locus of responsibility, perceived threat level, and scope) act as determining factors of leader charismatic crisis rhetoric and follower perceptions of leader effectiveness. 5.4. Study limitations and future research directions It is very difficult to measure a complex construct such as charisma and its effects in situ. While we found that increased usage of charismatic rhetoric co-varied with perceived leader effectiveness as reflected by presidential approval ratings following the September 11th crisis, but less so after the Hurricane Katrina crisis, other causes could have affected follower perceptions of leader effectiveness. These might include economic conditions, the media coverage of the crises, the track record of the leader, and the existence of other crises and stressful situations during the same time period, including international political events such as the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. Field studies such as ours that use opportunistic designs and archival data to assess the relationships between naturally occurring events cannot control for many extraneous e vents that could serve as potential confounds; hence, other factors beyond those measured in this study cannot be ruled out as contributing to the development (or lack thereof) of the charismatic relationship between the leader and his followers. While we acknowledge that this lack of control for extraneous variables represents a serious threat to internal validity (Cook& Campbell, 1976), this limitation is partially offset by the external validity obtained from observing charismatic rhetorical leadership in situ (Bryman& Stephens, 1996; Grant &Wall, 2009). Indeed, the longitudinal and inductive approach (Locke, 2007) employed in this study enabled us to generate original propositions about potential boundary conditions that impact the use and effectiveness of charismatic rhetorical leadership. Hence, the current study serves to replicate prior and generate original findings regarding charismatic rhetorical leadership while setting the stage for future research designed to test the propositions advanced. Nonetheless, our empirical findings should be interpreted with caution, given the aforementioned limitations. Additionally, because our research is based on a case study of a single leader, two distinct crises, and correlational analys es, it is impossible to provide a definitive answer to the question that has generated so much debate within the literature on charismatic leadership: Is the presence of a crisis a necessary or sufficient condition for the emergence of charismatic leadership? Our analysis revealed that President Bush's use of charismatic rhetoric escalated following the September 11th terrorist attacks and that during this time period he was also perceived as an effective leader; however, his elevated use of charismatic rhetoric (above that of the post-September 11th time period) during the Hurricane Katrina crisis suggests a ceiling effect, such that further use of charismatic rhetoric was ineffective as measured by presid ential approval ratings. Moreover,
928
because the steady decline in Bush's approval ratings implies that the effectiveness of his rhetoric decreased over time, the extent to which the focal crises were necessary, or even efficacious, for fostering a charismatic relationship with his constituency is ambiguous. Indeed, given the limitations of our design we cannot determine whether a reversal in the order with which the crises occurred would have produ ced a different pattern of results. It is possible that the more localized effects of Hurricane Katrina in comparison to the September 11th crisis would have produced less dramatic changes to either President Bush's use of charismatic rhetoric and/or follower responses to that rhetoric had it preceded, rather than followed, the terrorist attacks. Accordingly, it is important to recognize that our findings and the propositions we advance are only suggestive of possible relationships between charismatic rhetoric, crisis characteristics, and perceptions of leader effectiv eness. To address this limitation and explicate the causal linkages among these variables, we recommend greater use of experimental designs that possess higher internal validity (Cook& Campbell, 1976), such as those employed by prior experimental investigations into these relationships (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Halverson et al., 2004; Hunt et al., 1999). However, it is also important to recognize that these studies typically identify the laboratory setting as a potential threat to external validity (Cook& Campbell, 1976) and call for research in field settings to address this limitation. Thus, because our research draws from archival data that was collected in field settings, it addresses one of the limitations of prior experimental research and provides the type of complementary support that a concerted research stream of basic and applied research is intended to generate as part of the development of the social sciences (Neuman, 2002). We also advocate additional replications and extensions of Bligh and colleagues' (2004a,b) and our own research using samples of speeches from different political leaders facing different kinds of crises. For example, an examination of the relationships between P resident Obama's charismatic rhetoric, the crises he has encountered (particularly the economic turbulence that has coincided with his first term in office), and perceived leader effectiveness would be valuable. In an assessment of the rhetoric employed by candidates during the 2008 Presidential Election, Bligh and Kohles (2009) demonstrated that Obama exhibited substantially higher levels of charismatic rhetoric than his opponent, John McCain. Moreover, while President Obama also enjoyed historically high approval ratings at the outset of his presidency, these rating s have steadily declined to reach record lows during his third year in office (Gallup, 2011). In this sense, President Obama's experience mirrors that of President Bush, in that both encountered a steady decline in approval ratings despite high levels of charismatic rhetoric. No te that this pattern is consistent with Weber's (1947, 1968) and subsequent authors' (e.g., Bass, 1985) assertion that while charismatic leadership may be effective in eliciting initial follower support for the leader's vision, such support will not be sustained without tang ible evidence of success in achieving that vision. Thus, an alternative explanation to our "ceiling effects" proposition regarding the disconnect between President Bush's continued use of charismatic rhetoric and follower perceptions of his leader effectiveness (presidential approval ratings) is that the citizens did not see him as making adequate progress toward fulfilling his vision. A systematic, longitudinal examination of the relationships between charismat ic rhetoric, the presence or absence of crisis, judgments of vision fulfillment, and presidential approval ratings across presidential tenures woul d help to determine the utility of these competing explanations. We examined the extent to which the content of the leader's speeches was charismatic according to previously theorized dimensions (Shamir et al., 1993). We did not measure other verbal or nonverbal elements of the leader's communications that have been found to influence follower attributions of charismatic leadership (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Gardner, 2003; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996); thus, we only measured a portion of charismatic leadership. To address this limitation, future work could examine audio and video recordings of leader speeches to explore how the leader's delivery of speeches across different crisis situations influences follower attributions of cha risma. Also, future research could examine how different leader behaviors in comparison with the leader's rhetoric influence the charismatic leader - follower relationship. For example, considering the leader's decisiveness in the crisis, whether the leader is consistent in matching rhetorical content with actions, and whether the leader takes responsibility for the crisis or attributes blame to others in the crisis (depending on the type of crisis) may all influence charismatic (or non-charismatic) attributions made by followers. Another limitation of our study stems from the omission of a measure of follower attributions of charismatic leadership from our analysis. While our content analysis provides us with a measure of leader charismatic rhetoric consistent with that employed by several prior studies (Bligh& Hess, 2007; Bligh & Kohles, 2008; Bligh & Robinson, 2010; Bligh et al., 2004a,b; Seyranian & Bligh, 2008), we lack a direct measure of charisma to confirm that such rhetoric did indeed produce attributions of charisma. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that prior research has documented a positive relationship between charismatic rhetoric and attributed charisma (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994). Moreover, we did employ presidential approval ratings as a measure of perceived leader effectivness, a variable that has previously been shown to be strongly and positively correlated with attributed charisma (Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Gardner, 2003; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). However, because many factors beyond attributed charisma impact perceptions of leader effectiveness (Lowe et al., 1996), additional research that employs a direct measure of attributed charisma is needed to corroborate the posited relationship between charismatic leader rhetoric and attributed charisma implied in our study. The role of speechwriters in the creation of the President's message and communications to the American public certainly need s to be recognized and taken into account when assessing the charismatic rhetoric of the President. Thus, we acknowledge that we were also interpreting the charisma of the speechwriters in addition to that of the President. However, as Winter (1987) notes, U.S. Presidents have an influence on the content of their speeches through their instructions to speechwriters and their own personal edits. Moreover, due to the distance between the President and the American constituency, "it is the symbolic words and images that a leader is able to evoke that are largely responsible for subsequent charismatic or non-charismatic
929
attributions, regardless of who crafted them " (Bligh et al., 2004a, p. 229). Thus, the words of the leader become some of the most important stimuli for follower impressions when the distance between the leader and follower is great (Shamir, 1995).
6. Conclusion This research examined the rhetorical content of President Bush's speeches and radio addresses to investigate his levels of c harismatic rhetorical leadership during the time periods preceding and following the two major crises of his presidency: the September 11th terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina. The results indicate that President Bush's charismatic rhetoric was crisis- responsive, supporting previous scholarly assertions that crisis acts as a key precursor for charismatic leadership (e.g., Bligh et al., 2004a,b; House et al., 1991; Pillai, 1996). By deriving theory from the data through an inductive approach (Locke, 2007), this paper identifies potential boundary conditions on the effects of charismatic leadership. In particular, it posits time, ceiling, and contextual effects that may influence the extent to which charismatic crisis rhetoric is effective, offering consideration of potential moderating factors of the charismatic leader -follower relationship.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to express their deep appreciation to the Action Editor, Shelley Dionne, three anonymous reviewers, and friendly reviewer Tyge Payne for providing a host of constructive suggestions that guided the development of this manuscript. We also extend special thanks to Kinley Sturkie and John M. Coggeshall of the Clemson University Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and James Witte of the George Mason University Department of Sociology and Anthropology for serving on the first author's thes is committee and for providing comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
Appendix A. Speeches included in the sample
Date 3/3/01 3/10/01 3/17/01 3/24/01 3/31/01 4/7/01 4/14/01 4/21/01 4/28/01 5/5/01 5/12/01 5/19/01 5/26/01 6/2/01 6/8/01 6/11/01 6/13/01 6/16/01 6/23/01 6/30/01 7/7/01 7/14/01 7/21/01 7/28/01 8/4/01 8/9/01 8/11/01 8/18/01 8/25/01 9/1/01 9/7/01 9/8/01 9/11/01 9/14/01 9/15/01 9/20/01 9/22/01 9/29/01
Speech title Federal Budget/Tax Relief House Passage of Tax Relief Plan Tax Relief Plan Federal Budget Health and Education for American Children Education/Tax Reform Easter Greetings Democracy in Western Hemisphere Progress over First 100 Days Cinco de Mayo Energy Plan Energy Plan Remembrance of Memorial Day Passage of Tax Plan Homeownership President Addresses Global Climate Change Remarks at Opening of the NATO Meeting Father's Day Message Patients' Bill of Rights Department of Defense Education Medicare G-7/G-8 Summit Americans with Disabilities Act Medicaid Reform Remarks on Stem Cell Research Stem Cell Research Faith-based and Community Initiatives Budget Education Reform President Voices Concern over Economy Education Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation National Day of Prayer Attack Response Joint Session Economy Progress Made in War on Terrorism
Speech type RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA PA PA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA PA RA RA RA RA PA RA PA M RA M RA RA (continued on next page)
930 Appendix A ()continued) (continued Speech title Date 10/6/01 10/7/01 10/11/01 10/13/01 10/20/01 10/27/01 11/3/01 11/10/01 11/10/01 11/24/01 12/1/01 12/8/01 12/11/01 12/15/01 12/22/01 12/25/01 12/29/01 1/5/02 1/12/02 1/19/02 1/26/02 1/29/02 2/2/02 2/9/02 2/16/02 2/23/02 3/5/05 3/12/05 3/19/05 3/26/05 4/2/05 4/9/05 4/16/05 4/23/05 4/30/05 5/7/05 5/14/05 5/21/05 5/28/05 6/4/05 6/11/05 6/18/05 6/22/05 6/25/05 6/28/05 6/30/05 7/2/05 7/9/05 7/16/05 7/21/05 7/23/05 7/30/05 8/6/05 8/13/05 8/20/05 8/27/05 9/3/05 9/10/05 9/14/05 9/15/05 9/17/05 9/24/05 10/1/05 10/8/05 10/15/05 10/22/05 10/29/05 11/5/05 11/12/05 Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan Presidential Address Prime Time News Conference Economy Terrorism Legislation in War on Terrorism Anthrax President Speaks to the United Nations War on Terrorism Thanksgiving Job Creation/Economic Stimulus Economic Stimulus The World Will Always Remember 9/11 Economic Stimulus Economy, Terrorism Christmas Radio Address Year in Review Economy Economy and Budget Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 2002 Priorities State of the Union Pension Protection Black History Month Asia Trip Energy Security Middle East Social Security Iraq Easter WMD Commission Report Pope John Paul II Energy Budget Social Security European Trip Economy War on Terror Memorial Day Congressional Priorities Economic Security Economic Security and War on Terror President Discusses Energy Policy and Economic Security Iraq Presidential Address on Iraq and War on Terror President Discusses G-8 Summit and Progress in Africa Independence Day War on Terror Supreme Court President Promotes Central American Free Trade Agreement Supreme Court Key Priorities Economy War on Terror War on Terror Democracy in the Middle East Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts September 11 and Hurricane Katrina President Addresses United Nations High Plenary Meeting President Discusses Hurricane Relief in Address to the Nation Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts Hurricane Preparation and Recovery Democracy in Iraq Supreme Court Nomination Iraq Constitution Homeland Security Iraqi Elections Supreme Court Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Speech type RA M PA RA RA RA RA PA PA RA RA RA PA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA M RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA PA RA PA RA M PA RA RA RA PA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA PA M RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA RA
931 Appendix A ()continued) (continued Speech title Date 11/19/05 11/26/05 12/3/05 12/10/05 12/17/05 12/18/05 12/24/05 12/31/05 1/7/06 1/14/06 1/21/06 1/28/06 1/31/06 2/4/06 2/11/06 2/18/06 2/25/06 U.S.-Asia Trade Relations Thanksgiving Border Security and Immigration Reform Patriot Act Homeland Security and Patriot Act Presidential Address Christmas 2005 Accomplishments and Future Priorities Economy Supreme Court Economy and Small Business Supreme Court State of the Union American Competitiveness Initiative Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Energy President's 2006 Agenda Speech type RA PA RA RA RA M RA RA RA RA RA RA M RA RA RA RA
Note: RA = Radio Address; M = Major Speech; PA = Public Address.
Appendix B. Operational definitions, descriptions, and sample words of charismatic leadership constructs
Construct Collective focus
Operational definition Collectives + People references ? Self-reference
Dictionary description Singular nouns connoting plurality; these words refer to social groupings, task groups, and geographical entities Refers to sociological, political, and generic group designations First-person references in which the locus of action rests with the speaker Present-tense verbs referencing physical activity, social operations, and task-performance Past-tense forms of the verbs included in the present concern dictionary Positive adjectives regarding a person, group, or entity Includes words related to universally respected abstract virtues Includes terms associated with positive affective states, moments of joy, and times of triumph Consists of words which build a sense of completeness and assurance such as totalizing terms, adverbs of permanence, and resolute adjectives Most common words in the English language such as common prepositions, conjunctions, connectives, and demonstrative and interrogative pronouns Commonly known and used personal pronouns and family and relation terms "Broad-based, Judeo-Christian terminology including value-laden terms and theological constructs" (Bligh et al., 2004a; p. 234) Standard American nationalistic language such as constitutional and historic terms Words which denote tangibility and materiality Measure of code-restriction based on the repeated use of a limited number of words Score indicating a speaker's avoidance of overstatement and preference for precise statements (Bligh et al., 2004a) Words associated with competition, social domination, goal-directedness, and resistance Words expressing task-completion, organized human behavior, and general functionality
Sample words Assembly, cabinet, humanity, mankind, nation, race, union Crowd, residents, constituencies, majority, citizenry, population I, I'd, I'll, I'm, I've, me, mine, my, myself Become, care, desire, make, need, request, take, want Became, cared, desired, made, needed, requested, took, wanted Admirable, brave, delightful, intelligent, kind, lovely, respected Ambition, devotion, ideals, leadership, merit, optimism, promise, reassurance Comfort, cherish, delight, fascinate, gratify, laugh, love, pleasure, rejoice Anybody, everybody, fully, obvious, permanent, totally, unquestionably
Temporal orientation
Present concern + Past concern
Followers' worth
Praise + Inspiration + Satisfaction Leveling +
Similarity to followers
Familiarity +
About, between, for, on, past, than, who, with
Human Interest Values and moral justifications Spirituality + Patriotic Terms Tangibility Concreteness + Insistence ? Variety
Children, family, friends, parents, relatives, widows, yours Charity, church, blessing, eternal, faith, hope, mercy Equality, freedom, justice, inalienable, liberty, old-glory Animal, baseball, cancer, factory, household, movie, school, silk, sugar Score calculated based on repetition of key terms Score calculated by dividing the number of different words in a passage by the number of total words Attack, challenge, combat, dominate, furious, hurt, kill, oppose, preempt Achieve, aspire, create, finish, motivate, pursuit, resolution, succeed (continued on next page)
Action
Aggression + Accomplishment ?
932 Appendix B ()continued) (continued Operational definition Construct Passivity ? Ambivalence Blame + Hardship + Denial Dictionary description Terms of neutrality and inactivity, including compliance, docility, and disinterest Words expressing hesitation such as hedges and statements of approximation and confusion Descriptions of evil actions, outright denigrations, and unfortunate circumstances Words referring to natural disasters, unsavory political outcomes, and hostile actions Includes standard negative contractions and terms designating null sets Sample words Accept, acquiesce, complacent, disinterested, hesitate, lackadaisical Blur, confound, hesitate, puzzle, quandary, vacillate, wonder Contemptible, desperate, guilty, incompetent, mediocre, rash, senile Conflict, crisis, death, fear, insecurity, loss, outrage, sorrow, tension Didn't, hadn't, never, wasn't, wouldn't
Adversity
References
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345-374. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496 -515. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego, CA US: Academic Press. Beyer, J. M., & Browning, L. D. (1999). Transforming an industry in crisis: Charisma, routinization and supportive culture. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 483 -520. Bligh, M. C., & Hess, G. D. (2007). The power of leading subtly: Alan Greenspan, rhetorical leadership, and monetary policy. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 87-104. Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2008). Negotiating gender role expectations: Rhetorical leadership and women in the U.S. senate. Leadership, 4, 381 -402. Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2009). The enduring allure of charisma: How Barack Obama won the historic 2008 presidential election. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 483-492. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004a). Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist attacks. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211 -239. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004b). Charting the language of leadership: A methodological investigation of President Bush and the crisis of 9/11. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 562-574. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. (2005). Charisma and crisis in the California recall election. Leadership, 1, 323 -352. Bligh, M. C., & Robinson, J. L. (2010). Was Gandhi "charismatic"? Exploring the rhetorical leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 844 -855. 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: Lexington Books. Bryman, A., & Stephens, M. (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 353-370. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. Handbook of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (pp. 223-326). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Davis, K. M. (2007). The presidential crisis rhetoric of September 11th, 2001 and Hurricane Katrina: Examples of charismatic leadership or not? Master's thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 355-391. Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. J. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 449-482. Gallup (2011). Presidential approval ratings —George W. Bush. Retrieved August 1st, 2011 fromhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approvalratings-george-bush.aspx Gardner, W. L. (2003). Perceptions of leader charisma, effectiveness and integrity: Effects of exemplification, delivery and ethical reputation. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 502-527. Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32 -58. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management: An observational study linking audience characteristics with verbal self-presentations. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 42-65. Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 653 -686. Halverson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (2004). Charismatic leadership in crisis situations: A laboratory investigation of stress and crisis. Small Group Research, 35, 495-514. Hart, R. (1984). Verbal style and the presidency: A computer-based analysis. New York: Academic Press. Hart, R. (1999). DICTION 5.0: The text-analysis program. [Computer program]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Scolari/Sage. Heath, R. L., & Millar, D. P. (2004). A rhetorical approach to crisis communication: Management, communication processes, and strategic responses. In D. Millar & R. Heath (Eds.), Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication (pp. 1 -18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hicks, S. T. W. (2005). Presidential rhetorical crisis leadership: The speeches of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush on the events of 12-7-41 and 09-11-01. Ph.D dissertation, Department of Communication, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993). Communicating visions: An exploration of the role of delivery in the creation of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 405-427. Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 165 -189. House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81 -109. House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81 -107). New York: Academic 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, 364-396. House, R. J., Woycke, J., & Fodor, E. M. (1988). Charismatic and non-charismatic leaders: Differences in behavior and effectiveness. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 98-121). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 423 -448. Hunter, J. E. (2001). The desperate need for replications. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 149-158.
933 Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E., & Murphy, L. D. (1997). Content analysis in leadership research: Examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 1-25. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Wadsworth-Thomson Learning. Kiewe, A. (1994). Introduction. In A. Kiewe (Ed.), The modern presidency and crisis rhetoric (pp. 15 -37). Westport, CT: Praeger. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36-51. Locke, E. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33, 867-890. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. D., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425. Mitroff, I. I. (2004). Crisis leadership: Planning for the unthinkable. Hoboken, NJ: Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc. Morris, R. (1994). Computerized content analysis in management research. Journal of Management, 20, 903 -931. Neuman, W. L. (2002). Social science research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Pennebaker, J. W., & Lay, T. C. (2002). Language use and personality during crises: Analyses of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's press conferences. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 271-282. Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership in groups: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 543 -562. Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A "meso" level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643 -671. Rosenthal, U., Boin, R. A., & Comfort, L. K. (2001). The changing world of crises and crisis management. In U. Rosenthal, R. Boin & L. Comfort (Eds.), Managing crises: Threats, dilemmas, opportunities (pp. 5-27). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Rosenthal, U., Charles, M. T., & t' Hart, P. (Eds.). (1989). Coping with crises: The management of disasters, riots and terrorism. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Westport, CT: Praeger. Seyranian, V., & Bligh, M. C. (2008). Presidential charismatic leadership: Exploring the rhetoric of social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 54 -76. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and a exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19 -47. Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 25-42. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577 -594. Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismati c leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257-283. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387 -409. Sylves, R. T. (2006). President Bush and Hurricane Katrina: A presidential leadership study. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 26-56. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon. Tan, H. H., & Wee, G. (2002). The role of rhetoric content in charismatic leadership: A content analysis of a Singaporean leader's speeches. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 5, 317-342. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement organizations. Research in Organizat ional Behavior, 8, 113-164. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ US: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and pro fitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143. Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2009). An affective events model of charismatic leadership behavior: A review, theoretical integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 35, 1428-1452. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (A. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1968). In S. Eisenstadt (Ed.), Max Weber on charisma and institution building; selected papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Lowe, K. B., Jung, D., & Herst, D. (2009). Crisis, charisma, values, and voting behavior in the 2004 presiden tial election. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 70-86. Willner, A. R. (1984). The spellbinders. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motives profile of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 96-202. Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 135 -141. Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Uk Chun, J., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879-919. Zachary, M. A., McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., Davis, K. M., & Wu, D. (2011). Franchise branding: An organizational identity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 629-645.
doc_997518033.docx